Why is The New York Times Still Calling the Deep State a Conspiracy Theory?


This weekend, The New York Times ran a follow-up story to their controversial op-ed in which an anonymous senior Trump administration official told the world that, were it not for him (and several well-placed confederates burrowed in the system), President Trump’s “amorality” would lead the country to utter destruction. In the follow-up, the Times’ op-ed editor James Dao answered a sampling of questions from readers who were a bit confused as to why the paper would run such a piece.

While some of the answers were interesting, none of them grabbed our attention like the last one.

A reader asked: “To what extent did The Times consider the effect that publication of the piece would have in bolstering conspiracy theories about the ‘deep state’ or QAnon, etc.?”

Dao’s response: “We did not take that into consideration. It is difficult to ever know what reportage might feed into a conspiracy theory. But the essay included a passage that indicates the author suspected the piece might be viewed as part of a ‘deep state’ theory: ‘This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.’”


We find this very confusing. You can call it the deep state, the permanent bureaucracy, the “steady state,” whatever you want, it all comes down to the same thing: There is a burrowed-in, established administrative bureaucracy in the United States (aided to one degree or another by the lobbying firms and think-tanks that populate Washington as well as the ideological groupthink inside the Pentagon) that does not change very much from presidency to presidency. This isn’t a “conspiracy theory,” this is a fact.

Now the “conspiracy theory,” if in fact you can call it that, surmises that a significant percentage of this administrative state does not agree with Donald Trump’s agenda and is working hard to make sure it does not come to fruition.

For whatever else that New York Times op-ed did or didn’t do, it absolutely confirmed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this conspiracy theory is 100% true! That was…the WHOLE POINT OF THE PIECE! So to publish it and then turn around and say, “Oh, this is really going to get those conspiracy wags talking…” makes no sense whatsoever. This guy flat-out admitted (if not bragged about) the fact that he and his Resistance buddies inside the administration are doing everything they can to make THEIR version of the presidency unfold and NOT Trump’s.

Is Jim Dao saying that the guy is lying?

Or does he really think the American people are so stupid that you can switch out the phrase “deep state” for the “steady state” and it changes everything?

Well, this is the same media that thought there was a significant difference between the FBI sending an “informant” into the Trump campaign and the FBI sending a “spy” in, so we guess we can’t be too surprised.