Everyone is an Island

We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies—all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes.

From “The Doors of Perception”

American monopoly on digital money

The Americans own Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Western Union and most online payment processors. Most of these payment processors only work with you if you have a bank account in anglo-american nations.

And then this happens:

This is similar to how wikileaks cannot accept donations.

So the Americans can silence anyone in the world for speaking against them. Now they are moving towards a cashless world completely run by the Americans.

We need to bring balance to the force.

A religion for the next age

Religions that exist today prevailed because they solved a lot of challenges that threatened the existence and prosperity of tribes since the end of the Last Ice Age.

Some of these challenges are:

  1. Population: In early agricultural societies, more hands meant more food because most (~ 50%) people worked in agriculture which was just getting started then. High infant mortality meant, each woman making 2.1 babies wasn’t enough to maintain an increasing/stable population. Women had to spent their entire lives making up to 10 babies, most of which would not live until old age. Women could not work outside because of lifelong child rearing, and men had to financially invest in children, and paternity became relevant. Religions oppressed women to force them to do all this, and enforced monogamy so that men knew their paternity enough to invest in children.
  2. Meaning: Low life expectancy and lack of purpose made people more reckless, and violent. If you knew you only had 30 years to live, you’d be more reckless and violent too. So people had to be mislead to believe there is a longer afterlife/reincarnation to prepare for and this gave life the pretense of longevity which made people less reckless and violent. e.g. ideas like geo-centrism was fashionable so as to make ourselves feel special.
  3. Conflict: Since human beings imitate each other, competition and conflict was inevitable for scarce resources. Even minor-resentments (e.g. inequality/injustice) among tribal members could build into full fledged all against all warfare that disintegrated the tribe. To avoid these, religions systematized the scapegoat mechanism, i.e. periodically it selected symbolic/actual scapegoats e.g. animals or innocent tribal members, and accused them for the tribe’s problems and killed/punished them ritualistically. e.g. debts were forgiven after a few years. Also, lending for interest discouraged because money supply couldn’t be artificially increased.
  4. Phase shifts in development: Various tribes where in various phases of development. e.g. some tribes had made all the way into high life expectancy, low birth rates and women’s rights, while others were still figuring out how to write and not shit in the streets, so mixing them created conflict. This made xenophobia and racism necessary.

The challenges listed above has changed:

  1. Population: After industrial revolution and green revolution, only 2% of people work in agriculture now to feed the rest of us, and the rest work in industrial jobs which require 20+ years of training in schools. So children became consumers for the first 20 years of their life, and not contributing to making bread in a family during that period. As a result people started having fewer children (contraceptives came later in 1950s and exacerbated this effect). Women started spending most of their lives not making children, and started to force their way to men’s world to work. Paternity became less important, and as a result monogamy was less needed as well. Marriages became based on sentiment/love for the first time, but love was fickle so divorces became prevalent. Since all marriages were based on love, gay marriages seemed to make sense too and public support for such alternate sexual lifestyles became prevalent. e.g. the old saying there is one for everyone became untrue, most women mated with a few top men who practiced polyamory. Some people became adulterous, and started having extra-marital relationships because marriage was not needed anyway.
  2. Meaning: High life expectancy meant people spent their lives less reckless and violent. Longer lives also meant afterlife/reincarnation lost its appeal, and our species lost the need to delude itself as the center of the universe. People still experience a lack of meaning in life though.
  3. Conflict: Thanks to rule of law and certain religions like Buddhism and Christianity, the innocence of scapegoats became known, sympathy and protection of scapegoats became possible and widely accepted. Abundance of previously scarce resources also made conflict less prevalent.
  4. Phase shifts in development: Various tribes are still in various stages of development. But internet and multimedia made xenophobia unfashionable. So controls on immigration seems to be way modern countries deal with phase shifts in developments.

We still need a new type of religion though to guard against:

  1. Meaning: There is still a lack of meaning giving rise to recklessness and violence. People express this lack of meaning as some sort of existential anxiety which lead to mass shootings and consumerism.
  2. Conflict: Return of scapegoating (e.g. online shaming, donglegate, cecil the lion’s killer) as a solution for solving buildup of minor resentments. Rule of law cannot resolve minor resentments, so we need a system to let steam off buildup of minor grudges periodically.
  3. Population: Due to the rise of welfare and lack of families, governments are in a situation of using young people’s taxes to pay for old people’s retirement and healthcare. Governments are now resorting to unbridled immigration to meet these unfunded liabilities.
  4. Phase shifts in development: Various tribes are still in various stages of development. Unbridled immigration used to solve the above problem, is going to hurt us still. Lack of xenophobia will make the situation worse. e.g. Immigrants will outnumber native Europeans and change the phase of development EU is in.

