The Conspiracy Theory No One is Talking About

Because it no longer sounds like crazy talk

Last September, there were separate pieces on this platform, here and here, discussing a report allegedly issued by the RAND Corporation in January 2022. The executive summary document outlined how to weaken the thriving German economy, its influence on the Eurozone, and the implications that “a fully independent state of Germany” would have on American hegemony on the continent. The date of this writing is important, given what is in the document and what has happened since it was first discussed.

In the paper, and here it is, the authors were self-aware enough to realize that quantitative easing was not working, the rising debt was a problem, and that Dems would take losses in at least one chamber of Congress that November. As such, there was a need for “resources to flow into the national economy, especially the banking system.” An independent Germany was the biggest obstacle to that flow, followed closely by Brexit. The UK no longer being in the EU meant the US would be losing a key conduit for influencing European affairs.

The people at RAND immediately dismissed the report as false, because what else are they doing to say? The organization’s statement included a curious pivot to Russia and labeling the document as evidence of “the firehose of falsehood” approach employed by the old Soviet Union. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Two fact-checkers echoed RAND’s response, but with ‘evidence’ so flimsy that the term deserves quotation marks. One checker offered nothing more than the RAND denial itself as “proof” that this was misinformation. The other refuted the claim due to a lack of “credible news reports,” as if something can only be made true if enough outlets repeat a claim.  

Set aside for a moment the ridiculousness of the latter argument. There is no shortage of stories that turned out to be true despite the lack of widespread media attention. From the lab leak theory to questions of vaccine efficacy to Hunter’s laptop labeled Russian disinformation to the multi-year hoax of collusion, there has been no shortage of things that were true but the media either downplayed or ignored altogether. Between those incidents and the Twitter files, one thing not in dispute is that “fact-checkers” are often anything but what their name implies.

Now, about the executive summary document. Remember that it was dated January 25, 2022. Has anything happened since then regarding how “Halting Russian (energy) supplies can well create a systemic crisis that would be devastating for the German economy and, indirectly, for the entire European Union.”

In a word, yes. Germany is now in recession and so are three other EU nations. The document raises another point that, in retrospect, has prescient value: “The only feasible way to guarantee Germany’s rejection of Russian energy supplies is to involve both sides in the military conflict in Ukraine. Our further actions in this country will inevitably lead to a military response from Russia.” Mind you, this was written before the war there began, when the conflict was still avoidable.

The document also pre-dates the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines by several months, and that project is also discussed: “Thanks to our precise actions, it has been possible to block the commission of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.” In that same timeframe, both the President and State Department lifer Victoria Nuland were making thinly-veiled references to what would later become reality if war began.  

It is possible that these events are no more than a fortuitous set of circumstances or that the executive summary is a forgery. But the level of cause-and-effect narrative would require an author or authors with a deep understanding of conditions in Germany and across Europe, and how specific actions would result in certain reactions. Also, it is simply easier to dismiss this paper as quackery than to consider its possible authenticity. Again, look at the number of things that a lot of people wanted to dismiss or memory hole because they were inconvenient to the prevailing narrative.

For a conspiracy theory to be viable, it must have an element of plausibility. You have to believe that it could be true. You have to believe that our govt could be working surreptitiously to undermine a presumed ally in order to bring that nation in line with our preferred outcomes. You have to believe that our govt, perhaps in concert with others, would engineer a scenario that would intentionally cause great economic harm to the Germans and, by extension, to Europe as a whole. Based on what you have learned during the last few years, how “out there” is such a scenario?

I encourage you to read the document for yourself. Weight it against what you know or believe. Consider the state of our economy, the standing of the dollar on the global stage, the precarious nature of the banking industry, and growing social unrest. Do likewise with current conditions in Europe. The section on Expected Consequences demonstrates an especially calculating mind or collection of minds.

This part explores the economic ramifications, the fall of the euro, and massive unemployment that could spark an exodus of skilled and educated labor from Germany. An exodus to where? There are few viable destinations. If the euro becomes “toxic,” as the piece suggests, what alternatives will fill that vacuum? The paper is clear that reducing access to cheap Russian energy – “ideally, a complete halt of such supplies – would have devastating consequences to German industry and normal life itself by necessarily impacting things like heating.

Would we actively harm a so-called ally by cutting off its primary source of cheap energy if there was something in it for us? Since that supply has been cut off, the question is now a tautology. No one is talking about the possibility of an economic slowdown in Europe; it’s already there and the questions have shifted to how bad it might get and how long it will last. Leaders there are starting to react. French President Emmanuel Macron first went to China and is now angling to be invited to the August summit of BRICS nations, amplifying previous calls for greater strategic autonomy for his country and for the EU.

The bulk of French energy is nuclear; the country has no critical need for Russian-provided oil or natural gas. While France has contributed economically to Ukraine, a major national newspaper is calling out the govt for not doing more in terms of providing military equipment. Poland is accusing Macron of being an undependable partner in the war effort, calling him and Germany’s Olaf Scholz “rotten” for their lack of enthusiasm in continuing the killing. Is he or is he just a national leader putting the interests of his own country above those of others?

If you read this, the linked Substack stories, the purported document itself, and the various other sources, and still dismiss all of this as crazy talk, fair enough. But at least do the work first. Avoid the reflexive belief that “there is no way we would do that.” Because, of course, there is. Our govt has taken steps to slow domestic energy production, it has opened the border to tens of thousands of unknown people, it has weaponized agencies to attack opponents, it lies to us about inflation and the dollar. If it will do that to citizens, why would it not do things that counter the interests of foreigners?

Political rivals are being arrested while law enforcement agencies are told to ignore equivalent or worse offenses. There are people who continue insisting that we never funded gain-of-function research and that the rash of excess deaths domestically and abroad is “inexplicable.” A major political party actively supports medical experimentation on children. There is irrefutable evidence that a multi-year hoax was perpetrated in order to subvert a presidential administration. The list of things that I do not believe our govt capable of is far, far shorter than it was just five years ago. This suggests that the RAND document is more likely to be real than not, but you will have to make that determination for yourself.