Template talk:Deep State

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

here's my nomination for inclusion: SSCI. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!

Adding now!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2019 (EDT)
Would A Republic Not an Empire, Pat Buchanan's book, fit? The title obviously is a rip-off or sequeal to Phyllis Schlafly's book. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:52, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
These books (which don't have CP articles) might also be good to include: [1][2][3] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
I stumbled on this from Politico the other day, but haven't had time to vet it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:47, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
Can we add John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to the list of "People?"--Geopolitician (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
I wouldn't add either. At worst, their only minor players because they are conservative on certain issues. We should reserve mentions on the template only for the worst and most important members. Also, I think Bolton has done a good job on issues such as unilateralism and international organizations. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't consider either to be "minor players." They are front in center in the ongoing conspiracy to expand our involvement in the Middle East on behalf of the petrodollar scam. However, I can see where you're coming from in terms of the big picture. If I added them, then perhaps I would be a hypocrite to leave out every other post-9/11 SoS and NSC.--Geopolitician (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
Also, any specific reason why Acheson and Marshall are on the template? --Geopolitician (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
Acheson I'll reserve comment on for now, and we're still dealing with Marshall's "agrarian reformers" now. Although he is not mentioned by name, the globalist Marshall plan is cited here (MAGAnomics#Background) as the reason for the driving need for modern reform. Admittedly, there is much room for expansion on these themes. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:18, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
When you read those first two sentences,
The post-World War II Marshall Plan was set up to allow Europe and Asia to place tariffs on exported American industrial products. Those tariffs were used by the EU and Japan to rebuild their infrastructure after a devastating war. However, there was never a built in mechanism to end the tariffs,
now you can understand the context of Trump's statement, "I am the chosen one" to end the imbalance. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:24, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
Still, I don't believe that alone would warrant calling Marshall himself a deep stater. For him to qualify as such, there would have to be a clear link between him and an entity who had undue influence over the government. --Geopolitician (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
In my opinion, a much better argument in favor of labeling Marshall as a deep stater would be the fact that he was Secretary of State when China fell to communism. That alone was enough to convince Joe McCarthy that Marshall was a closet communist. I don't know much about Truman's pre-1945 China policy, so I can't comment on that. --Geopolitician (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
His "agrarian reformer" statement came from the CCP, its fraternal CPUSA. amd its parent CPSU. Although Eisenhower was his chief defender, before the decade was over Ike was alarmed by the growth of the military industrial complex. Marshall was the chief link between civilian and military at the time of the passage of the National Security Act of 1947.
Much ink has been spilled over Marshall, and while it's hard to say he was a fool, he certainly lent himself to be a useful idiot to his communist advisers in the case of China. But I don't mean to detract from any of his great accomplishments, either. Like Trump, every man has his flaws. Personally, I don't believe he was part of a conspiracy.
It's a very interesting question, How can a man of great intellect, compassion, and vision, also be so naive? If it were up to me, I'd leave him off the Template. For now, we need the links to show how dangerous communism is, whether foreign or domestic, and how even great leaders can be manipulated, deceived, and duped, with permanent damage to society, the planet, and their own reputation.
This recent article (2007) persuaded me the issue is not dead yet - examination of his competence and character. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:11, 4 September 2019 (EDT)


Two questions: Do they have to be dead, or does Gen. Michael Flynn qualify? If so, is it too early, or do you want to wait til the outcome of his trial (he's going to win, anyway). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:47, 16 September 2019 (EDT)

