User talk:Geopolitician

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RobSmith (Talk | contribs) at 03:15, July 6, 2022. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, Geopolitician, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Geopolitician!

If you need anything, feel free to ask! --David B (TALK) 22:05, 24 January 2017 (EST)

Wikilink piping

Hello Geopolitician, thanks for your edits. Please see this edit -- I have made several others like it. You have been unnecessarily piping internal links, and it is good practice to use as little code as necessary when adding internal links. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

Thank you, 1990sguy. I always thought that using only brackets would cause them to show up in the WikiText. It always pays to check instead of making assumptions! :) --Geopolitician (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2018 (EDT)
Just so you know, the wiki software assumed you want links when you use bracket pairs. The only ways I know of to get it to show brackets are to either use them unpaired (just on direction, like this [ but not the other) or to enclose it in <nowiki> tags, like this: <nowiki>[bracketed text]</nowiki>. (Personally, I would prefer if you didn't use them unpaired either, since it drives my bot crazy.) Anyway, don't hesitate to ask if there is anything else you ever wonder about! --David B (TALK) 15:50, 18 August 2018 (EDT)

Accidental block

For the record, that Minuteman block was an accidental block bot that was probably triggered by some algorithm. It has nothing to do with any conduct on your part. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

I found out about the block after it got lifted, and I already knew it was a bot before you commented here, so no worries. Thank you.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Sorry about didn't like the tone of your language, and particularly your use of the "c-word." It shouldn't give you any more trouble. --DavidB4 (TALK) 13:12, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
That's okay, and thank you. I've dealt with less tolerant bots on other sites in the past. A few minutes ago, I posted on Disqus and the comment was automatically blocked because it contained the word "kill." It wasn't even used in a literal context. It was used in a symbolic context, such as "gun control will kill the Republic."--Geopolitician (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
For the record, I didn't see that DavidB4 lifted your block, so I thought you had to sit through the whole 1 hour 30-minute block. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
I was only blocked for about ten minutes, and I wasn't even online when it happened. No worries. --Geopolitician (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Finding bigger fish to fry

Hi Geopolitician, given your strong stance against neoconservatives in general, do you want to work on some CP pages like the ones for Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, and likewise similar articles? Some of those types of pages might need updates, and I think it's not worth the bother to put a strongly negative label on certain current political figures. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:14, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

Sure. I’ll try to focus some more on other articles that need updating. I’ll probably create a few new ones too, to go deeper into the implications of the ideology. It’ll be over a period of time, though. I’m not nearly as active as I used to be, and I don’t expect to be for a while. Too many things going on in my personal life right now, to say the least. --Geopolitician (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2020 (EDT)
Good. I got some stuff just yesterday about Colin Powell, how he lead Marines into L.A. to quash riots in 1992, and now more recently criticizing Trump for thinking about doing it. In 1992, it was just one city, today its mayors and governors across the nation encouraging riots. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:15, 17 June 2020 (EDT)
Awesome! By the way Geopolitician, here's a list of the officials in the Bush administration, where there are quite a few red links. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 19:24, 17 June 2020 (EDT)
Also, have you guys ever seen the "official" music video regarding the "Bush Crime Family"? Because the f-word is used in there, I'd prefer not to directly link the video, but it's on Roger Stone's YouTube channel. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 19:31, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

Cruz is not a neocon

His foreign policy has been described as in between Mccain and Paul. So he is not a necon. He even supported Trump's withdrawal from Syria. He also condemned Biden for Syria strikes. Are you sure you aren't thinking of Lindsey Graham? Graham is a total neo-con. Graham Praised Biden for Syria Strikes.ChadUser (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2021 (EDT)

That edit was not an accident. Cruz used to be a non-interventionist, but after he ran for President, he changed. His close ties to Steve Bannon (who I also consider to be a closet neocon) are especially damning. And to think, I used to defend this guy on this site!
But either way, I once again apologize for the harsh description of one of my Pompeo edits. I still feel bad about it.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2021 (EDT)
That non-interventionist support from Cruz has come from 2019 to present. So he is not a neocon.ChadUser (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2021 (EDT)
Mike Lee is the one who has shifted to non-interventionism since 2019. Cruz has shifted in the opposite direction. He supported the Saudi arms deal and supported Pompeo's efforts to start a war with Iran, while Lee (and Rand Paul) did not. I also can't help but wonder if he played was involved in Bannon's efforts to install warmongers in the Trump administration, due to their close ties.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2021 (EDT)

You see this yet?

