What do you guys think of the deepstate? Do you believe in it?

The term "Deep State" is misleading. It's a bit of propaganda aimed at demonizing career bureaucrats. In fact it's quite impossible to run a modern state of any size without a legion of career bureaucrats.

You know what you should really chase if you want to chase shadows is this: who is spreading around propaganda demonizing career public servants? They are doing this with the clear intention of rendering the United States government nonfunctional. That's who you should be chasing.

>>18997749
It's just a convenient boogeyman to blame for being completely ineffectual

>>18997757
This too, remember we basically have one party in the US whose platform is to destroy any sort of government services or regulatory oversight

>>18997757
So you're saying that if the bureaucrats are successful in transfering power from the government to a group of unelected, unaccountable secretive people that's a good thing?

Is there something i'm not getting, or are you a shill?

>>18997777

There is no transfer of power. Bureaucrats have always held narrowly power, with oversight, in their respective fields. This is by necessity, and nothing has really changed in this regard. There is no "transfer", and framing it as such is a propaganda tactic meant to stir up fear to return things to "the way they were before", which would essentially gut the functioning of the state.

Chase the rabbit down it's hole and you find three principle groups: Russian intelligence, neo-Confederates, and Corporate puppetmasters hoping for semi-autonomy. Which one are you shilling for?

>>18997757
^This.
~t. career bureaucrat

>>18997797
>There is no "transfer", and framing it as such is a propaganda tactic meant to stir up fear to return things to "the way they were before", which would essentially gut the functioning of the state.
There was a day when there was a total transfer of bureaucratic administration when party or political personality shifted.

We called it the "Spoils and Patronage" era, a president got fucking shot because of it, and we enacted laws against revolving bureaucracy because of how shitty it was.

>>18997777
I mean, it's not like modern high level bureaucratic training pounds into you the concept of acting for the good of the EXECUTION of government irrespective of party or political allegiance.

>>18997831

Well yes, but it was a shitty era in which government was dysfunctional. Ever since the idea of professional careerists took hold because if it hadn't we wouldn't have a functional government. Now we've got these propaganda networks trying to use our political elements to disassemble that apparatus.

It's fascinating to watch, but I don't think that they quite calculated on the backlash.

>>18997797
Let me rephrase my question, then
Do you really think it's a good thing to let the ones in power be faceless, unaccountable, and beyond the law?
You're baiting

and i think you mean neoconservatives

>>18997843
>I don't think that they quite calculated on the backlash.
I agree.

>>18997845
Um, on what planet do you live on that the transcriptionist at the DoJ, the Smithsonian curator, the Fish and Wildlife officer, or the field manager at the DMV is "faceless, uncountable, or above the law"?

>>18997845

They aren't faceless. They aren't unaccountable, in fact there's a lot that they can do to fuck up their careers unlike politicians. As to beyond the law, that's fucking silly as bureaucrats get skewered legally all the time.

Neoconservatives are an unfortunate group of ideologues. The ideas of Leo Strauss have been disastrous everywhere that they have been implemented yet they keep doubling down. It has gone past the point where good intentions can be assumed and the Crusaders must be repelled.

>>18997857
>in fact there's a lot that they can do to fuck up their careers
http://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instructions/EncylopediaofEthicalFailures(2014).pdf

You can get dicked for feeding stray cats.

>>18997855
>what planet do you live on that the transcriptionist at the DoJ, the Smithsonian curator etc etc

That's not what i meant at all, and you know that damn well

If there is no government, who's holding up the system of law?

>>18997857
same question for you: If there is no govenrment, who's upholding the law?
Won't police, prisons, and every other part of authority become privatised, meaning they can do whatever they want?

>>18997863

At overseas bases in Europe people get set up for smuggling incidentally all the time. Buy some steaks on base, take them to barbecue with your local friends, someone asks to buy some off you. Bam, smuggling.

>>18997869

Your question is... questionable. I don't quite know what you're getting at. The word is not government, it's state.

>Who's upholding the law?

If you gut the government, specifically the Federal government, or at least make it impotent, then the US loses it's ability to project both soft and hard power abroad. Then you have at home local and state governments along with corporations becoming functionally unregulated.

You could write a book on the horror show that this would unleash. Such a thing is called a failed state. Failed states are ugly. I couldn't tell you what, exactly, might come out of it. A Christian Dominionist theocracy is as likely as a Neo-Confederate state practicing apartheid. Just as likely is the cartels moving North and carving up the South. What I can tell you is that it will be ugly.

>>18997869
>That's not what i meant at all, and you know that damn well
But that's who the deepstate is; career bureaucrats. This term was in use LOOOOOoooong before it became a part of the conspiracy lexicon and described the point at which governmental systems and the public interface.

>If there is no government, who's holding up the system of law?
But there is a government and it's superstructure is one of varied specialists in their field who assume roles as mid to high level bureaucrats.

>Won't police, prisons, and every other part of authority become privatised, meaning they can do whatever they want?
Um, so wait, I thought you were complaining about career bureaucrats, meaning shouldn't you think privatization is a good thing, wresting power from the hands of a faceless bureaucratic hegemony?

In any case I don't like most privatization plans, they yank control out from public constituents and narrow the field of options in the future (now that you're beholden to private sector contractual obligations). I mean we see it all the time, prison gets privatized, food starts to rot, and surgeries are done with sugar packets as antibacterial. Shit sucks.

>>18997870
The point is the legal expectations of career bureaucrats are above and beyond what's expected of a citizen in private employment.

>>18997878

Oh, I take your meaning, and I agree. I'm starting to think that this cat isn't shilling, just very exposed to propaganda.