Should we really count JFK as a victim of the Deep State? Ion Mihai Pacepa gave pretty convincing evidence that it was in fact the Soviets and/or their proxies who had been behind JFK's murder (besides, last I checked, the Deep State would have wanted the UN to be in charge, and JFK actually encouraged the UN in one of his speeches. Somehow, I don't think they'd just kill the guy who would solidify the UN for them [not saying that JFK himself believes in the deep state, just that he could have been manipulated by them]). Pokeria1 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
Well, I don't think you understand the politics of the time. If the Soviets were behind it, we wouldn't be here today cause we all would have perished in a nuclear holocaust back then. It might sound realistic to a generation not exposed to the factual history, but there have literally been tens of thousands of researchers who have dedicated to their lives to researching this subject since then. In fact, the term "Deep State" (according to my sources) originated among JFK assassination researchers (I previously was of the opinion the term had a much more recent post-9/11 origin). RobSFree Kyle! 22:32, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
Your conspiracy theory sounds like a modern day conspiracy theory generated by the Deep State to take the heat off the Deep State. RobSFree Kyle! 22:37, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
Maybe so, but on the other hand, these are the same guys who successfully managed to outright frame the Nazis for the Katyn massacre (with nothing pinning the Soviets to the crime among the general populace until 1991 with the Mitokyn Archives being leaked), so I wouldn't underestimate their capabilities for disinformation. Besides, they also were responsible for turning Che Guevara, a guy who, BTW, literally attempted to turn the Cold War into a hot one during the Cuban Missile Crisis against even Khrushchev's advice, into a leftist saint overnight (and that definitely would have been a far bigger black mark against them ESPECIALLY after the Cuban Missile Crisis and how close they got to nuclear war), and also were responsible for forming the anti-Vietnam Protests. And Ion Mihai Pacepa was directly involved in the disinformation campaigns for all three instances, even dedicated an entire chapter of his book Disinformation, so if anyone knows about JFK being assassinated by the Soviets, or at the very least their proxies, it's him. And besides, that Wolfe guy, the East German spymaster, specifically indicated that Fidel Castro had a hand in JFK's assassination as well. And considering that LBJ basically had a tantrum when the Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested mining the harbor and doing calculated aerial strikes against the North Vietnamese that essentially amounted to accusing them of trying to start World War III, wouldn't the prospect of nuclear war if the truth got out been reason enough for the government at the time to AVOID pinning the blame on the Soviets, especially after the close call at Cuba two years before?
And technically, it's not even mine, it's Ion Mihai Pacepa's claim (and given that he was a former DIE agent, and specifically indicated that he had been previously involved in said disinformation campaigns by the KGB, it's pretty obvious he's not a Deep Stater. Heck, at the time those things happened, he was still firmly loyal to the Communists, didn't defect until the 1980s). Pokeria1 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
All this was investigated back then. The only lesson learned was the danger of the CIA taking a liberal leftwing commie nutcase into its ranks - Oswald - a lesson forgotten when Obama became C-I-C. Do you really suppose the Soviets thought they would have fared better under LBJ in Vietnam than under Kennedy? It wasn't until Nixon that detente was achieved and nuclear weapons limitation talks began. Soviets never wanted any kind of an arms race, conventional or nuclear.
Then you also have to look at the Soviet domestic situation - the assassination occurred at about the same time as the removal of Khrushchev and the Sino-Soviet split - both having occurred due to what was regarded as Khrushchev's reckless foreign policy over the Cuban Missile Crisis. RobSFree Kyle! 22:48, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
Like I said, take it up with Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, since he was the one who insisted that it was a KGB plot (and based on the way he was talking in his book, Disinformation, he had direct involvement in those disinformation campaigns.). Besides, why the heck would they make disinformation campaigns eerily similar to the ones used during Katyn to frame the Nazis via paid for books like Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy if they were in fact innocent of JFK's assassination (heck, some of the books, including Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy, was even funded directly by the Central Communist Party. There was even a name for that op, Operation Dragon.)? If they were innocent, why do a disinformation campaign to begin with? There's also this article for you to read as well: https://www.groundreport.com/kgbs-hidden-hand-in-president-kennedys-assassination-according-to-former-romanian-foreign-intelligence-chief/ And I wouldn't be so sure the Soviets didn't want that. Let's not forget that the Soviets, not to mention the guy who formed Communism as we know it, Karl Marx, took a lot of odes to the French Revolution, who most certainly loved killing people in the most sickening of ways just for a sick laugh, even did that with Vendee. They most certainly would have supported an arms race just to have an excuse to slaughter more people. To put it another way, the Joker from Batman makes a great communist because of his nihilistic mass murdering tendencies. Heck, going by this article, they probably would have used any excuse to kill themselves simply for the sake of it. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