Looks like the CCP is pist off. [1] RobSFree Kyle! 23:48, August 12, 2021 (EDT)


Do not remove talk page posts as you did here. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 17:26, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

Whoops! That was 100% accidental. Sorry about that.--Geopolitician (talk) 21:16, October 18, 2021 (EDT)
After several more incidents of accidentally removing talk page posts, I think I've figured out what I've been doing wrong. Whenever I check a page on my watchlist for updates, I usually click on the "View History" tab of that page and look at individual edits before making my own.
In these instances, I think I forgot to go back to the main page (not to be confused with the Main Page) and instead clicked the "Edit" tab while still on the page version I had been viewing. As a result, when I submitted my edit I accidentally erased all edits made after the page version I had been viewing. Once again, I apologize for that. It was an honest mistake, and I'll try not to do it again.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:51, November 13, 2021 (EST)

You want some Deep State stuff to chew on?

Here you go. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 00:58, November 29, 2021 (EST)

Update: [2] RobSLet's Go Brandon! 14:03, November 30, 2021 (EST)
It's fairly obvious what's happening here: Adam Schiff and the Pelosi Panel plan to go after people involved in fundraising for election audits as a fundraising scam in time for the 2022 midterm elections. That is their main strategy since Congress & Biden have no accomplishments to run on. And what "evidence" they produce, was illegally acquired by the corrupt Biden FBI. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 16:57, November 30, 2021 (EST)
That may well be the case. Their move.
Meanwhile, I would advise you not to take Lin Wood seriously. He's always seemed to be a crackpot to me.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:54, December 1, 2021 (EST)
Well, that's why he's releasing this stuff now. He's outraged that nobody is defending him since Rittenhouse called him "insane". Sidney Powell is being isolated as a scammer by Patrick Byrne, while Byrne is trying to remain on good terms with Mike Flynn. It appears Rittenhouse has fallen under the control of a group associated with Flynn somehow. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 18:00, December 1, 2021 (EST)
Okay, so who do you think is the Deep Stater in this situation?--Geopolitician (talk) 18:18, December 1, 2021 (EST)
Well, Patrick Byrne and Gen. Flynn definitely are; the people going after Sidney Powell and Lin Wood are. And Kyle Rittenhouse may have been compromised or now being used directly by the Deep State. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:17, December 1, 2021 (EST)
Interesting that you now believe Mike Flynn is Deep State after all this time. Granted, I've always considered him to be a Deep Stater because of his ties to the Erdogan regime in Turkey. Up until about a year ago I had hope for him defecting due to how he's been treated by other Deep State factions, but his QAnon double game has convinced me that he's not serious about actually dismantling the Deep State. He's only serious about giving his Deep State faction the upper hand against other Deep State factions.
To further clarify, I agree with Flynn's claim that QAnon is a CIA psy-op. Which only makes his QAnon double game worse. If you believe QAnon is CIA, then why are you publicly affiliating yourself with it?--Geopolitician (talk) 23:24, December 1, 2021 (EST)
As for Lin Wood, Kyle Rittenhouse is absolutely correct to call him insane. How else do you describe a QAnon follower who goes on Twitter and calls Mike Pence a pedophile who should be executed by firing squad, on the sole basis that Pence helped certify the election results? On a side note, since you mention people going after Sidney Powell, Wood has accused her of being a grifter as well.[3]--Geopolitician (talk) 23:20, December 1, 2021 (EST)
Update: Kyle Rittenhouse denies he's working for the Deep State now. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 00:52, December 12, 2021 (EST)
Looks like Blinken and Biden might have got to Assange. You probably need Isikoff and Yahoo News to confirm the facts, however. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:27, December 11, 2021 (EST)
The article you cited is not by either of them, but even if it were, I wouldn't doubt this story. Assange himself attested that he was being treated so poorly that he might die in prison, two years ago.[4]--Geopolitician (talk) 20:49, December 11, 2021 (EST)
Prayers for him.--Geopolitician (talk) 20:49, December 11, 2021 (EST)
Let's go back to Rob's prophetic vision of October 2021. The court ruled two days ago that Assange could be extradited to the U.S. The next day he has a medical emergency in a U.K. jail. As I said then, if the court ruled he could be extradited, he may not live to stand trial in the U.S. What's going to happen when he testifies that Seth Rich gave him the DNC emails and there was no Russian hack?
Well Rob, you may well be right here. Again, prayers for him. May no further harm come to him at the hands of our government, or others.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:00, December 12, 2021 (EST)
And I don't see you screaming Biden & Blinken are murderers, but you stand by the certified lies of Michael Isikoff. Time to wake up. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 00:31, December 12, 2021 (EST)
For the longest time, my main focus has been on the traitors within the populist movement. Going after them is even more important than going after the establishment, because the movement must remain pure in order for it to achieve real change.
That being said, it's already obvious that Biden and Blinken have done harm to Assange, as they have allowed the conditions which have brought him to this point to continue. And if Assange dies, they will indeed be murderers. Along with Pompeo, and even Trump (Trump may have been a rookie, but if someone like me could understand that what is happening to Assange is slow-motion murder, then so can he).--Geopolitician (talk) 17:00, December 12, 2021 (EST)
MSNBC’s Non-Stop Lying About Julian Assange. Jimmy Dore with Glenn Greenwald. $50 says Assange will not live to stand trial in the U.S. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 17:12, December 12, 2021 (EST)
Let's go Brandon!--Geopolitician (talk) 17:14, December 12, 2021 (EST)
Sundances latest: A trip down memory lane with recent updates. [5] Well worth the reading. If you can absorb his narrative here, a lot of his future reporting will make a lot more sense. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 01:07, February 13, 2022 (EST)
Hey, you love tossing around that term "neocon" as a pejorative. I thought maybe you'd find this article interesting from 2015 by the late ROBERT PARRY: The Mess that Nuland Made. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 04:17, February 27, 2022 (EST)
I’m well aware of Nuland’s involvement in the Maidan coup, plus her neocon ties.--Geopolitician (talk) 15:53, February 27, 2022 (EST)

