Consider how many of our nations political leaders have come from the intelligence communities and how incestuous the ties between the major players are. You find they have worked together or as leader-subordinates, they are members of the boards of each others companies. They serve as directors of organizations and groups set up by one or another for purposes that the outside observer can scarcely comprehend except they all have some way of suckling at the public teat. Like the Mafia they batten off the public and share the wealth via contributions to political campaigns and hiring of relatives or friends.

Delving deeply into anyone of the major players histories finds intersections which would not be believable when considering the public persona they exhibit now. Bathouse Barry, who was the acolyte of Bill Ayers, our first domestic terrorist, presented himself as a "non threatening negro" for instance.

When one or another gets into trouble and is about to be subjected to public scrutiny, the witnesses to their behavior all seem to die unnatural deaths. Then perfectly credible, ethical, and upright police officials declare the deceased to be a suicide, by shooting himself in the back of the head, twice.

It may not be a deep state but the cabal of interlinked criminals in charge, resemble it so closely as to make no difference.

Thanks for your vote of confidence in my possibly knowing better than most, but I shall respond promptly: I don't know, absolutely, one way or the other. I question those who claim to have absolute knowledge of such things as 'deep state,' etc. Your article just above by Al Duncan is one of numerous that can be taken from the internet that prop up either side of the argument over its existence. Such arguments on OPP are welcome, and why I post articles that bring debate or discourse. But similar arguments can be made over the constitutionality or not of SCOTUS decisions by posters who presume to know the U.S. Constitution better than sitting judges of SCOTUS, past or present.

The last two paragraphs of the initial post sum up the quandary as to whether a deep state exists. As with most topics, people believe what they choose to believe.

Deep State does sound a little Brad Thorish (one of my favorite authors). However: I disagree with much of this authors findings. How about Entrenched State? This is easily provable. D.C. is full of entitled politicians, lobbyists, bureaucrats, hell just everyday govt. workers. Damn near impossible to get rid of any of them. We have seen over and over malfeasance by these people that would get the rest of us thrown in jail for the exact same thing. They know in Washington they can get away with illegal acts by pointing at the other side.

The fictitious idea of a deep state is doing more to politicize the bureaucracy than any real deep state ever did.

By Paul R. Pillar, February 15, 2018

Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest.

THE CONCEPT of a deep state neatly describes certain patterns of power in some foreign countries, but it has no purchase in American politics, where it serves only as a handy pejorative. A deep state materializes in various forms where democracy is at best weak. Algeria has le pouvoir, comprising senior military officers and some associated civilians who may have more ultimate say over national policy than does the elected president. Many Middle Eastern countries have a mukhabarat, which instills fears of unchecked power going beyond a formal mission of intelligence or internal security. In Russia the siloviki, including veterans of the KGB or other security components who have entered politics, have been riding high since one of their own, Vladimir Putin, acquired the top job. Such terms most often denote a loosely delineated collection of like-minded officials with ties centered in security services and exercising disproportionate power over the lives of the country’s citizens. The United States has nothing like it.

An attraction of the term “deep state” to those who misapply it to the United States is that the user of the term feels no need to adduce specific evidence that such a phenomenon exists and is actively exerting political influence. After all, the very concept of a deep state involves operating in the dark and out of sight. If there were evidence to see, then the deep state wouldn’t be very deep. The idea of a deep state, in other words, is pretty shallow.

The concept originally gained traction on the hard left, usually as an adjunct to ideas about a warmaking military establishment or a privacy-violating intelligence and internal-security establishment. But the attraction of the concept, as a label to be applied to whatever might be opposing or frustrating one’s policy or political aspirations, transcends any left-versus-right lines. When I, as a serving intelligence officer, gave an invited talk in 2004 (by happenstance during George W. Bush’s reelection campaign) to a private outside audience about Middle Eastern affairs that unavoidably touched on the bad turn the Iraq War had taken, a leaked and garbled version got to the late conservative commentator Robert Novak, who made a column out of it. Novak wrote that it was “shocking” that the CIA was waging “war” with the White House, and that this reminded him of how “history is filled with intelligence bureaus turning against their own governments.”