Chapter 3 of The Next 100 Years

Private intelligence agency STRATFOR was founded by George Friedman. He wrote a book titled The Next 100 Years dedicated to his predictions about the next 100 years. So far his predictions have been mostly correct. Here is the chapter 3 of his book describing the primary force behind the events that will unfold in the next 100 years:

In 2002, Osama bin Laden wrote in his “Letter to America”: “You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools, calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve pas­sengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.”

As this quote indicates, what al Qaeda is fighting for is a traditional un­derstanding of the family. This is not a minor part of their program: it is at its heart. The traditional family is built around some clearly defined princi­ples. First, the home is the domain of the woman and life outside the house is the purview of the man. Second, sexuality is something confined to the family and the home, and extramarital, extrafamilial sexuality is unaccept­able. Women who move outside the home invite extramarital sexuality just by being there. Third, women have as their primary tasks reproduction and nurturing of the next generation. Therefore, intense controls on women are necessary to maintain the integrity of the family and of society. In an inter­esting way it is all about women, and bin Laden’s letter drives this home. What he hates about America is that it promotes a completely different view of women and the family.

Al Qaeda’s view is not unique to Osama bin Laden or Islam. The lengths to which that group is prepared to go may be unique, but the issue of women and the family defines most major religions. Traditional Catholicism, fun­damentalist Protestantism, Orthodox Judaism, and various branches of Buddhism all take very similar positions. All of these religions are being split internally, as are all societies. In the United States, where we speak of the “culture wars,” the battlefield is the family and its definition. All societies are being torn between traditionalists and those who are attempting to re­ define the family, women, and sexuality.

This conflict is going to intensify in the twenty-first century, but the tra­ditionalists are fighting a defensive and ultimately losing battle. The reason is that over the past hundred years the very fabric of human life—and par­ticularly the life of women—has been transformed, and with it the structure of the family. What has already happened in Europe, the United States, and Japan is spreading to the rest of the world. These issues will rip many societies apart, but in the end, the transformation of the family can’t be stopped.

This is not to say that transformation is inherently a good idea or a bad one. Instead, this trend is unstoppable because the demographic realities of the world are being transformed. The single most important demographic change in the world right now is the dramatic decline everywhere in birth­ rates. Let me repeat that: the most meaningful statistic in the world is an overall decline in birthrates. Women are having fewer and fewer children every year. That means not only that the population explosion of the last two centuries is coming to an end but also that women are spending much less time bearing and nurturing children, even as their life expectancy has soared.

This seems like a simple fact, and in a way it is, but what I want to show you is the way in which something so mundane can lead to groups like al Qaeda, why there will be more such groups, and why they can’t win. It also will illustrate why the European Age, which was built on a perpetually ex­panding population (whether through conquering other people or having more babies), is being replaced by the American Age—a country in which living with underpopulation has always been the norm. Let’s begin with the end of the population explosion.

It has been generally accepted in recent decades that the globe was facing a severe population explosion. Uncontrolled population growth would out­ strip scarce resources and devastate the environment. More people would require more resources in the form of food, energy, and goods, which in turn would lead to a rise in global warming and other ecological catastro­phes. There was no disagreement on the basic premise that population was growing.

This model no longer holds true, however. We already see a change tak­ing place in advanced industrial countries. People are living longer, and be­ cause of declining birthrates there are fewer younger workers to support the vast increase in retirees. Europe and Japan are experiencing this problem al­ready. But an aging population is only the tip of the iceberg, the first prob­lem presented by the coming population bust.

People assume that while population growth might be slowing down in Europe, the world’s total population will continue to spiral out of control because of high birthrates in less developed countries. In fact, the opposite is true. Birthrates are plunging everywhere. The advanced industrial countries are on the cutting edge of the decline, but the rest of the world is following right behind them. And this demographic shift will help shape the twenty­ first century.

Some of the most important, advanced countries in the world, like Ger­many and Russia, are going to lose large percentages of their population. Europe’s population today, taken as a whole, is 728 million people. The United Nations forecasts that by 2050 it will drop to between 557 and 653 million, a remarkable decline. The lower number assumes that women will average 1.6 children each. The second number assumes 2.1 children. In Eu­rope today, the fertility rate per woman is 1.4 children. This is why we will be focusing on the lower projections going forward.

Traditionally, declining population has meant declining power. For Eu rope, this will indeed be the case. But for other countries, like the United States, maintaining population levels or finding technological ways to aug­ment a declining population will be essential if political power is to be re­tained in the next hundred years.

An assertion this extreme has to be supported, so we must pause and drill into the numbers a bit before we consider the consequences. This is a pivotal event in human history and we need to understand why it’s hap­pening.

Let’s start simply. Between about 1750 and 1950, the world’s population grew from about one billion people to about three billion. Between 1950 and 2000, it doubled, from three billion to six billion. Not only was the popula­ tion of the world growing, but the growth was accelerating at an amazing rate. If that trajectory had continued, the result would have been global ca­tastrophe.