Brzezinski's book

Hey, thought you'd find this interesting. Excerpt:

It’s the Clinton Yugoslavia distraction from Lewinsky-Broaddrick—on steroids. Atomic ones. Yugoslavia is a country that no longer exists. The Washingtonians and their pent-up henchmen/masters running our military seek the same status for Russia. It’s all there in Washington’s eternal godfather Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard. [6]
RobSLet's Go Brandon! 02:18, January 18, 2022 (EST)
It's truly sickening how our government has treated Russia since the end of the Cold War. That aside, I'm only giving this article half credit for its citation of Brzezinski's book, because it fails to establish why Brzezinski wrote that stuff in the first place.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:32, January 18, 2022 (EST)
Another recent citation to Brzezinski's book by Joe Lauria: Tangled Tale of NATO Expansion at the Heart of Ukraine Crisis. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 23:30, January 29, 2022 (EST)
Thanks for sharing. Boy does it feel good to be proven right.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:06, February 7, 2022 (EST)
Here's another cite: "Chris Ernesto at [LINK] headlined on 15 March 2014, “Brzezinski Mapped Out the Battle for Ukraine in 1997: It’s all about maintaining the US position as the world’s sole superpower.” The plan was to squelch Russia in order to retain the existing mono-polar world: control of all the world’s resources by America’s aristocracy, as the dominant player everywhere. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s decades-long patronage by David Rockefeller was now becoming understandable in a stark light." [7]
Seems to me, you should add some of this the Brzezinski article or maybe even create a Grand Chessboard page. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 08:10, February 22, 2022 (EST)
When I get a chance, I will do both.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:26, February 22, 2022 (EST)
Ah ha, I see. Your focus on leadership personalities makes the ideas you base your attacks on take a back burner. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 13:21, February 22, 2022 (EST)
Look, I'm the type who likes to type up big articles all at once, which of course takes some time. But if you want me to come up with something now, I will do it shortly.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:23, February 22, 2022 (EST)
Hey, you're the authority on the subject. I suspected it was bulltwinkies in the 1990s based upon the reputation and accomplishments of the author, but evidently powerful Democrat think tanks took it seriously. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 13:31, February 22, 2022 (EST)
Just created the page. See here.--Geopolitician (talk) 15:18, February 22, 2022 (EST)
Good start. Looks like an orphan page right now. [8] RobSLet's Go Brandon! 18:05, February 22, 2022 (EST)

MPR comment

This kind of behavior on MPR, or any talk page discussion, is unacceptable on CP. [9] Thank you for your attention to this. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 22:16, March 14, 2022 (EDT)

