This analysis is useful enough but misses the desperate point that a ‘deep state’ (more in the sense of Peter Dale Scott) is suspected but unknown to us. The current liberal and/or radical left cannot seem to get its act together over issues of the JFK assassination and/or the 9/11 conspiracy. Until we can understand such histories the issue of the ‘deep state’ remains an unknown but to some extent palpable concept.
It is no use blathering about the ‘deep state’ if we can’t figure out who was behind the 9/11 conspiracy. Most of the so-called left is still floundering in a muddle on the question. And in the age of Trump we must be wary of getting shafted one more time by a false flag op from the ‘deep state’, a cover term ‘x’ for an unknown…
We can’t equate that with the outer action of George Bush, as far as we know, and that leaves the question of the ‘deep state’ very real indeed.
In the nonce we can see that many on Wall Street made a bunch off the 9/11 game plan, whatever it was, and we detect the twitchings of a deep state directly from that.
? The problem with the phrase “deep state” is that it is used to suggest that dishonorable individuals are subverting the virtuous state for their private ambitions. A good Marxist, and even an intelligent liberal, however, knows that under capitalism, ambition is considered a virtue, not a vice, and that the whole point of government is to collectively organize subversion. What do you think the “pursuit of happiness” means? It’s this public virtue/private vice false opposition that makes so much of the “deep state” writing slide into, if not noxious Bilderberg anti-Semitism, then “we are a republic, not an empire” idiocy.