The Soviets felt they were forced into both conventional and nuclear arms competition by the capitalist world - which retarded their economic growth. They felt paranoid and surrounded. And so were we. That was the Cold War mentality.
Katyn is a whole different subject that pre-dates the CIA and modern Deep State, although Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team bridges the gap. Suffice it say now, U.S. & UK prosecutors at Nuremberg knew it was bogus but went along with the ruse anyway. This is some of the early seeds of distrust that led to the Cold War. But to question the integrity of the Nuremberg Tribunal now borders on holocaust denial. RobSFree Kyle! 23:05, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
Like I said, Ion Mihai Pacepa disagrees with you, and based on his experience, including being a former DIE agent and the highest-ranking Soviet intelligence operative to EVER defect, he'd KNOW if it was a disinformation op or not, and most certainly wasn't a Deep State operative for the United States back when it occurred. Heck, aside from Operation Dragon (the one dealing with disinformation on JFK's assassination, and aside from Disinformation, Pacepa even covers it in full in the book Programmed to Kill: Moscow’s Responsibility for Lee Harvey Oswald’s Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, released in 2012), there's also Operation Che (which turned Che Guevara into a post-mortem leftist celebrity cause, something which would certainly have harmed the Soviets even worse than merely having JFK assassinated before then ESPECIALLY when remembering that Che IS the reason why the Cold War almost turned into all out nuclear war. If they truly were against entering an arms race of any sort, they most certainly would not have promoted Che Guevara as the ultimate hero for various leftists ESPECIALLY after the CMC. If anything, Che's actions, which he even bragged about in the London Daily Worker afterward in what he believed was off-the-record, is the very DEFINITION of an arms race.) and Operation Aries (which caused the anti-Vietnam protests), all of which also occurred around the same time. And as far as the Soviets, they would have used any excuse to enter conventional and nuclear arms competition anyways, since they from the very onset were basically the French Revolution 2.0, which sought to just cause carnage for carnage's sake, as you could see with the Vendee massacres, the September Massacres, and the Reign of Terror, not to mention even Vladimir Lenin explicitly compared the Bolsheviks' own actions to those of the Jacobins, up to and including the Reign of Terror, and it's safe to say that Stalin and even Khrushchev ultimately bought into that view as well. Heck, immediately after consolidating power, Lenin's forces even attempted to outright invade Germany to back up Communist groups operating there (Poland stopped them, alongside various international forces as well). And BTW, integrity of the Nuremberg Trials has already been questioned especially after the publishing of that book Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, which was pretty easily taken down regarding the comparisons (and what's even more ironic is that the guy who wrote the book played a huge role in those trials as well). Pokeria1 (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
Kennedy's killers were all outside contractors. As to Che, Diem, and Castro, the explanation the Deep State gave then was "the Kennedy's were victims of their own methods". RobSFree Kyle! 23:21, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
Che was killed long after JFK was killed, so no, the Kennedys played absolutely NO role in his death (besides, there's sufficient evidence there that Castro sold him out). I'll give you Diem, though. And the only actual killer was Lee Harvey Oswald. And unless you've actually done KGB disinformation campaigns yourself, I suggest you not question Ion Mihai Pacepa, who DID have sufficient experience and knowledge on those bits (heck, his book Red Horizons was partly responsible for Nicolai Ceausceau's downfall). Pokeria1 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
And you got this from about 6 weeks ago: RFK jr, "CIA Killed My Father & Uncle". RobSFree Kyle! 23:26, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
Heck, aside from Pacepa (and you still haven't actually refuted his claims, BTW), there's also Stasi spymaster Markus Wolf, who actually pointed to Castro arranging for JFK's death (and last I checked, Castro wasn't a CIA asset either, certainly not by that time): https://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2016/07/25/trump-spreads-kgbhatched-disinformation-meme-about-jfks-assassination-n2197606 And quite frankly, RFK jr. wasn't even involved in espionage at all, so why the heck would he claim anything about who was responsible. At least Pacepa was a high ranking Soviet intelligence officer, as was Markus Wolf. And just as an FYI, the book The First Directorate by Oleg Kalugin, who was the highest ranking KGB official to record his story (I'm not sure if he outranks Pacepa or not), voiced similar statements to that of Pacepa regarding KGB involvement in the JFK assassination, at the very least the disinformation campaign if not the actual assassination itself, which means it's much more likely to be the Soviets who did it and NOT the Deep State (that's not to say the Deep State wasn't guilty of a whole slew of things). Pokeria1 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2020 (EDT)
Besides, why would the Deep State kill JFK especially after his September 25, 1961 speech to the UN, in particular "For in the development of this organization [the United Nations] rests the only true alternative to war."? If I were the Deep State, that speech alone would have been more reason to ensure that JFK survived for a second term, NOT off him, knowing how much the Deep State LOVES the United Nations and wants it to dominate over America and everyone else. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2020 (EDT)