You know what's unacceptable, RobSmith? Your behavior towards me. For several years you have stalked me; undone many of my edits on the grounds that they are "too harsh" on Republicans (in the process embracing the age-old lie that attacking Republicans is synonymous to attacking Conservatives); and bullied and harassed me on various talk pages, hurling at me every false accusation in the book. I have put up with this for YEARS, and I've HAD ENOUGH.
That last accusation you levied against me? The one where you accused me of being a Nazi sympathizer? That's what pushed me over the edge. You can deny that you were accusing me all you want, but the fact is that even asking me questions like that is tantamount to an accusation. And you know that accusation is false, because as you are aware I have consistently maintained the position that NATO and Ukraine started the conflict with their warmongering, and I've even addressed the existence of the Azov Battalion and the threat it poses to regional security. I don't care that you're an admin, and I don't care that you object to me saying that there are certain pages on this wiki riled with conspiracy theories which belong on supermarket tabloids (none of which, by the way, have anything to do with Russia or Ukraine). That doesn't give you an excuse to stoop to the level of the woke left and spew lies about my character in front of a bunch of other users, including Andy.
I'd like an apology, and I'd like you to cease and desist with this behavior. Not just towards me, but other users as well. Because I know I'm not the only user you like to target.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:38, March 15, 2022 (EDT)
I'm sorry, and I'm sorry for having common interests. [10] RobSLet's Go Brandon! 03:28, March 16, 2022 (EDT)
First off, obvious sarcasm at the beginning.
Second, what common interests? Or was that part sarcasm too?--Geopolitician (talk) 19:27, March 16, 2022 (EDT)
International affairs. No, it wasn't sarcasm. And I might think your perspective is somewhat dated, rigid, and uncompromising (which may also be your stereotype of conservative thinking and analysis). And if you can handle criticism, in some areas (I believe) poorly informed, which also may fit a stereotype of conservative thinking. 19:41, March 16, 2022 (EDT)
"Somewhat dated?" "Rigid?" "Uncompromising?" I would use the term "reactionary." By the way, in case you haven't noticed, many younger conservatives/libertarians/populists such as myself have a more reactionary worldview than their older counterparts.
And of course I can handle criticism. Constructive criticism where I'm not being called ever name in the book every five seconds.--Geopolitician (talk) 19:10, March 17, 2022 (EDT)
That's cause you've been brainwashed by American liberalism. Conservativism is all about independent thought, yet you use a liberal framework, "reactionary" to describe yourself. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:21, March 17, 2022 (EDT)
The original definition of "reactionary" is one who advocates the reversal of an existing tendency or state to a previous tendency or state. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:13, March 20, 2022 (EDT)
"Reactionary" is a pejorative term Marxists use to label their opponents; so-called or alleged "reactionaries" do not label themselves as "reactionary". It is wholly, exclusively Marxist rhetoric. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 00:33, March 20, 2022 (EDT)
First off, the term did not originate as a Marxist pejorative. It originated as a description of of counter-Enlightenment forces in Revolutionary France, decades before Marx was even born.
Second, if you look at the original definition of the term (which I stated in my prior comment), it's actually quite neutral. In theory, anybody can be a reactionary if they advocate the return to a previously-existing status quo. For examples, just as the right-wing monarchists in Revolutionary France were reactionaries, so are the Communists in present-day Russia.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:30, March 22, 2022 (EDT)
You are the only so-called "reactionary" I ever met who calls himself a reactionary or adheres to that definition. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 02:59, March 22, 2022 (EDT)
I'll go a step further and say you sound like a liberal reactionary - at the very moment the planet faces WWIII, you are more concerned about returning to the good old days when nobody called out the lying liberal media and Michelle's Obama's transgenderism. Need I go on? 09:53, March 22, 2022 (EDT)
Wrong. I want to return to the good old days because times were better in general than they are today. That is all, you are overthinking things here.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:28, March 23, 2022 (EDT)
And what happened to your anti-NATO stance? You crusaded on that for years. Zelensky just banned all anti-NATO political parties. But your're more concerned about exposing Michelle Obama rather than the fact open fascists have control NATO. And what previous status quo or state of affairs with NATO do you want to return to? THe Cold War era? or a time that NATO did not exist? Better still, the time that the Great Britain was America's No.1 enemy before NATO was founded?
Wrong again. I complained about your conspiracy theories regarding Michelle Obama before Zelensky banned anti-NATO political parties. Which, by the way, is a reprehensible act on his part.
And yes, I do want to go back to the time that NATO did not exist. But no, not the time before Britain was America's number one enemy, as it's no longer the "Empire Where the Sun Never Sets."--Geopolitician (talk) 23:28, March 23, 2022 (EDT)
Oh no, you don't want to discuss any of these things. You just want to return to the time the liberal media held the sway and attack Mike Pompeo with no evidence. Or the time neocon was a dirty word when George Bush was in office. Many of these efforts look pretty sloppy and amateurish if you really want to play this game. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 10:07, March 22, 2022 (EDT)
There you go again with the "you have no evidence" mantra concerning Pompeo. You know that is false, and you just don't like the evidence I presented. And "neocon" a dirty word? Only in the minds of conservatives who supported Bush. It certainly wasn't a dirty word in the minds of people like Pat Buchanan, who has been proven more and more correct concerning Bush as the years rolled by.[11]--Geopolitician (talk) 23:28, March 23, 2022 (EDT)
There you go again, attacking people rather than discussing issues (when I dangle the bait, you take it every time). RobSLet's Go Brandon! 23:32, March 23, 2022 (EDT)
I'm just speaking the facts here, RobSmith. I'm sure you know that I don't cite only liberal sources when I go after neocons, and that I frequently cite sources like The American Conservative and The Conservative Treehouse when doing so. In fact, I cited the former site in my last reply.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:08, March 24, 2022 (EDT)
I'm just saying, despite what you say, your arguments and approach don't seem conservative, and somehow you got conservative confused with "reactionary", which is a leftist talking point. It makes no difference to me what your personal views are, but leftist talking points are...a little dangerous. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:19, March 24, 2022 (EDT)
Did I not say a few posts ago that both leftists and rightists can be reactionaries? A premise which leftists tend to reject?--Geopolitician (talk) 22:39, March 24, 2022 (EDT)
Well, ok. You are got a point and are correct there. But I don't understand why you would embrace such a static and stale ideology in a world dependent on dynamics and innovation. 22:51, March 24, 2022 (EDT)