But the growth rate has not accelerated. It has actually slowed down dra­matically. According to the United Nations, between 2000 and 2050 the population will continue to grow, but only by about 50 percent, halving the growth rate of the previous fifty years. In the second half of the century, it becomes more interesting. Again, the population will continue to grow, but only by 10 percent statistically, according to other forecasters. This is like slamming on the brakes. In fact, some forecasts (not by the UN) have indi­cated that the total human population will decline by 2100.

The most dramatic effect will be seen in the advanced industrial coun­tries, many of which will experience remarkable declines in population. The middle tier of countries, like Brazil and South Korea, will see their popula­tions stabilize by mid-century and slowly decline by 2100. Only in the least developed part of the world, in countries like Congo and Bangladesh, will populations continue to increase until 2100, but not by nearly as much as over the past hundred years. Any way you look at it, the population explo­sion is ending.

Let’s examine a critical number: 2.1. This is the number of children that each woman must have, on average, in order to maintain a generally stable world population. Anything above that number and the popula­tion grows; anything below, the population declines, all other things be­ing equal. According to the United Nations, women had an average of 4.5 children in 1970. In 2000, that number had dropped to 2.7 children. Remember, this is a worldwide average. That is a dramatic drop and ex­plains why the population continued to grow, but more slowly than be­fore.

The United Nations forecasts that in 2050, the global fertility rate will decline to an average of 2.05 births per woman. That is just below the 2.1 needed for a stable world population. The UN has another forecast, based on different assumptions, where the rate is 1.6 babies per woman. So the United Nations, which has the best data available, is predicting that by the year 2050, population growth will be either stable or declining dramatically. I believe the latter is closer to the truth.

The situation is even more interesting if we look at the developed re­gions of the world, the forty-four most advanced countries. In these coun­tries women are currently having an average of 1.6 babies each, which means that populations are already contracting. Birthrates in the middle tier of countries are down to 2.9 and falling. Even the least developed countries are down from 6.6 children per mother to 5.0 today, and expected to drop to 3.0 by 2050. There is no doubt that birthrates are plunging. The ques­tion is why. The answer can be traced to the reasons that the population explosion occurred in the first place; in a certain sense, the population ex­plosion halted itself.

There were two clear causes for the population explosion that were equally significant. First, there was a decline in infant mortality; second there was an increase in life expectancies. Both were the result of modern medicine, the availability of more food, and the introduction of basic pub­lic health that began in the late eighteenth century.

There are no really good statistics on fertility rates in 1800, but the best estimates fall between 6.5 and 8.0 children per woman on average. Women in Europe in 1800 were having the same number of babies as women in Bangladesh are having today, yet the population wasn’t growing. Most chil­dren born in 1800 didn’t live long enough to reproduce. Since the 2.1 rule still held, out of eight children born, six died before puberty.

Medicine, food, and hygiene dramatically reduced the number of infant and childhood deaths, until by late in the nineteenth century, most children survived to have their own children. Even though infant mortality declined, family patterns did not shift. People were having the same number of babies as before.

It’s not hard to understand why. First, let’s face the fact that people like to have sex, and sex without birth control makes babies—and there was no birth control at the time. But people didn’t mind having a lot of children because children had become the basis of wealth. In an agricultural society, every pair of hands produces wealth; you don’t have to be able to read or program computers to weed, seed, or harvest. Children were also the basis for retirement, if someone lived long enough to have an old age. There was no Social Security, but you counted on your children to take care of you. Part of this was custom, but part of it was rational economic thinking. A fa­ther owned land or had the right to farm it. His child needed to have access to the land to live, so the father could dictate policy.

As children brought families prosperity and retirement income, the ma­jor responsibility of women was to produce as many children as possible. If women had children, and if they both survived childbirth, the family as a whole was better off. This was a matter of luck, but it was a chance worth taking from the standpoint of both families and the men who dominated them. Between lust and greed, there was little reason not to bring more chil­dren into the world.

Habits are hard to change. When families began moving into cities en masse, children were still valuable assets. Parents could send them to work in primitive factories at the age of six and collect their pay. In early indus­trial society factory workers didn’t need many more skills than farm laborers did. But as factories became more complex, they had less use for six-year­ olds. Soon they needed somewhat educated workers. Later they needed managers with MBAs.

As the sophistication of industry advanced, the economic value of chil­dren declined. In order to continue being economically useful, children had to go to school to learn. Rather than adding to family income, they con­sumed family income. Children had to be clothed, fed, and sheltered, and over time the amount of education they needed increased dramatically, un­til today many “children” go to school until their mid-twenties and still have not earned a dime. According to the United Nations, the average number of years of schooling in the leading twenty-five countries in the world ranges from fifteen to seventeen.

