yeah, that term has been burned by this idea that there is an organized shadow organization out to advance some set agenda.
As a political science and sociology point, of course there is no one “state”, there is a diverse labyrinth of institutions with their own agendas, who of course report and publicize according to those interests, and who of course spin to the politicians of the day who have been elected to oversee them. These bureacracies are not the friends of these politicians; they rather seek to pacify any reform urges they might have, as that upsets the regular functioning of the bureacracy.
I work for the state; I know how I report things to my higher-ups, and how they report things to the state government that oversees them. The idea that a politician elected to serve as head of the executive and their staff know what’s going on and has a malleable bureaucracy there to serve the elected leaders, and finally the electorate, is a ludricous fairytale for preschoolers.
This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s mere inertia and self-interestedness in a maze of agencies.The idea that this is a nefarious conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is a ludicrous fairytale for people who think institutions work like they do in movies. Except on Yes Minister!, which does a great job showing how permanent bureaucracies really work in the face of a revolving door of politicians; I really do recommend that old show (from 80s Britain).