Question about Mitch McConnell

Just curious, how is McConnell part of the Deep State? Is there any proof of that? --Liberaltears (talk | contribs) 8:23, 11 February 2020


Nixon a deep stater? The Deep State ran Nixon out of town (see H.R. Halderman, The Ends of Power, pp. 221-230). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:58, 24 February 2020 (EST)

The Ends of Power is not available online, but I'll cut n' paste some of this synopsis:
Book 5: The Hidden Story of Watergate
Chapter 1
The 2nd great mystery surrounding Watergate is: how did this 3rd rate burglary undo a Presidency? Haldeman says the untold story is that the government needed to be reorganized. The Nixon administration was ruthless in reorganizing.....
This house cleaning spurned a lot of people who would not be loyal to Nixon later.
Chapter 3
Nixon had reorganized the government making it more concentrated and efficient. This made his detractors recoil in fear.
Chapter 4
There are 4 power blocs in D.C.: the press, the bureaucracy, the intelligence community and Congress. Nixon was hated by the press and they by him. They were the 1st to jump on Watergate. When the Watergate commission was formed it was televised, uniting 2 of the blocs. The bureaucracy cracked and leaked to the commission like crazy. The intelligence community’s relationship with Nixon is described above.
It is well known that after Nixon won his 1972 mandate, he immediately asked for the resignation of all administration employees. Nixon felt his mandate could finally purge DC of all New Deal and Great Society (i.e. Deep State) holdovers and bureaucrats.
The argument that Nixon's relation to the Petrodollar confuses the Deep State with globalism. Not all globalists are deep starers. And the petrodollar was not 'invented' by Nixon; the petrodollar refers to U.S. dollars held outside the country by oil producers in the Middle East, who were demanding gold in payment for oil. All the gold of Fort Knox couldn't settle the dollar demand debt held by foreigners. Nixon severed the tie of gold to the dollar and told the oil producers they could try to buy whatever they could with paper currency. The petrodollar is not a globalist or illuminati conspiracy. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:21, 24 February 2020 (EST)

RobS, I absolutely stand by my edit. Nixon literally planted the seeds for the creation of the petrodollar cabal by entering into that agreement. He gave away a significant part of our sovereignty to OPEC in general and Saudi Arabia in particular. He turned OPEC into what is essentially a "College of Cardinals" who are just as powerful as the Federal Reserve, if not more so.

It is this cabal to who many of the neocons answer. Why do you think we intervened in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Because Iraq was threatening Saudi Arabia's hegemony over the region, and therefore the petrodollar. Why do you think we invaded Iraq? Because Saddam started selling oil in Euros, and therefore threatened the petrodollar. Why do you think we attacked Libya? Because Gaddafi started selling oil in gold, and therefore threatened the petrodollar. Why do you think we sponsored the war in Syria? Because Assad was about to build an oil pipeline that threatened Saudi Arabia's hegemony over the regional oil market, and therefore threatened the petrodollar. Why did we sponsor the failed coup in Turkey? Because Turkey was about to overtake Saudi Arabia as the "commander-in-chief" of the Sunni jihadist movement, therefore threatening Saudi Arabia's regional hegemony and the petrodollar. Why do you think Saudi Arabia has been pushing for war with Iran, Turkey, and Qatar? Because all three of them are threatening Saudi Arabia's regional hegemony, and the petrodollar.