The tendency to have as many babies as possible continued into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Many of our grandparents or great-grandparents come from families that had ten children. A couple of generations before, you’d be lucky if three out of ten children survived. Now they were almost all surviving. However, in the economy of 1900, they could all head out and find work by the time they reached puberty. And that’s what most of them did.

Ten children in eighteenth-century France might have been a godsend. Ten children in late-nineteenth-century France might have been a burden. Ten children in late-twentieth-century France would be a catastrophe. It took a while for reality to sink in, but eventually it became clear that most children wouldn’t die and that children were extremely expensive to raise. Therefore, people started having a lot fewer children, and had those children more for the pleasure of having them than for economic benefits. Medical advances such as birth control helped achieve this, but the sheer cost of having and raising children drove the decline in birthrates. Children went from being producers of wealth to the most conspicuous form of consumption. Parents began satisfying their need for nurturing with one child, rather than ten.

Now let’s consider life expectancy. After all, the longer people live, the more people there will be at any given time. Life expectancy surged at the same time that infant mortality declined. In 1800, estimated life expectancy in Europe and the United States was about forty years. In 2000 it was close to eighty years. Life expectancy has, in effect, doubled over the last two hun­ dred years.

Continued growth in life expectancy is probable, but very few people anticipate another doubling. In the advanced industrial world, the UN projects a growth from seventy-six years in 2000 to eighty-two years in 2050. In the poorest countries it will increase from fifty-one to sixty-six. While this is growth, it is not geometric growth and it, too, is tapering off. This will also help reduce population growth.

The reduction process that took place decades ago in the advanced in­dustrial world is now under way in the least developed countries. Having ten children in São Paolo is the surest path to economic suicide. It may take several generations to break the habit, but it will be broken. And it won’t re­turn while the process of educating a child for the modern workforce con­tinues to become longer and costlier. Between declining birthrates and slowing increases in life expectancy, population growth has to end.


What does all this have to do with international power in the twenty-first century? The population bust affects all nations, as we will see in later chap­ters. But it also affects the life cycles of people within these nations. Lower populations affect everything from the number of troops that can fight in a war to how many people there are in the workforce to internal political conflicts. The process we are talking about will affect more than just the number of people in a country. It will change how those people live, and therefore how those countries behave.

Let’s start with three core facts. Life expectancy is moving toward a high of eighty years in the advanced industrial world; the number of children women have is declining; and it takes longer and longer to become edu­cated. A college education is now considered the minimum for social and economic success in advanced countries. Most people graduate from college at twenty-two. Add in law or graduate school, and people are not entering the workforce until their mid-twenties. Not everyone follows this pattern, of course, but a sizable portion of the population does and that portion in­cludes most of those who will be part of the political and economic leader­ship of these countries.

As a result, marriage patterns have shifted dramatically. People are put­ting off marriage longer and are having children even later. Let’s consider the effect on women. Two hundred years ago, women started having chil­dren in their early teens. Women continued having children, nurturing them, and frequently burying them until they themselves died. This was necessary for the family’s well-being and that of society. Having and raising children was what women did for most of their lives.

In the twenty-first century this whole pattern changes. Assuming that a woman reaches puberty at age thirteen and enters menopause at age fifty, she will live twice as long as her ancestors and will for over half her life be in­capable of reproduction. Let’s assume a woman has two children. She will spend eighteen months being pregnant, which is roughly 2 percent of her life. Now assume a fairly common pattern, which is that the woman will have these two children three years apart, that each child enters school at the age of five, and that the woman returns to work outside the home when the oldest starts school.

The total time the woman is engaged in reproduction and full-time nur­turing is eight years of her life. Given a life expectancy of eighty years, the amount of time exclusively devoted to having and raising children will be reduced to an astounding 10 percent of her life. Childbearing is reduced from a woman’s primary activity to one activity among many. Add to this analysis the fact that many women have only one child, and that many use day care and other mass nurturing facilities for their children well before the age of five, and the entire structure of a woman’s life is transformed.

We can see the demographic roots of feminism right here. Since women spend less of their time having and nurturing children, they are much less dependent on men than even fifty years ago. For a woman to reproduce without a husband would have created economic disaster for her in the past. This is no longer the case, particularly for better-educated women. Marriage is no longer imposed by economic necessity.

This brings us to a place where marriages are not held together by need as much as by love. The problem with love is that it can be fickle. It comes and goes. If people stay married only for emotional reasons, there will in­evitably be more divorce. The decline of economic necessity removes a pow­erful stabilizing force in marriage. Love may endure, and frequently does, but by itself it is less powerful than when linked to economic necessity.

