Having studied the deep state for a long time now, I have come to a more nuanced conclusion: Incompetence abounds, but is useful cover for the few malicious ac

Having studied the deep state for a long time now, I have come to a more nuanced conclusion: Incompetence abounds, but is useful cover for the few malicious actors. Often in discussion I have derided the use of Hanlons razor, for I think it a logically fallacious statement from the get-go, but I understand the spirit of it. The problem is that at a certain point, incompetence becomes indestinguishable from malice. At some level, attributing incompetence to everything because nobody knows what they are doing so it's just the complicated process of organic failure no longer suffices. The irony is that I most often hear this defense from the realpolitik subscribers of the Kissinger type defending bad actions... the ones I highly suspect of being the primary malicious actors abusing the incompetence in the first place! You want a perfect example of this? High level manipulation of events via the triple agents of the Cambridge 6. This is also why I theorize that the deep state is largely unkown the middle-high level managers, they simply corrupt from the top down. For those curious about the deep state, I suggest starting with works of Peter Dale Scott. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dale_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dale_Scott