Today, Donald Trump deplores the “Deep State Justice Department” for not doing enough against “Crooked Hillary Clinton” or against James Comey, the FBI director he fired. Lest we fail to realize just how far the deep-state conspiracy supposedly extends, Trump’s son Eric has advised us via tweet that the conspiracy may include not only Clinton and former president Barack Obama but also comedian Ellen DeGeneres. Clearly we are witnessing not some devilishly planned agenda of an entrenched bureaucracy, but instead the flailing of Trumpites against any purveyor of inconvenient truths, or those they fear may yet purvey such truths.

Unlike systems dominated by siloviki or a pouvoir, the United States has, at least so far, a deeply engrained liberal democratic—in the classical, not partisan, sense—political culture. For the permanent bureaucracy, a corollary of this culture is an ethical commitment to apolitical performance of duties and deference to the policymaking role of leaders whom the American people elected. If there were to be any straying from that ethic—which is as well entrenched as any occupationally related culture—then the agencies involved and the individuals within them would become far more vulnerable than they are now. There would be a case for giving each new political leadership the ability to fire the whole bunch. Employees of the security agencies have no incentive to move things in that direction.

The presumption that the bureaucracies concerned have a collective political intent, which is part of the notion of a deep state, runs up against two problems. One is that political preferences are not worn on sleeves in these places. Notwithstanding some well-publicized emails between romantic partners within the FBI, such preferences generally are not discussed in the course of work, because there is no good reason to discuss them. If there were some community of political intent within those bureaucracies, it would be hard for the people who supposedly are part of such a community to discover it.

The second problem is that, to the extent one can glean political preferences indirectly—through things that do not violate the Hatch Act, such as bumper stickers on cars in agency parking lots—one would see that people who work in these agencies, like other Americans, exhibit a diversity of preferences. Likewise, the supposed political leanings that those making “deep state” accusations contend exist in the bureaucracies have been all over the political map. One group of accusers may say that the FBI is filled with Neanderthal heirs of J. Edgar Hoover; a later group says that it is filled with Clinton-coddling lefties. They can’t both be right, and in fact both are wrong.

The fictitious idea of a deep state is doing more to politicize the bureaucracy than any real deep state ever did.

By Paul R. Pillar, February 15, 2018

Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest.

THE CONCEPT of a deep state neatly describes certain patterns of power in some foreign countries, but it has no purchase in American politics, where it serves only as a handy pejorative. A deep state materializes in various forms where democracy is at best weak. Algeria has le pouvoir, comprising senior military officers and some associated civilians who may have more ultimate say over national policy than does the elected president. Many Middle Eastern countries have a mukhabarat, which instills fears of unchecked power going beyond a formal mission of intelligence or internal security. In Russia the siloviki, including veterans of the KGB or other security components who have entered politics, have been riding high since one of their own, Vladimir Putin, acquired the top job. Such terms most often denote a loosely delineated collection of like-minded officials with ties centered in security services and exercising disproportionate power over the lives of the country’s citizens. The United States has nothing like it.

An attraction of the term “deep state” to those who misapply it to the United States is that the user of the term feels no need to adduce specific evidence that such a phenomenon exists and is actively exerting political influence. After all, the very concept of a deep state involves operating in the dark and out of sight. If there were evidence to see, then the deep state wouldn’t be very deep. The idea of a deep state, in other words, is pretty shallow.

The concept originally gained traction on the hard left, usually as an adjunct to ideas about a warmaking military establishment or a privacy-violating intelligence and internal-security establishment. But the attraction of the concept, as a label to be applied to whatever might be opposing or frustrating one’s policy or political aspirations, transcends any left-versus-right lines. When I, as a serving intelligence officer, gave an invited talk in 2004 (by happenstance during George W. Bush’s reelection campaign) to a private outside audience about Middle Eastern affairs that unavoidably touched on the bad turn the Iraq War had taken, a leaked and garbled version got to the late conservative commentator Robert Novak, who made a column out of it. Novak wrote that it was “shocking” that the CIA was waging “war” with the White House, and that this reminded him of how “history is filled with intelligence bureaus turning against their own governments.”

