Talk:Deep state functionary
Contents
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)
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,[1] 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.[2] 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)
Another categorisation: "Deep state script reader"?
Functionary is such a general term, how about deep state script reader for someone who pretends to be an independent mind, but is actually just following orders. i.e. A puppet, but not a puppet leader. This would leave deep state functionary for people who do things rather than just perform for the camera, while a deep state actor is someone who is a decision maker, that is acting in the sense of doing rather than just performing. -- Robin (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- What do you call people like Ottilia Maunganidze, who seemingly do no other things than go to conferences and are handsomely remunerated for sitting on boards promoting SDS Policies? IMO, the term "functionary" is sufficient, the use of the term "script reader" is OK, but would be a needless partition. "Flunky" would be better, of course. -- Terje (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- I can't comment authoritatively on her in particular. If she does nothing, has no opinions etc. of her own, maybe "deep state supernumerary" would suit? "Flunky" sounds too negative to me. I agree that "Functionary" is not a bad match. The totals below are my main motivation for trying to increase the resolution of the taxonomy: currently 315 DSFs, suggesting that a more nuanced description might be helpful. Maybe the discussion of the deep state operative taxonomy might lead to another one somewhere else in the hierarchy. -- Robin (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- There are also 698 DSOs, many of them covering the same ground as DSFs or actors. Looking at functionaries, there are many that could be upgraded to actors. There is space to move some to gatekeepers, only a dozen there at the moment. Some journalists & academics could be put over into this category.
- It might not be realistically possible to split DSO/DSF/DA into smaller groups. The terms still serve as very useful markers that something is off about these people.
- On a slightly tangential note, I have considered a split of deep politicians into degrees, as some are far more powerful than other. Peter Dale Scott used the term overworld (as in "underworld") for the super-rich who actually pull the strings of politicians, but it might be to unclear. Nowadays, even most billionaires seem to be fronts for even more powerful forces. -- Terje (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)---
- I use DSO as DS?, i.e. an umbrella term, deep state something, a term for when we lack enough details of the rank/activities. For some of them at least, we now have enough to be more precise, so going over that list again could be helpful.
Deep politicians
If we split up deep politician, what might that be split into? How about reserving "eminences grises" for the most influential? -- Robin (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia gives as examples for grey eminences people such as Martin Bormann, Józef Retinger and Jean Monnet - not bad examples. For the really rich, maybe "patrician", "plutocrat", or "privileged class"? -- Terje (talk)
- If we're agreed on "eminence grise" for the apex of influence, the simplest would be to allocate that to a small subset of the existing 177 deep politicians. In that way people asking "Who's really pulling the strings?" would have a short list to look through, and we could focus on their biographies. The more specific we can be about the criteria for separating the two, the better. -- Robin (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