>>18997882
I find it amusing, two years after I decide to get my grad degree in public administration of museums, museums (Pizzagate) and the deep state (muh obummer bureaucrats ((who were hired and/or appointed by bush)) became the subject of wild conspiracies.

It's like I get to live the Satanic Panic all over again. Sorta fun, sorta not.

File: IMG_2930.jpg (70KB, 564x564px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 564x564px

>>18997749

>>18997892

I take the attitude that it's a controlled burn. The Corporatists, Secessionists both soft and hard, Dominionists, and Disinformazia have put all of their eggs into one basket. The basket is incredibly rickety, and now they're caught out early where they can be dealt with all at once. To be frank I have a bit of a hard-on at the thought.

>>18997875
>the US loses it's ability to project both soft and hard power abroad
>corporations becoming functionally unregulated
You don't think maybe the people currently at the top would just stay in touch with eachother, working to keep their eachother's influence relevant, despite lack of official status?

>>18997878
>Um, so wait, I thought you were complaining about career bureaucrats, meaning shouldn't you think privatization is a good thing, wresting power from the hands of a faceless bureaucratic hegemony?
Why the everloving fuck would anyone want the executive, judiciary and legislative power to go to whomever can take it?
The only ones to profit from that would be the rich powerful top

>>18997904
So if you don't want a bureaucratic administrative mechanism, and you don't want privatization, what's your ideal?

>>18997904

You mean would the current elite groups fold into the corporate elite? Some would, certainly, but to imagine that this is desirable to them or somehow their endgame is very silly. Would would you want to risk reshuffling the deck when you already have a seat at the winner's table under the current system?

>>18997906
I don't want important institutions like police, law, prison, and court to be privatized.

Do i really have to go all out in one direction just because i've got something in that direction?

>>18997908
i mean the current elite might lose some power, but would probably still have enough power to rebuild it easily by co-operating with eachother

>>18997937
>Do i really have to go all out in one direction just because i've got something in that direction?
No, hence why I was asking for your ideals.

My overarching point is the two trends likely to be voted into policy action these days are: Expand the administrative mechanism or privatize it. I don't see many other things happening (BUT, nongovernmental orgs are starting to get some serious clout so that may be a third way) so all viable options are on the table.

>>18997937

Not remotely. Without state institutions it wouldn't be viable, and the power vacuum wouldn't last for long anyway. You seem to leap from thinking that the "deep state" wants to seize more power for itself through institutions to thinking that it wants to dissolve those institutions to somehow horde more power with great agility.

I think your problem is that you NEED there to be some shadowy group of conspirators out there in the world planning something diabolical. Are there? A great many, but they wouldn't ping on your radar because they aren't as you would imagine that they might be.

The Overworld doesn't conform to your preconceived aesthetics.

>>18997948
>wouldn't ping on your radar because they aren't as you would imagine that they might be.
https://youtu.be/02536UFswHY

>>18997956

More or less jives with my experience in local government. I was once a political campaign manager and city bureaucrat and the amount of backstabbing over control of the same political machinery would shock you. The funniest thing for me is that when one faction gets booted and it's resources diminished how quickly the new pieces are moved into place to start siphoning off the spoils.

>>18997979
>the amount of backstabbing over control of the same political machinery would shock you.
Negro I work as a curator in a semi-autonomous museum division, you think my vice deans aren't human filth?

>how quickly the new pieces are moved into place to start siphoning off the spoils.
Beings with short lifespans reproduce quickly.

>>18997948
And exactly when did i say they'd want to "dissolve those institutions"?

>>18997999

Heh. It's the same whether you're in the halls of power or just a particularly shady alleyway.

>>18998008

Pretty explicitly when you said that they could maintain power by hopping to the private sector and collaborating to achieve it. I don't know what your angle is, but your attempt at being cute is rather obviously contrived at this point.

>>18997749
"the deep state" is just corporate bribes with agreed conditions/ also when a politicion asks for a loan from a big company they dont want to pay back so they try to get bills passed for the company instead

Should be known that deepstate has no power if the people that should be in power have integrity. Well, if I was a politician I would take bribes. Mabye have bots run congress who knows.

>>18998032

That isn't the deep state, that's regulatory capture and it's cousin the iron triangle. Nasty, but well studied by political scientists.

>>18998016
>Heh
Didn't know you ran some local gov. game.

It's interesting, for the bible belt we have relatively few Christofascists in our department.

>>18998042

I notice that they tend to congregate in certain areas. The Christofascists locally tend to cluster in the elected positions but avoid the bureaucratic and technical. It becomes a game of insurgency vs counterinsurgency in turf battles.

>>18998053
I think that's the pattern out here too.

In my MPA department we have one fat sack who goes on about god's light who's a privatization shill. He's got a job with the city. We got another, she's half competent but shits on other religions and actually managed to swipe my ritual records for a few days (unintentionally?). We got another who graduated who tried to get me to go to one of the local mini cults after I tried to explain how the Coptic gospels contain no conflict with Christianity writ large, they graduated, and another quiet one who graduated out...so never more than two at a time out of twenty.

>>18998066

Makes sense. We've got a sandwich thing going on here. It's the South, so you've got entrenched old school Dems in a lot of senior civil service, then you've got the Dominionists in elected positions, but the corporations that have enclaves in these free market areas tend to bring in personnel from big cities who lean blue.

There are people who I personally despise, and who I recognize as abominable human beings, but who I support because the alternatives are uglier.

til /x/ is more rational about conspiracy theories than /pol/