AOC is a reactionary - she even named her Green New Deal after the good 'ol days of the New Deal. Anti-Putin globalists are reactionaries who want to return to the days when America fancied itself top dog. So it appears you, an anti-globalist and reactionary, are in bed with a bunch of globalist reactionaries.
IMO, a personal opinion, these labels people invent for themselves or assign to their opponents and enemies kinda remind me of an overflowing toilet - they just create a mess nobody wants to clean up. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 23:02, March 24, 2022 (EDT)
I'm not in bed with any of those left-wing reactionaries, because I don't advocate a return to the system they idolize.--Geopolitician (talk) 20:46, March 29, 2022 (EDT)
I am speaking specifically of labels such as "leftwing" or "reactionary" which are virtually meaningless in any context. They tell me absolutely nothing other than the writers personal bias, background, and education. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:53, March 29, 2022 (EDT)
Then you look at the use of re-cycled cliches, how hard they go after the intended targets of their ire or wrath, and of coarse the use of exaggeration, which often appears.
Let's take for example your use, or misuse rather, of exaggeration to target Mike Pompeo as a CCP operative responsible for the release of covid. That was rather lame, frankly. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 21:04, March 29, 2022 (EDT)
IMHO, I think these two uploads [12][13] says more about efforts to propagandize children than your twisting of facts and sources to attack Pompeo. And it's done without using controversial or ambiguous labels like "neocon", "reactionary", "leftist", etc. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 21:12, March 29, 2022 (EDT)
I never said that Pompeo was a CCP agent. I said that the CCP did not release the virus, that Pompeo was the likely true mastermind, and that the conspiracy involved framing the CCP for what the Deep State did.
Also, I stated a few weeks back that I no longer support that narrative, and I'm now onboard with the "China did it" theory just like you are.--Geopolitician (talk) 21:16, March 29, 2022 (EDT)
Thank you. That concludes our phase of the investigation into your partisan bias - posting false and defamatory information with no evidence, wanting to edit war over it, and complaining to Andy. In sum, I'd call that extreme trolling. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 22:04, March 29, 2022 (EDT)
That’s a lie. I cited sources which are well-respected within the conservative community to build my case against Pompeo, and you know that. I’ve only since concluded that the arguments in those sources are flawed, hence my change of opinion. One can be wrong for once in a while, right?
And another thing. Where Pompeo is concerned, I’m only backing down regarding the origin of COVID. I’m not backing down on the other stuff.--Geopolitician (talk) 09:54, March 30, 2022 (EDT)
And a third thing. There is no partisan bias. I’m at nothing but a dissident against the unholy alliance between neocons and so-called populists within the American conservative movement. There’s even a term for this alliance: mesoconservatism.[14]--Geopolitician (talk) 10:06, March 30, 2022 (EDT)
Continued: See, here's the flaw in your logic, rhetoric, and thinking, comparing Brezhnev and Khrushchev. [15] It hints at your analysis along social and domestic policy lines, and not foreign policy. It makes you look like an American liberal Democrat - cause that it their major weakness - an inability to understand foreign policy and an instinctive reaction to always relating foreign policy how that foreign policy will be perceived by domestic voters in the United States first. Such thinking is exactly what has led to the U.S. being in bed with Nazis now, how the U.S. got in bed with al Qaeda, what created the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, indeed the origins of the Cold War and Korean War. When George Bush was told his foreign policy would destroy the Republican party, Bush said, "I have political capital and intend to spend it." When Trump was called a 'traitor' by John Brennan, Trump ignored it. When Reagan was accused of provoking nuclear war, he ignored it. When Nixon went to China, he said "the greatest honor that can be bestowed on men is the title 'Peacemaker'", which kept the peace between the US & China for nearly 50 years, and his name is dirt today. No Democrat has the cahoonies to take these risks. They all need to consult opinion pollsters and focus groups first. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 14:34, April 11, 2022 (EDT)
Simply put, you instinctively think of "politics" in domestic policy terms, and not in terms of international relations. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 14:41, April 11, 2022 (EDT)
And since the Clinton era, Democrats who think in terms of international relations, do not think in terms of avoiding war and maintaining peace - they think in terms of 'how can this make me rich off the books'. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 14:47, April 11, 2022 (EDT)
Nixon was no peacemaker. It was under his administration that America enslaved itself to the Saudis through the petrodollar. Which in turn made the Deep State significantly more powerful and made everything that has happened in the Middle East since 1991 possible.--Geopolitician (talk) 15:54, April 11, 2022 (EDT)
And in the Brezhnev and Khrushchev case, there was a massive change in both foreign and domestic policy. Of course you'd never know that, given your domestic American perspective on politics. China stopped following Moscow's lead and went its own way in foreign policy after Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the planet to the brink of nuclear war. And Russia went back into censorship and repression, after Khrushchev allowed the publication of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich with its religious references and all, and Khrushchev amnestied people from the gulag. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 15:28, April 11, 2022 (EDT)
You're completely missing the point. When Khrushchev was in power, the USSR was an evil communist empire. When Brezhnev was in power, the USSR was an evil communist empire. No matter who was in charge, the USSR was still an evil communist empire. The rest is just window dressing.
Likewise when Khan was in power, Pakistan was a Salafi/Wahhabi jihadist state. And with Khan gone, Pakistan is still a Salafi/Wahhabi jihadist state. No matter who is in charge, Pakistan is still a Salafi/Wahhabi jihadist state. The rest is just window dressing.--Geopolitician (talk) 15:54, April 11, 2022 (EDT)
As they used to say, 'that and a dime will get you a cup of coffee', but not any recognition as a geopolitical analyst. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 16:14, April 11, 2022 (EDT)
You evidently have trouble differentiating between the shorthand MSM and public school teachers use to communicate complex ideas from what is the real world, which makes you sound like a typical Democrat. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 16:19, April 11, 2022 (EDT)
By your own logic, Cold War-era Birchers and many Indians also sound like typical Democrats.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:52, April 11, 2022 (EDT)
You seem to have some difficulty differentiating between ideas and labels. Labels for the most part are just smear words, a preconceived notion they are intended to convey. Ideas, by contrast, are suppose to lead to a range of rational discussions. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 17:32, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