When it comes to neocons and the Middle East, all roads lead back to the petrodollar and Saudi Arabia and its Gulf State puppets. A not-so-secret cabal that has control of a significant part of our financial sector. A massive criminal enterprise that uses its economic clout to both manipulate global markets on a massive scale and support global terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. A serious rival to the CIA for the unofficial title of "The most powerful faction of the Deep State." Or perhaps even a second, entirely separate Deep State.

Who gave them this power? Richard Milhous Nixon.--Geopolitician (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2020 (EST)

P.S.: I truly believe Nixon should've been impeached, for this unconstitutional agreement alone. --Geopolitician (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Double P.S.: Petrodollar warfare is a form of globalism. It does not call for a one world government, but it does call for a global order where one country rules all the others and is willing to use any means necessary to protect its rule. We are a Republic, not an Empire. We must cease to behave this way, if we truly wish to return to what the Founders wanted. We don't have to support nonsense like National Globalism, a very similar ideology to neoconservatism which calls for the global order to be governed tyrannically by multiple powers instead of just one. We just need to focus on America first. If other countries such as China and Russia decide to pursue a National Globalist path once we return to a Republic, then may we be prepared for the worst, while also feel the comfort of being in the right.--Geopolitician (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2020 (EST)
The petrodollar existed before Nixon. The petrodollar were gold-backed dollars used to pay for imported oil. When Middle East oil producers presented their paper currency and demanded to exchange them for gold, it dried up Fort Knox. You're just pitching an illuminati conspiracy theory about a very simple concept anyone can understand. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:35, 25 February 2020 (EST)
From 1945 until 1967, the U.S. had a trade surplus, largely due to the Marshall Plan; from 1967 onwards the U.S. became a debtor nation with a trade deficit, largely due to oil imports. It ain't rocket science. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:38, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Today Saudi Arabia uses its petrodollars to purchase defense contracts, rather than exchange them for U.S. gold reserves. For example, rebuilding the oil refinery destroyed by Iranian drones a few months ago requires a new early detection radar system to identify a massed, low-flying drone attack, coupled with a missile defense system to shoot down swarms of low-flying drones - the latest in defense technology. This is paid for with petrodollars. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:46, 25 February 2020 (EST)
All your conspiratorial rhetoric about the petrodollar boils down to is the volume of trade. Sure, U.S. dollars held by foreigners (in this case Middle Easterners), is massive. So was the post-World War II auto industry boom that gave Americans two cars in every garage. There are more registered vehicles in the United States than adults. [4] So the answer is 'No, consumer choices is not a neocon conspiracy theory.' RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:17, 25 February 2020 (EST)
The petrodollar agreement I speak of is not about the volume of trade. It's about the value of the dollar itself, as well as global reserve currency status. It has put us in a position where our economy becomes highly vulnerable if countries start selling oil in any currency other than the dollar. It doesn't matter whether we're in a trade deficit or not. If oil was sold in other currencies on a global scale, then here in the US it would cause massive inflation and probably a default on the national debt. We literally owe our existence as a superpower to the Saudis, and they have been taking advantage of that and blackmailing us over it for decades. That's not a conspiracy theory.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Wrong. The value of the dollar ($35 = 1 oz. gold) long before Nixon served on HUAC or was elected VP; consumer choices to buy gas guzzlers and purchase Middle East oil likewise was occurring since at least 1926 when Saudi Aramco was founded. When foreign oil producers wanted to cash in their dollars at an exchange rate of $35 to one ounce of gold in 1973, it bankrupted U.S. gold reserves. The world spot price for gold then was about $160 to one ounce of gold. Commie New Dealers set an artificially low exchange rate at 35:1 in 1933.
Your taking simple economic concepts and peppering an illuminati conspiracy theory. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:38, 25 February 2020 (EST)
You're correct that the New Dealers set an artificially low exchange rate. I'm not disputing that. But there was no way oil producers could cash their dollars at an exchange rate of $35 to one ounce of gold in 1973, because Nixon ended the gold standard in 1971. Since then, the dollar has been a fiat currency. Backed by nothing except decrees by governments or by agreements between multiple governments. This in my opinion is an even more left-wing approach than the New Deal-era gold standard, because at least the New Dealers understood that wealth is objective and not a social construct, and you can't just say "X is valuable" and POOF! X is now valuable because you wanted it to be so.
The 1974 petrodollar agreement is an example of a multilateral agreement that sets the value of a fiat currency. But because of our current financial situation, it is probably the only thing that is keeping us from going into hyperinflation and economic collapse right now. Remember when President Trump said that he wasn't willing to destroy the global economy by cutting ties with the Saudis over the killing of Khashoggi? That's what he was referring to. He knew that the Saudis would retaliate by destroying the petrodollar arrangement. He knows our economy is vulnerable that way, and so do the Saudis. And that's my point. The Saudis know our the Achilles Heel to our economy. And they have been exploiting that for decades to make sure they get what they want from us. That's not a conspiracy theory. --Geopolitician (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Bingo. That's why the gold window was closed - because of the petrodollar. The "petrodollar agreement" replaced gold with defense and infrastructure contracts. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:11, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Are you implying that it was the MIC who convinced Nixon to abandon the gold standard? I mean, I wouldn't rule that out, since the MIC thrives on excessive military spending, and the gold standard and the massive debt from both the Great Society and Vietnam were incompatible with one another. --Geopolitician (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2020 (EST)