Marriages used to be guaranteed “till death do us part.” In the past, that parting was early and frequent. There were a great many fifty-year marriages during the transition period when people were having ten surviving children. But prior to that, marriages ended early through death, and the sur­vivor remarried or faced economic ruin. Europe practiced what we might call serial polygamy, in which widowers (usually, since women tended to die in childbirth) remarried numerous times throughout their lives. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, habit kept marriages together for extraordinarily long periods of time. A new pattern emerged in the later twentieth century, however, in which serial polygamy reasserted itself, but this time the trend was being driven by divorce rather than death.

Let’s add another pattern to this. Whereas many marriages used to take place when one or both partners were in their early teens, people are now marrying in their late twenties and early thirties. It was typical for men and women to remain sexually inactive until marriage at age fourteen, but today it is, shall we say, unrealistic to expect someone marrying at age thirty to re­ main a virgin. People would be living seventeen years after puberty without sexual activity. That’s not going to happen.

There is now a period built into life patterns where people are going to be sexually active but not yet able to support themselves financially. There is also a period in which they can support themselves and are sexually active, but choose not to reproduce. The entire pattern of traditional life is collaps­ing, and no clear alternative patterns are emerging yet. Cohabitation used to be linked to formal, legal marriage, but the two are now completely decou­pled. Even reproduction is being uncoupled from marriage, and perhaps even from cohabitation. Longer life, the decline in fertility rates, and the additional years of education have all contributed to the dissolution of pre­vious life and social patterns.

This trend cannot be reversed. Women are having fewer children be­ cause supporting a lot of children in industrial, urban society is economic suicide. That won’t change. The cost of raising children will not decline, nor will there be ways found to put six-year-olds to work. The rate of infant mortality is also not going to rise. So in the twenty-first century the trend toward having fewer, rather than more, children will continue.


The more educated segments of the population are the ones where life pat­terns have diverged the most. The very poorest, on the other hand, have lived in a world of dysfunctional families since the industrial revolution be­gan. For them, chaotic patterns of reproduction have always been the norm. However, between the college-educated professional and business classes on the one side and the underclass on the other, there is a large layer of society that has only partially experienced the demographic shifts.

Among blue- and pink-collar workers there have been other trends, the most important of which is that they have shorter educations. The result is less of a gap between puberty and reproduction. These groups tend to marry earlier and have children earlier. They are far more dependent on each other economically, and it follows that the financial consequences of divorce can be far more damaging. There are nonemotional elements holding their mar­riages together, and divorce is seen as more consequential, as are extramari­tal and premarital sex.

This group comprises many social conservatives, a small but powerful social cohort. They are powerful because they speak for traditional values. The chaos of the more highly educated classes can’t be called values yet; it will be a century before their lifestyles congeal into a coherent moral system. Therefore social conservatives have an inherent advantage, speaking coher­ently from the authoritative position of tradition.

However, as we have seen, traditional distinctions between men and women are collapsing. As women live longer and have fewer children, they no longer are forced by circumstance into the traditional roles they had to maintain prior to urbanization and industrialization. Nor is family the crit­ ical economic instrument it once was. Divorce is no longer economically cat­astrophic, and premarital sex is inevitable. Homosexuality—and civil unions without reproduction—also becomes unextraordinary. If sentiment is the basis of marriage, then why indeed is gay marriage not as valid as heterosex­ ual marriage? If marriage is decoupled from reproduction, then gay mar­riage logically follows. All these changes are derived from the radical shifts in life patterns that are part of the end of the population explosion.

It is no accident, therefore, that traditionalists within all religious groups— Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and others—have focused on returning to tradi­tional patterns of reproduction. They all argue for, and many have, large fam­ilies. Maintaining traditional roles for women in this context makes sense, as do traditional expectations of early marriage, chastity, and the permanence of marriage. The key is having more children, which is a traditionalist principle. Everything else follows.

The issue is not only cropping up in advanced industrial societies. One of the foundations of anti-Americanism, for example, is the argument that American society breeds immorality, that it celebrates immodesty among women and destroys the family. If you read the speeches of Osama bin Laden, this theme is repeated continually. The world is changing and, he argues, we are moving away from patterns of behavior that have traditionally been re­garded as moral. He wants to stop this process.

These issues have become a global battleground as well as an internal po­litical maelstrom in most advanced industrial countries, particularly the United States. On one side there is a structured set of political forces that have their roots in existing religious organizations. On the other side, there is less a political force than an overwhelming pattern of behavior that is in­different to the political consequences of the actions that are being taken. This pattern of behavior is driven by demographic necessity. Certainly there are movements defending various aspects of this evolution, like gay rights, but the transformation is not being planned. It is simply happening.


Let’s look at this from another perspective, that of technology. As the Amer­ ican Age opens, the United States has a vested interest in the destruction of traditional social patterns, which creates a certain amount of instability and gives the United States maximum room to maneuver. American culture is an uneasy melding of the Bible and the computer, of traditional values and radical innovation. But along with demography, it is the computer that is reshaping American culture and is the real foundation of American cultural hegemony. This will become extraordinarily important in the next hundred years.