Wow, talk about a cop-out response. As if I intended to use those terms to smear the character of the people I described in my last reply, and as if I never present original ideas on this site. LMAO--Geopolitician (talk) 17:53, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
Also, that response looks like it was written by a "woke" leftist. No, seriously. It does. "Woke" leftists tend to obsess with labels and call them some sort of offensive, and they absolutely love to preach about how it's against the rules of discourse to use them at any time for any reason (unless they themselves are the ones using them). You are doing the exact same thing right now, and I'd prefer that you stop.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:27, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
See, 'woke leftist' is a smear label intended to rely on the preconceived notions of the hearer without any rational exchange of ideas. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 18:39, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
Okay, then. Why don't we just call every term we use on this site a smear label. "Liberal," "Conservative," "Leftist," "Left-wing," "Right-wing" "Globalist," "Nationalist," "Socialist," "Communist," "Fascist," "Racist," "Sexist," "Bigot," "Black," "White," "Brown," "Yellow," "Red," "Christian," "Jewish," "Muslim," "Hindu," "Buddhist," "Atheist," "Pagan," "Gay," "Straight," "Homosexual," "Heterosexual," "Neocon," "Neolib," "Paleocon," etc. They are all mere smear labels, right?
If I were you, I'd be seeking help right away, RobSmith. I can't think of any other explanation for this behavior other than you've just lost it.--Geopolitician (talk) 20:05, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
You forgot feminist and snowflake. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:21, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
My point is, you seem to think politics is all about hurling pejorative labels at Republicans, neocon being you favorite. Yet when a bipartisan coterie of neocons get openly in bed with Nazis, you suddenly become strangely silent. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:24, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
That's a lie. You know I haven't been silent on that issue. You're just mad that I'm not parroting the Russian narrative verbatim, so you're resorting to yet more false accusations in order to intimidate me into stopping thinking critically.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:14, April 17, 2022 (EDT)
So, you can fall back on the argument, "Is a Nazi really a Nazi?" to which the obvious response is "Is a neocon really a neocon?" RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:44, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
Another lie. I have not once disputed the ideology of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:14, April 17, 2022 (EDT)
Basically, I'd put your understanding of foreign policy and international relations on a par with Sean Hannity. That's not a very high bar to overcome. I know you can do better. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 16:59, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
And I know you can't do better.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:14, April 17, 2022 (EDT)
Oh, you've missed it all. Does Pompeo's trashing of Putin mean Pompeo's not in bed with Xi, as you allege? or simply confirm he's a Deep State neocon? RobSLet's Go Brandon! 23:20, April 17, 2022 (EDT)
My guess is you'll confirm he's a Deep State neocon, since unwrapping the Xi-Biden-Putin-Pompeo alliance is too complicated. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 23:23, April 17, 2022 (EDT)
Pompeo is a Deep State neocon, and it's precisely for that reason he's not in bed with Xi. You see, Deep State neocons hate Xi just as much as they hate Putin. And they hate both for all the wrong reasons.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:52, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
Or how about the Durham revelations that the CIA was spying on Trump while Pompeo was director? does that mean Pompeo was an anti-Putin, Ukrainian neo-Nazi Trump-Russia hoaxer? And that's even before Putin and Xi got cozy. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 23:26, April 17, 2022 (EDT)
Yes, Pompeo is a Russia hoaxer too. And quite frankly, so is Durham (because he's now pushing a different version of the hoax, one where Hillary is the colluder instead of Trump).--Geopolitician (talk) 00:52, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
Oh, that's right. I nearly forgot. Trump colluded with Russia and that's why we're sending so much aid to fight Russia. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 01:48, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
Nope. Nobody colluded with Russia. Not Trump, not Hillary, not nobody.--Geopolitician (talk) 09:11, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
So tell me, who is a greater threat to the Republic, Anthony Fauci, Xi Jinping, or Kim Reynolds? Fauci & Xi are in bed with Pompeo to exterminate the planet with covid, according to you, but what about Kim Reynolds? RobSLet's Go Brandon! 15:17, April 19, 2022 (EDT)
Fauci and Xi are both being framed. They never intended for COVID to escape the Wuhan lab and cause a global pandemic. The virus may be Fauci and Xi's project, but the pandemic itself is a Deep State neocon project.
Also, I labeled Reynolds as a neocon because of her position on Ukraine. She's yet another establishment hack who wants us to go to war with Russia on false pretenses. And given that the outcome of such a war could be a nuclear catastrophe far, far deadlier than COVID, it's obvious that her ilk is a greater threat not just to the Republic, but to the entire planet.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:52, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
So Xi didn't unleash Fauci's brainchild on the planet until he got instructions from Pompeo to do so. Ok, that makes sense. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 01:50, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
Nope. Fauci and Xi never wanted the virus to leave the lab. The virus was leaked out of the lab by a mole who was taking orders from Pompeo and his gang.--Geopolitician (talk) 09:24, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
I don't get it. You have evidence up the ying-yang that the neocons are responsible for funding the guys who committed the Bucha massacre, but you're more concerned about a no-name GOP governor we didn't have a page on until you decided to do a hit piece on her. Makes me somewhat curious about your real priorities vis-a-vis neocons. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 01:48, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
Of course the neocons are funding Ukrainian neo-Nazis. When did I ever deny that? I'm just not convinced that either side is telling the whole truth about what happened in Bucha, that's all.
Now that war has actually broken out, one must take into account what kind of war it is, and I've concluded that what's going on over there is basically an Eastern European equivalent of the post-partition violence in the former British Raj. Both sides are committing mutual genocide against each other, although at this time that mutual genocide is not organized and is occurring entirely through spontaneous acts at the lower levels of the military hierarchy.
Meanwhile, you should be focusing on the glass from the perspective that it is half-full. If both sides are guilty of genocide, that means Ukraine is guilty of genocide, as are the neocons. We are and have been in agreement on that the entire time.--Geopolitician (talk) 09:24, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

