Talk:Deep state functionary

---

Another categorisation: "Deep state tool" ?

Old discussion - This is moved in from the talk page 'Talk:Deep state operative':

I've been wondering about the term "deep state tool" for unwitting deep state functionaries. The reason I'm hesitant to use this is the reason that "deep state functionary" is deliberately ambiguous on this point:- it's very hard to know how much someone is aware of what they're working for. Nevertheless, it might be helpful to have such a classification, since "deep state functionary" is such a broad classification. Any thoughts? -- Robin (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, although, in my opinion, I think compartmentalization as key-term and some other less-known terms like Parallel Construction, Selective enforcement and Sheep dipping should be added (and extended on their own page with examples like Eyewash) to the DSF-page to explain how these functionaries operate and therefore why the term can be so ambiguous. Jun (talk)

How does one define a deep state operative vs a deep state actor? The article could need one more sentence to clarify the difference. I have been using the terms interchangeably so far. Terje (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)---

The current page of this talk page https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Deep_state_operative was placed as an umbrella term as we define Deep State people in 3 terms now;

Deep state functionary - Intel agencies call them useful idiots. CEOs, ministers, lawyers that don't know what kind of network they work for, but naively work for DSG (maybe just because of profit for their company/country, religious believes or plain obsession with money/power & just want to pay their mortgage and not die); Alexander Acosta, Tony Abbott, Dennis Muilenburg

Deep state actor - These are the handlers of the groups, they know what kind of network they're working for, they actively work to maintain power for their groups; Jeffrey Epstein for the Mossad. Huma Abedin for/in Clinton's 7th Floor group.

The reason I still sometimes use use deep state operative, is because I haven't done enough research to confidentially classify someone into one of the three terms (the two above and deep politician). Robin opted for a fourth term, But I thought we should improve the pages describing the methods of the 3 forms of deep state people first. I'd still advise you to do that if needed, I'll add these distinctions to the page in the meantime. --Jun (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Deep state tool redirects here. I wonder whether this might be worth separating from deep state functionary. If so, how would the meanings be separated?... -- Robin (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I see only 5 people with deep state tool at the moment: Neil Ferguson,Daniel Andrews,Karl Lauterbach ,Mark McGowan (Australian politician),Jens Spahn. I suppose a tool is too stupid/ignorant to realize he/she is being used, while a functionary just follows orders. Terje (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)---

Makes sense, but in practice, quite difficult to tell the two apart. -- Robin (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not use Intelligence terms? Agent of Influence and Useful idiot are known terms in political and intelligence circles and used by corporate media & Hollywood. Although I prefer DSF, for the record. --Jun (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Expanding the taxonomy

It is easier to stick to only DSF. "Useful idiot" and "deep state tool" are a bit too negative, although very fitting in many cases. "Agent of Influence" is handy, but maybe to subjective. Terje (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have too many options, it gets confusing to the reader - which is why I put the reminder what those options are on top of all articles. There is a good number of operatives (article started 18 July 2018‎ - before being redirected to actor and the other time to functionary), while we could make the distinction between actor (1 July 2015‎) and functionary (27 August 2016‎), is that a intentional choice or something that just grew like that? -- Sunvalley (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I intentionally decided to try to separate the different roles people have in their deep state work histories. DSO is for people who have deep state affiliations, of a nature not yet determined, i.e. using the current taxonomy, a Deep politician, Deep state actor or Deep state functionary. The idea of a 4th grade, deep state tool, for unwitting DSFs, is clear -- but its determination is not, since who can say what is in another's mind? So that distinction is going to be very subjective and therefore not that helpful. We now have over 500 people listed, so it might be worth trying to look more closely with a view to expanding the taxonomy. -- Robin (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That's over 500 deep state operative we have here. If, say, 2% of them were mainly lawyers, that's >10 deep state lawyers. It could be quite helpful to have a descriptor to put them together on the same page. Extra deep state roles for which we have pages already might include: assassin, cut-out - To provide plausible deniability, front man - For greater credibility, handler, back channel, gatekeeper, deep state historian - preparing an official narrative, deep state fixer - tidying up loose ends...

One simple way to get an idea if which finer categories could apply would just be to read the current lists. -- Robin (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, like that it's more complex, but terms like 'deep state historian' or 'deep state lawyer' are very descriptive - so understandable right away. I see the discussion somewhat ended already, but wanted to add anyway .. my thinking goes like this: You may come here (as I once did) with a feeling that things are off and a rudimentary understanding of the spygame, conspiracy and all that, half informed by multicolored Infowars like illuminati websites and some reading in books and primary documents. You bump in here and find terminology (DSF, DSA, DSP ..) that is new and that you have to internalize, which is easy enough you may say, but was confusing to me at first. If somebody get's overchallenged with the site (things more complicated than needed), then this may lead people away. At the other hand, yes, it does not make sense to dumb things down to reach everybody, some distinction might be quite necessary, but(!) I was only adding to the question if DSTool is required in addition or not. So no I say, more complex when it does not have to be. -- Sunvalley (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)