The computer represents both a radical departure from previous technol­ogy and a new way of looking at reason. The purpose of a computer is the manipulation of quantitative data, that is, numbers. As a machine that manipulates data, it is a unique technology. But since it reduces all information— music, film, and the written word—to a number, it is also a unique way of looking at reason.

The computer is based on binary logic. This simply means that it reads electrical charges, which are either negative or positive and are treated as a 0 or a 1. It uses a string of these binary numbers to represent things we think of as being very simple. So the capital letter A is represented as 01000001.

The small letter a is 01100001. These strings of numbers are reorganized into machine language that in turn is managed by computer code written in any of a number of languages, from Basic to C++ to Java.

If that seems complex, then simply remember this: To a computer, every­thing is a number, from a letter on a screen to a bit of music. Everything is reduced to zeros and ones. In order to manage computers, completely artifi­cial languages have been created. The purpose of those languages is getting the computer to use the data it has been given.

But the computer can only manage things that can be expressed in bi­nary code. It can play music, but it cannot write it (not well at least), or ex­plain its beauty. It can store poetry but cannot explain its meaning. It can allow you to search every book imaginable, yet it cannot distinguish be­tween good and bad grammar, at least not well. It is superb at what it can do, but it excludes a great deal of what the human mind is capable of doing. It is a tool.

It is a powerful and seductive tool. Yet it operates using a logic that lacks other, more complex, elements of reason. The computer focuses ruthlessly on things that can be represented in numbers. By doing so, it also seduces people into thinking that other aspects of knowledge are either unreal or unimportant. The computer treats reason as an instrument for achieving things, not for contemplating things. It narrows dramatically what we mean and intend by reason. But within that narrow realm, the computer can do extraordinary things.

Anyone who has learned a programming language understands its logi­cal rigor, and its artificiality. It doesn’t in the least resemble natural language. In fact, it is the antithesis of natural language. The latter is filled with sub­tlety, nuance, and complex meaning determined by context and inference. The logical tool must exclude all of these things, as the binary logic of com­puting is incapable of dealing with them.

American culture preceded American computing. The philosophical concept of pragmatism was built around statements such as this by Charles Peirce, a founder of pragmatism: “In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the con­ception.” In other words, the significance of an idea is in its practical conse­quences. An idea without practical consequences, it follows, lacks meaning. The entire notion of contemplative reason as an end in itself is excluded.

American pragmatism was an attack on European metaphysics on the grounds of impracticality. American culture was obsessed with the practical and contemptuous of the metaphysical. The computer and computer lan­guage are the perfect manifestations of the pragmatic notion of reason. Every line of code must have a practical consequence. Functionality is the only standard. That a line of code could be appreciated not for its use but for its intrinsic beauty is inconceivable.

The idea of pragmatism, as it has evolved into languages like C++, is a radical simplification and contraction of the sphere of reason. Reason now deals only with some things, all of which are measured by their practical consequences. Everything that lacks practical consequence is excluded from the sphere of reason and sent to another, inferior sphere. In other words, American culture does not deal easily with the true and beautiful. It values getting things done and not worrying too much about why whatever thing you are doing is important.

This gives American culture its central truth and its enormous drive. The charge against American culture is that it has elevated the practical be­yond all other forms of truth. The charge is valid, but it also fails to appre­ciate the power of that reduction. It is in the practical that history is made.

If we look for the essence of American culture, it is not only in pragma­tism as a philosophy but also in the computer as the embodiment of prag­matism. Nothing exemplifies American culture more than the computer, and nothing has transformed the world faster and more thoroughly than its advent. The computer, far more than the car or Coca-Cola, represents the unique manifestation of the American concept of reason and reality.

Computing culture is also, by definition, barbaric. The essence of bar­barism is the reduction of culture to a simple, driving force that will tolerate no diversion or competition. The way the computer is designed, the manner in which it is programmed, and the way it has evolved represent a powerful, reductionist force. It constitutes not reason contemplating its complexity, but reason reducing itself to its simplest expression and justifying itself through practical achievement.

Pragmatism, computers, and Microsoft (or any other American corpora­ tion) are ruthlessly focused, utterly instrumental, and highly effective. The fragmentation of American culture is real, but it is slowly resolving itself into the barbarism of the computer and the instrument that ultimately uses and shapes the computer, the corporation. Corporations are an American adaptation of a European concept. In its American form it turns into a way of life. Corporations are as fragmented as the rest of American culture. But in their diversity, they express the same self-certainty as any American ideology.