Today, Donald Trump deplores the “Deep State Justice Department” for not doing enough against “Crooked Hillary Clinton” or against James Comey, the FBI director he fired. Lest we fail to realize just how far the deep-state conspiracy supposedly extends, Trump’s son Eric has advised us via tweet that the conspiracy may include not only Clinton and former president Barack Obama but also comedian Ellen DeGeneres. Clearly we are witnessing not some devilishly planned agenda of an entrenched bureaucracy, but instead the flailing of Trumpites against any purveyor of inconvenient truths, or those they fear may yet purvey such truths.

Unlike systems dominated by siloviki or a pouvoir, the United States has, at least so far, a deeply engrained liberal democratic—in the classical, not partisan, sense—political culture. For the permanent bureaucracy, a corollary of this culture is an ethical commitment to apolitical performance of duties and deference to the policymaking role of leaders whom the American people elected. If there were to be any straying from that ethic—which is as well entrenched as any occupationally related culture—then the agencies involved and the individuals within them would become far more vulnerable than they are now. There would be a case for giving each new political leadership the ability to fire the whole bunch. Employees of the security agencies have no incentive to move things in that direction.

The presumption that the bureaucracies concerned have a collective political intent, which is part of the notion of a deep state, runs up against two problems. One is that political preferences are not worn on sleeves in these places. Notwithstanding some well-publicized emails between romantic partners within the FBI, such preferences generally are not discussed in the course of work, because there is no good reason to discuss them. If there were some community of political intent within those bureaucracies, it would be hard for the people who supposedly are part of such a community to discover it.

The second problem is that, to the extent one can glean political preferences indirectly—through things that do not violate the Hatch Act, such as bumper stickers on cars in agency parking lots—one would see that people who work in these agencies, like other Americans, exhibit a diversity of preferences. Likewise, the supposed political leanings that those making “deep state” accusations contend exist in the bureaucracies have been all over the political map. One group of accusers may say that the FBI is filled with Neanderthal heirs of J. Edgar Hoover; a later group says that it is filled with Clinton-coddling lefties. They can’t both be right, and in fact both are wrong.

Are you saying in the one line that is yours that politicizing of the bureaucy is something other than what I see in that part of life. I suppose that I tend to lean toward what I hear on Fox News a bit too far but would really like to see you explain how that "shadow government" does not exist. I read a lot more right leaning crap than left leaning since I have always been against socialism/communism and see those things hiding in too much that the bureaucracy is trying to spread. I am, right now hearing a man, on TV, talking about Brennan who has been unable to admit what he has been when with the CIA.

It was that huge group of people who have been making the loudest noises against Trump that I wanted to see removed from DC that seem to be so entrenched that he can't seem to get rid of and I am really against. I posted a thread recently about the "Deep State" and aimed it at the shadow government that is sure as hell there.

The fictitious idea of a deep state is doing more to politicize the bureaucracy than any real deep state ever did.

By Paul R. Pillar, February 15, 2018

Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest.

THE CONCEPT of a deep state neatly describes certain patterns of power in some foreign countries, but it has no purchase in American politics, where it serves only as a handy pejorative. A deep state materializes in various forms where democracy is at best weak. Algeria has le pouvoir, comprising senior military officers and some associated civilians who may have more ultimate say over national policy than does the elected president. Many Middle Eastern countries have a mukhabarat, which instills fears of unchecked power going beyond a formal mission of intelligence or internal security. In Russia the siloviki, including veterans of the KGB or other security components who have entered politics, have been riding high since one of their own, Vladimir Putin, acquired the top job. Such terms most often denote a loosely delineated collection of like-minded officials with ties centered in security services and exercising disproportionate power over the lives of the country’s citizens. The United States has nothing like it.

An attraction of the term “deep state” to those who misapply it to the United States is that the user of the term feels no need to adduce specific evidence that such a phenomenon exists and is actively exerting political influence. After all, the very concept of a deep state involves operating in the dark and out of sight. If there were evidence to see, then the deep state wouldn’t be very deep. The idea of a deep state, in other words, is pretty shallow.