Alright, I'm back. I'm guessing that block was in retaliation for me bringing up your behavior on Andy's talk page again. Don't worry, I won't do that anymore. From now on, I'll just reach out to him by email. And if he chooses not to get involved (which appears to be the case here), then so be it.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:39, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll remember the threats about sending harassing emails.
No, it's not "retaliation", it's me doing my job. I rarely, if ever take things personal. And my job is to maintain a pleasant editing environment free of trolling behavior. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 01:59, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
I've only emailed Andy twice in the past few days, and the second email was a near-immediate follow-up to the first (because you know, sometimes one forgets to say everything (s)he has to say the first time). I don't have plans to email him a third time, unless you decide to spread more lies about my character.
And by the way, you're not doing your job. You've repeatedly lied about my character on numerous talk pages, using highly personal insults in the process. You think that creates a pleasant environment for me or for like-minded users (ChadUser, Vince Did 7-14, etc.)?--Geopolitician (talk) 09:09, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
Your only accomplishments in CP have been to attack GOP candidates who hold, have held, or are running for elected office. That is readily apparent from your contribs. You need to do a little bit better job at hiding these intents and less trolling arguments when asked to explain some of these attacks. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 13:57, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
My “only” accomplishments? Do you not recall my research and contributions on The Grand Chessboard, National Globalism, and Turanism? Also, I’m currently working on such for National Bolshevism.
Furthermore, you should be thankful that I, ChadUser, Vince Did 7-14, and others have such a zealous approach towards exposing the hidden RINOs of the GOP. Few rival us in that zeal.--Geopolitician (talk) 15:21, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
Is this suppose to be some sort of revelation, coordinated trolling attacks? We have a different way of dealing with them nowadays. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 15:56, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
We're not coordinating anything. We're just like-minded, that's all. We're all right-leaning Millennials who believe conservatism in its present form is corrupt and must be drastically reformed from the ground up. But unlike out Boomer and Gen-X counterparts, we're unwilling to show any restraint on who we go after within the movement. Because we've got far less to lose at our age.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:14, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
And thank you for your contribution at The Grand Chessboard at my suggestion. We need more of that kind of help, and less of the open trolling. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 15:59, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
I wanted to make the concept well-known among other users before going ahead with that. And boy did I succeed at that. But I get the memo here. Less talk, more do.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:14, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

