The U.S. State Department consists of the most entrenched group of life-long professional political bureaucrats in any sector of the government. The scope of the mindset really comes to the surface within leaks from inside the Deep State machine that became the basis for a Politico article today. You really have to read it to fathom the scope of elitism.

The article, and the sentiment carried from within the bureaucracy which frames the construct, highlights the level of indignation within the agency toward President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as they carry out foreign policy objectives. The article contains a State Dept. quote which thoroughly encapsulates the mindset therein:

“We are implementers of policy decided by Tillerson and his team,” one veteran State Department official concluded.

Oh, the horror. The career officials within the State Department are reduced to being “implementers” of foreign policy instead of being able to construct the policy on their own.

Yes, in essence, they are complaining about having bosses.

[Via Politico] A leaked State Department document is alarming diplomats and others who say it shows the accumulation of power among a small and unaccountable group of senior aides to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The chart, obtained by POLITICO, illustrates the growing influence of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, which traditionally has served as an in-house think tank but which Tillerson heavily relies upon for day-to-day decision making. Critics already complain that the office — led by Brian Hook, a powerful Tillerson aide not subject to Senate confirmation — accepts too little input from career diplomats, and the chart, which lays out a method to craft foreign policy, shows no explicit role for them.

[…] More than half a dozen current and former U.S. officials who have seen the document said it reveals an unusual level of control and oversight by the Policy Planning Staff, which is known in diplomatic circles as S/P. […] In recent weeks, Hook has been meeting with various divisions at the State Department to explain the eight-step process. A source familiar with the issue said Hook is not seeking feedback but merely informing employees of a process Tillerson has already approved. The chart shows that policymaking begins with a “whiteboard session” between Hook and Tillerson. Other State Department sources said Hook is simply explaining an approach that, at least in its first few steps, has slowly taken hold since Tillerson, a former ExxonMobil CEO used to corporate management structure, took over as secretary in February. The State Department officials said Hook’s policy planning chart nonetheless formalizes an unwelcome change in their status from the Obama administration. “We are implementers of policy decided by Tillerson and his team,” one veteran State Department official concluded. Several sources were unsettled to see the chart omit any mention of other parts of the State Department, especially its many bureaus focused on specific regions and issues, such as the Middle East and economics. (read more)

After reading the article, and the elitist mindset expressed within the State Department personnel quoted, I was reminded of the December outline when CTH was discussing the severity of the challenge any incoming Secretary of State would face:

[A]nyone who has followed politics for any substantive amount of time knows the inherent issue with an operational entity, The U.S. State Department, whose entire mission has been at the epicenter of ctrl-left globalist advocacy.

One small example would be the Rivkin Project. Imagine how challenging it would be to take an organizational model, built over decades, and appoint a leader whose diplomatic mission would be to implement/construct policy entirely antithetical to the objectives of the participants within the organization?

Think about it.

A shorter consideration would be to accept: A true “America First” diplomatic outlook is an existential threat to the preferred mission statement of the U.S. State Department.

Initially that might sound overly dramatic, but when you boil it down to the underlying ideological denominator –and really look at the past four decades– the description is not inaccurate.

These entities see themselves as a complete and separate structure of government. They also function as a complete and separate ideological structure of government:

When you accept the scope of the challenge, and recognize it is almost impossible to change the participants therein; and accept these career embeds will work earnestly and diligently to undermine the structure of a Trump administration at every opportunity; perhaps the best outcome is to not to try and change their system, but rather manage/control the amount of damage they can do toward the larger administration objectives.

It is going to take some outside-of-the-box thinking to find the patriot who can deal with the scope and severity of the opposition.

Cut the rotting vehicle down to the frame and cut out all the rust is going to be an epic battle with ZERO Washington DC supporters as you endeavor the restoration. Actually, the leadership within both wings of the UniParty can predictably be guaranteed to impede any such effort:

“There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new order of things. … Whenever his enemies have occasion to attack the innovator they do so with the passion of partisans, while the others defend him sluggishly so that the innovator and his party alike are vulnerable.” ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

In hindsight, President Trump could not have found a more ideal person to appoint as Secretary of State than the change agent that is Rex Tillerson. We are darned lucky.

Deep State. “It is massive structurally, consisting of a network of supremely arrogant, highly intelligent and very powerful embedded senior level government employees as well as elite institutions and their leaders who justify their behavior through a process of reasoning that conflates ends and means, creating a ‘unity of opposites,’ a term that is entirely consistent with the Marxist dialectic, regardless of whether its practitioners are aware of it by that name or not.” … That sounds just like the State Department, no?