These aren't random, unconnected events.
All the roads, freeways, airports, runways, refineries and oil rigs in Saudi Arabia have been built by Americans. Whole cities to house American workers and military installations heave been built by Americans (Khobar Towers, Prince Sultan Airbase, etc.; reporter Sara A. Carter grew up in Saudi Arabia as child of one of these workers) in addition to the purchase, service, and training of military equipment for the Saudi armed services.
Now, the alternative to these facts is your scenario - that without a longterm agreement replacing dollar convertibility to gold, the so-called "petrodollar agreement" - Fort Knox, a finite reserve, would have been bled dry before the end of the 1970s. Saudi Arabia could have taken its gold reserves acquired from the US and purchased infrastructure and defense contracts from the Soviet Union, or any other country with the ability to supply those needed projects (UK, France, Germany, etc.). Would that have made you happy? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:34, 25 February 2020 (EST)
First off, the Saudis would never have turned to the USSR for such contracts. Saudi Arabia and the USSR were enemies during the Cold War. They had no diplomatic relations between 1938 and 1992.
Second, the petrodollar agreement is unconstitutional. Along with the Federal Reserve, it deprives the federal government of the ability to regulate the coining and value of money, both which are enumerated powers laid out in Article I, Section VIII. I would much rather have had a solution to the gold crisis which did not undermine both the Constitution and our very sovereignty.
Third, even if the agreement weren't unconstitutional, the consequences of it have been devastating. We are between a rock and a hard place. Unless we completely overhaul our financial system and pay off our massive debt, we are limited to two choices: either we can continue to be financial slaves to the Saudi regime, or we can commit economic suicide. And if we choose financial slavery, we will end up doing very bad things on the international stage on behalf of a very bad regime who deep down inside wants us destroyed for not submitting to Wahhabi Islam. Is that what you want? I don't want that. And since you brought up the UK, France, and Germany, I wouldn't wish such a fate upon them. I wouldn't even wish such a fate upon countries like China and Russia. --Geopolitician (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Well, let's begin by deciphering the forest from the trees. So, after Saudi Arabia bleeds the U.S. dry of gold, then we can buy our gold back with infrastructure and defense contracts, right?
But in reality, these macroeconomic trade deals aren't quite as simple as an illuminati conspiracy theory makes it. The truth is, the trade agreements worked out under Nixon remained in force up until the War and Terror and fracking. Prior to that, Nixon and Kissinger rested the global economy on a three-legged stool. The flows worked like this:
Saudi oil --> Japanese autos --> U.S. defense and infrastructure contracts --> Saudi Arabia
also represented as
Saudi trade surplus with --> Japan trade surplus with --> United States surplus with --> Saudi Arabia
Japan trade deficit with --> Saudi Arabia trade deficit with --> United States trade deficit with --> Japan.
So, in reality, the U.S. never bought Saudi oil directly, but the Saudis held a lot of petrodollars they got from Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, et al. So the subject is little more detailed than we've tried to simplify it. It was international trade issues that led the United States into two World Wars, after all. The main point here is, there has been no world war involving these same actors since the closing of the gold window, and all parties have prospered. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:43, 25 February 2020 (EST)
That doesn't change that fact that the agreement itself is unconstitutional. Nor does it change the fact that the Saudis are using the petrodollar as leverage, to ensure that we do its bidding by attacking its enemies on false pretenses while covertly supporting the same al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists we claim to be fighting. This agreement is directly responsible for the current crisis in the Middle East and the terror crises stemming from it across the world. And since you want to bring up world wars, I wouldn't be surprised if the effects of this agreement ends up causing the next world war.--Geopolitician (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (EST)
(A) If it's unconstitutional, dig up Nixon's corpse and impeach him; (B) ISIS was founded by John Brennan and Barack Obama in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and others; (C) Saudi Arabia has a trade deficit with the US, insuring Saudi Arabia does the U.S. bidding, for instance, funding ISIS in the war against Iran and Iran proxies. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:32, 25 February 2020 (EST)
You've got the US and Saudi Arabia's roles in the Middle East backwards. Saudi Arabia created both al-Qaeda and ISIS through the Muslim World League and the mosques supported by it, with American assistance. Our government went along with it because it feared that Saudi Arabia would drop the petrodollar and destroy the value of the dollar itself if we did not. This cycle of violence will not end until we disconnect ourselves from the petrodollar, and the Saudi regime is neutralized. --Geopolitician (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Well, we're in agreement; the Obama administration colluded with Saudi Arabia to fight Iran and Iranian proxies, Assad, the Houthi's, etc.
I would view the 'petrodollar agreement' as a way of carrying out joint foreign policy objectives and trade agreements, not so much as an end in itself. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:42, 25 February 2020 (EST)
It depends on whose perspective you're using. From the US' perspective, its core purpose is to preserve both the dollar's value and its international reserve currency status. But from the Saudis' perspective, its core purpose is to enhance the country's influence on the international stage. --Geopolitician (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2020 (EST)
This leads to a discussion of the SWIFT network. As to the Saudi's their position is about maintaining status as the Custodian of the Holy Places and providing a counterweight to Iranian extremism. It's no secret the Saudis are friends of Israel, so it's a fine line they walk as custodians of Mecca. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:53, 26 February 2020 (EST)
I oppose our government's abuse of SWIFT. As for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran, I believe it's high time to switch sides in that conflict. The Saudis are the real enemy, and if Israel wants to get in bed with them then Israel is no longer an ally. --Geopolitician (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2020 (EST)
Read this, and we'll talk, RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:20, 9 March 2020 (EDT)

