Template talk:Deep State

here's my nomination for inclusion: SSCI. RobS^{Deep 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. RobS^{Deep 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. RobS^{Deep 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. RobS^{De 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. RobS^{De 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. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:11, 4 September 2019 (EDT)

Victims

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). RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:47, 16 September 2019 (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

Nixon a deep stater? The Deep State ran Nixon out of town (see H.R. Halderman, The Ends of Power, pp. 221-230). RobS^{De 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. RobS^{De 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. RobS^{De 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. RobS^{De 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. RobS^{De 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.' RobS^{De 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. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:38, 25 February 2020 (EST)