The term bothers me though. I tend to quibble about things like that.
The Deep State, Qanon conspiracy information has, to me, been its own conspiracy and deflects from what we might know about, lets say, deeper levels of influence and control that are not treated at the superficial level of mass media, et al. So, the term really should be deprecated on account of the associations being made and the insufficient evidence provided. In fact, that kind of information is counter-productive.
What I do see has having sufficient evidence concerning TBP, is what has been referred to as the Military-Industrial-Complex and so, putting it that way indicates that the shady, mysterious Deep State is beside the point anyway. President Eisenhower made a rather blatant and revealing speech about this and JFK also alluded to it. They both were giving a stern warning about its power, influence, secrecy and scope. It did not go away and it is proceeding to act and function.
The industrial aspect of the MIC is even more influential and powerful than it was during that era when it was the military that had more focus in this respect. In that case, we come down to the heart of the matter, Oligarchy vs. democracy as the substratum of "powers that be" that steer and direct this country, (however, not exclusively) below the limen of common knowledge and the corporately owned mass media, (which is also an aspect of the MIC).
It is in that case, that, as attached that people are to their ideas about partisan politics, it could be said that the political dichotomy is beholding to something beyond the more evident processes involved.
Why would that be a concern? Well, the transfer of wealth is glaringly obvious now. There are indications that that will continue, increase and eventually weaken and dissolve democracy, most likely on a global scale and by whatever means necessary. There is evidence to support that.
The outcome could be called dystopian if you consider the startling implications. One basis of capitalism is the right to own private property and the protection of that. Simply put, that would eventually end by way of Oligarchy for all but a small facet of the World's population and you could cast it as a rentier world where you pay as you go or a form of Neo-Feudalism where a select group of elites are the Lords and the remainder of the population live as Serfs.
Oligarchy is at odds with democracy, however, it is quite possible to maintain a democratic facade in that transition, but it would be nothing more than a manipulative message; a hallow facade. What makes such a seemingly absurd assertion like that possible is: technology.
= new reply since forum marked as read
)