The United States is socially imitated and politically condemned. It sits on the ideological fault line of the international system. As populations decline due to shifts in reproductive patterns, the United States becomes the center for radically redefined modes of social life. You can’t have a modern econ­omy without computers and corporations, and if you are going to program computers, you need to know English, the language of computing. On one hand, those who want to resist this trend must actively avoid the American model of life and thought. On the other hand, those who don’t adopt Amer­ica’s ways can’t have a modern economy. This is what gives America its strength and continually frustrates its critics. Falling populations are re­ structuring the pattern of families and daily lives. Computers are trans­forming, simplifying, and focusing the way people think. Corporations are constantly reorganizing the way we work. Between these three factors, love, reason, and daily life are being transformed, and through that trans­formation American power is growing.

Old institutions have shattered, but new ones have not yet emerged. The twenty-first century will be a period in which a range of new institutions, moral systems, and practices will begin their first tentative emergence. The first half of the twenty-first century will be marked by intense social conflict globally. All of this frames the international struggles of the twenty-first cen­tury.

Realpolitik of recent times

Source: certain politically incorrect websites.

I’ve acted, in some capacity, as a political advisor for a certain think tank and some local analyst by proxy. While I haven’t got access to privileged information, I have some connections to piece information back together lye been most impressed with the ability of you guys to piece things together and was surprised to see you dig as far as you have.

What I’m going to say is going to sound like an intro to a new Metal Gear Solid game, but whatever, let’s get it rolling.

Part 1: The cold war is back:

Now some of you might be from /pol/ so you’ll be immediately familiar with what I have to say but, for completeness I’ll introduce you to the reasons why the cold war is back with a vengeance. It all began back in 2006, when the SCO acted to attack the US dollar due to the failed attempt by the US to implement the “New Middle East” plan via the war on Lebanon [1][2]. At this point, should the US have done nothing else, it would have faced a certain run on its currency. The neo-cons under Bush/Cheney then plotted the Georgian war, which was meant to put Russia face-to-face with NATO in Georgia. This plan blew up in their face the moment Russians threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons in Georgia should NATO remain in their positions. The planners hoped that, with Putin in China for the olympics, Russia will let the Georgian attack on S. Ossetia slide. They didn’t and we all know what happened next.

What isn’t widely advertised is that NATO, effectively, struck back, flooding the black sea with vessels, essentially cutting off Russia’s Crimean port from safe access to the Mediterranean. That’s when a certain character who was probably unknown to you at the time stepped in: Bashar Assad opened the Tartous port [3] to the black sea fleet, effectively burning NATO’s card as the Russian fleet can safely amass in the Mediterranean sea. After this series of failures, confidence in US geostrategy collapsed and with it, confidence in the US dollar/US stock market collapsed as well. We all know what happened in September and with that, the neocon team was officially out the door.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2006/07/there_are_worse_things_than_the_status_quo.html
[2] http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/9005
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/08/syria.russia

Part 2 continued: Enter Obama

While the neocons screwed up on the international scene, the establishment had been busy brewing up plan B months earlier. It was a hot race between Obama and Clinton, with the latter strangely holding on to the race despite the guaranteed defeat she faced. At the time, Clinton had hinted that she was sticking in the race “just in case” something were to happen to Obama. Some strong indications that sabotage may have been on the table, but 2 days after an alleged power broker meeting at the Bilderberg 2008, Hillary pulled out [4].

Obama himself ran a social media campaign in order to appear to be a “grass roots” contender. Many die hard Obama fans believe they still “own” whatever he does or decides which is why they can never fault his actions. At the time, the establishment was fixated on social media as it seemed to be a far easier way to sway people than the traditional media that had lost credibility thanks to the war on Iraq. Trying their luck, a crude attempt was made to create a civil war in Iran back in 2009 via the “Green revolution” [5], but this failed thanks to Iran’s internet censorship apparatus. But it was an important event to note and a learning experience. At the time, the Russians were wooed into a cosier relationship with the US with the new face of Obama in power and agreed to a “reset” in relations [6]. It was important to keep Russia hanging for the next part, knowing that the SCO will continue to undermine the US dollar.

During 2009 and 2010, Obama campaigned around the middle east garnering a lot of support from radical Muslims. These muslims were convinced that Obama was some kind of secret Muslim (he isn’t) and he gained the US gained the trust and support of the Muslim brotherhood. These relations persist until today [7]. This is an important point for the next part.

[4] http://rt.com/news/bilderberg-power-us-obama-932/
[5] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/evaluating-irans-twitter-revolution/58337/
[6] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/07/barack-obama-russia-moscow-speech
[7] http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/12/21/here-are-the-criminal-charges-egypt-is-pursuing-against-hillary-and-obama/

Part 3: Pride comes before the fall

By the end of 2009 and the start of 2010, the SCO was sure of their imminent victory. With “gold bug” rumors all around and the US dollar and economy rapidly declining, they asked for all kinds of concessions behind closed doors. They pressed the US to give Russia and China more say in the operation of the World Bank, IMF and the UNSC. This was all the while China expanded projects in North Africa in Sudan and Libya. Libya was acting as a donor state to other African countries at the time, due to Ghaddafi’s “African Union” (and later “gold dinar”) strategy. The US was not budging.