Per your email

Thanks for the heads up. We'll root out all the neo-Nazi conspirators now. RobSZ 23:06, April 23, 2022 (EDT)

Saudi Arabia-Chechen jihadis-Kadyrov-Putin

You can't have it both ways. Your trashing Saudi Arabia, who funded the Chechen jihadis who committed the Beslan massacre, and were defeated by Kadyrov & Putin makes no sense. Your only point is to trash neocon Republicans. RobSZ 18:17, May 1, 2022 (EDT)

It makes perfect sense if you accept the premise that Kadyrov is not truly reformed, and expresses his radical jihadi ideology in different ways than he did in the '90s. His way of thinking is essentially a compromise between Wahhabism and Putinism, but it's still closer to the former than to the latter. Why Putin tolerates him is beyond me.--Geopolitician (talk) 09:47, June 7, 2022 (EDT)
This issue has nothing to do with Putinism, Wahhabism, jihadism, or any other ideology - it has to do with the structure of the Federated Russian state. RobSZ 15:05, June 7, 2022 (EDT)
Not disputing that. Although it is questionable whether Putin made a good trade-off with his deal with Kadyrov. Particularly in the long-term.--Geopolitician (talk) 19:09, June 7, 2022 (EDT)

Do not pull a stunt like this again

[16] RobSZ 01:21, June 7, 2022 (EDT)

Interesting you would only now give me a warning about an edit which I made eight months ago and you removed four months ago, but okay.--Geopolitician (talk) 09:39, June 7, 2022 (EDT)
It was in up til yesterday. You and I have spent tens of hours debating this point. That category is not simply "highly exaggerated" - with absolutely no proof - it is trolling. Malicious trolling. RobSZ 14:47, June 7, 2022 (EDT)
I stand corrected. It was actually me who removed those categories back in February, not you. Then the following day you accidentally restored those edits when you clicked the “undo” button to remove another edit I had made. And it was only now those edits were re-removed.--Geopolitician (talk) 19:07, June 7, 2022 (EDT)
Be advised: I am cracking down hard on any misuse of the Category:Neoconservatives, and other categories. This applies to all editors. In the case of a neocon, a neocon is not someone who simply voted for the 2001 AUMF in the House (which passed 434-1) or the 2022 Ukrainian Lend Lease Act. Or a public figure who made stupid comments to stupid questions in the media. Be ready to present any evidence on a talk page, which would be best served by the individual personally identifying as a neocon or whatever other pejorative an editor wishes to apply against their targets and enemies. Guilt by association, personal insinuations, and biases of an editor may not be enough to draw a conclusion. These issues will not be debated to death, either. We will need clear and succinct evidence in one statement or argument. Thank you. RobSZ 15:00, June 7, 2022 (EDT)
Will you putting out an advisory in the Main Page talk page about it? If so, I’d prefer you go into more detail explaining the “dos and don’ts.” As in, “do call someone a neocon if X; don’t call someone a neocon if Y, maybe call someone a neocon if Z, with certain conditions.”--Geopolitician (talk) 19:07, June 7, 2022 (EDT)

Amit Sengupta

I recommend following this guy as a geopolitical analyst. RobSZ+ 23:15, July 5, 2022 (EDT)