Department of Children and Families

There is no federal Department of Children and Families. It sounds a bit conspiratorial. I suggest taking it down. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:42, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is not a US Person. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:25, 9 March 2020 (EDT)

So what? We can't place emphasis on the fact that there are foreign governments who work with the Deep State day and night to manipulate our government for their personal needs? I suppose you also believe we shouldn't list Christopher Steele on the template either. --Geopolitician (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2020 (EDT)
Semi-valid point; criticism of Saudi Arabia however may be considered anti-Semitic. The Saudis are in bed with Jews, ya know. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:06, 9 March 2020 (EDT)


Recent press reports are just drumming up advanced sales. When the book does come out, nobody will care anyway.

As you see with Spygate transcripts, alleged "classified information" has a limited shelf life anyways. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:31, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

Soule's A Planned Society

I added George Soule's book as it is distinctly promotional of bureaucratic despotism. It's title accurately captures the intent of the book and the book's age helps cement the fact that we aren't dealing with anything new here. Progressingamerica (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2021 (EDT)

Actually it looks like a very interesting book. [5] And at the time it came out, 1930, it looks like it would appeal to followers of Stalin, FDR, and Hitler for implementation in their respective cultures, with varying results. This explains much. RobSFree Kyle! 03:55, 29 April 2021 (EDT)