The concept originally gained traction on the hard left, usually as an adjunct to ideas about a warmaking military establishment or a privacy-violating intelligence and internal-security establishment. But the attraction of the concept, as a label to be applied to whatever might be opposing or frustrating one’s policy or political aspirations, transcends any left-versus-right lines. When I, as a serving intelligence officer, gave an invited talk in 2004 (by happenstance during George W. Bush’s reelection campaign) to a private outside audience about Middle Eastern affairs that unavoidably touched on the bad turn the Iraq War had taken, a leaked and garbled version got to the late conservative commentator Robert Novak, who made a column out of it. Novak wrote that it was “shocking” that the CIA was waging “war” with the White House, and that this reminded him of how “history is filled with intelligence bureaus turning against their own governments.”

Today, Donald Trump deplores the “Deep State Justice Department” for not doing enough against “Crooked Hillary Clinton” or against James Comey, the FBI director he fired. Lest we fail to realize just how far the deep-state conspiracy supposedly extends, Trump’s son Eric has advised us via tweet that the conspiracy may include not only Clinton and former president Barack Obama but also comedian Ellen DeGeneres. Clearly we are witnessing not some devilishly planned agenda of an entrenched bureaucracy, but instead the flailing of Trumpites against any purveyor of inconvenient truths, or those they fear may yet purvey such truths.

Unlike systems dominated by siloviki or a pouvoir, the United States has, at least so far, a deeply engrained liberal democratic—in the classical, not partisan, sense—political culture. For the permanent bureaucracy, a corollary of this culture is an ethical commitment to apolitical performance of duties and deference to the policymaking role of leaders whom the American people elected. If there were to be any straying from that ethic—which is as well entrenched as any occupationally related culture—then the agencies involved and the individuals within them would become far more vulnerable than they are now. There would be a case for giving each new political leadership the ability to fire the whole bunch. Employees of the security agencies have no incentive to move things in that direction.

The presumption that the bureaucracies concerned have a collective political intent, which is part of the notion of a deep state, runs up against two problems. One is that political preferences are not worn on sleeves in these places. Notwithstanding some well-publicized emails between romantic partners within the FBI, such preferences generally are not discussed in the course of work, because there is no good reason to discuss them. If there were some community of political intent within those bureaucracies, it would be hard for the people who supposedly are part of such a community to discover it.

The second problem is that, to the extent one can glean political preferences indirectly—through things that do not violate the Hatch Act, such as bumper stickers on cars in agency parking lots—one would see that people who work in these agencies, like other Americans, exhibit a diversity of preferences. Likewise, the supposed political leanings that those making “deep state” accusations contend exist in the bureaucracies have been all over the political map. One group of accusers may say that the FBI is filled with Neanderthal heirs of J. Edgar Hoover; a later group says that it is filled with Clinton-coddling lefties. They can’t both be right, and in fact both are wrong.

You know what you're talking about to put up such an article by a globalist lefty (Which includes most in the CIA) that wants to hide the truth about the continually growing and now thoroughly embedded subversive nature of what is Marxizing us, as it is taking more & more control of our nation and undoing what the founding fathers envisioned and set into place. It's all for the purpose of fulfilling the UN's globalist agenda to bring America down to be equal with other nations so that we might be ready to give up our personal freedoms, free speech, guns to protect ourselves from this government gone rogue and our national sovereignty, all to the authority and tyranny of an unelected coming communist style globalist government of total control with a mandatory Luciferian religion for all. Degenerates like you are just happy with that idea because you anticipate finally being free of the lack of Christian morality. And like most of the world that lacks a spiritual discernment and moral clarity, you too dumb to realize a totalitarian nightmare that awaits. The effort to bring it to fruition is all underhanded and through deceit and trickery. Beyond that, he publicly announced agenda of the UN includes ridding the world of 90% of its population. Now just how spiritually unaware and intellectually bankrupt do you have to be something good to come out of that ??????????????????

See these 2 videos (parts 1 and 2) by a former CIA operative explaining to you about the deep state and the shadow government, what it encompasses, how it all works and how it's been evolving and gaining more control since Pres. Eisenhower and Kennedy warned us about it. Kennedy was killed for trying to expose it and promising he would do whatever he could within his power to one do it. (And promising to get us back on the gold standard) and now. Trump has made us aware of it once again. And put his life and that of his family and grave danger, to fight this diabolical, now thoroughly embedded corruption

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQouKi7xDpM & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO-mcduYCEA
.