Convinced they had the US in a bind and that the US under Obama could not act in an aggressive way on the international scene, an expanded loose alliance under the name of BRICS met to discuss a “gold backed currency” for international settlements [8]. This currency was essentially a means of undermining the US dollar as a stable reference used to sign off on pricing agreements between nations, mainly on supplies of energy which are signed over many years. The US dollar is one of the most important assets available to the US, besides the military, so this would have delivered a death blow to the US’s ability to project power around the world and specifically, around the SCO.

Calm as ever, US diplomats refused to give much attention to the flashy moves made by Russia and China. The Chinese are brilliant at martial arts, the Russians are geniuses when it comes to chess, but when it comes to poker, you just can’t beat a pokerfaced cowboy with crude logic or physical strength. The enemies of the US were prematurely celebrating their victory while the US was readying itself to deliver the coup de grace.

[8] http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/09/currency-reserve-bric-intelligent-investing-dollar.html

Part 4: Social media: A weapon of mass disruption

Having learnt from the failed Green revolution in Iran, a much lower revolt was brewed on social media, one that only North Africans paid close attention to: The Tunisian revolution. At the face of it, this one made no sense. Unlike in Iran, the ruling party in Tunisia (at the time) had strong connections to the US and there was no logical reason for the US to want it out of power. But this isn’t about logic but emotions, specifically, the emotions of the Arab population and the decision making process of rulers around the world. The leaked US Embassy cables were extremely embarrassing to the Tunisian government as it detailed US-Tunisian anti-terrorism cooperation that many in the mostly banned Muslim Brotherhood off-shoots (such as AQIM) saw as treachery. Whether it was decided to deliberately leak these cables or not cannot be proven. What is undeniable is that they lit the fire [9] that started the Arab Spring, in 2010.

By the middle of January, 2011, the ruling party in Tunisia collapsed under waves of mostly Islamist and useful idiots helping them. Days later, long-time US and Israeli Egyptian ally Mubarak came under a similar but far more coordinated social media attack. Congregating around accounts such as j-n25voic-s(*) and others, the twitter and Facebook spheres encouraged mass-demonstrations in Cairo and other cities. The Egyptian government pulled the plug on the internet, but this backfired thanks to a kind of Streisand effect where an act of mass-censorship only makes a public revolt worse. The whole world was watching Al Jazeera and similar channels and celebrated when Mubarak stepped down after Obama asked him to.

Russia and China did not understand how to read this move, they assumed the US was attempting to re-stablise allied nations. Iran was ecstatic, knowing that an Islamist government will inevitably come into power now that the military run government had collapsed under the wave of popular revolt. Knowing that Egypt was a long-time US ally, they concluded that the social media attack against the Egyptian government was grass root based. This couldn’t be further from the truth and underestimating US-planning would cost all these states dearly. The Muslim Brotherhood was now aligned with the US and was simply carrying out the original plans in 2006, that started the coordinated attack against the US dollar.

In February 17th, simultaneous “Days of rage” were announced in Syria and Libya. The Syrian “day of rage” fizzled out thanks to (then) strong security apparatus that monitored the internet and preempted all security breaches. Libya was a different matter. It almost immediately escalated to an armed conflict where the army had split. The US and France brought a “humanitarian” proposal to the UNSC to enforce a no-fly zone on Libya that Russia and China defacto-accepted. France immediately broke the terms of the resolution to attack the Libyan army on the ground and destroy its infrastructure. Barely sobering up from its celebrations, China left North Africa with its tail behinds its legs [10]. Its Russian friends let it down by abstaining and not putting any pressure on France. It was in fact, in Russia’s interest to allow China to take the fall here as it would force it to align more strongly with China. But Russia didn’t have long to laugh, as it would meet its fate soon too.

Reorganizing the social media campaign and subtly arming the “protestors” [11], the civil war in Syria was restarted with a massive social media campaign in March 15th. This delay, from February 17th until March 15th, gave Syria enough time to study the dynamics of the situation. The government there concluded that censoring the internet would backfire as it did in Libya and Egypt. They concluded the only way to keep things under control was to monitor the internet and use any means to deanonymize [12] it to work out the ring leaders of the revolt and those who communicate with foreign agents. This is a very important point for what comes next so keep it in mind.

We could go on with the details of the Arab Spring, but let’s zoom past that and just come to the conclusion that matters to us today.

While things look bad in Syria now, no one can deny that the government is still in firm control of the majority of populated areas with Islamists holding on to mostly outlying desert areas and government aligned forces gradually closing in. The Egyptian military ejected the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt using a counter-social media campaign that was extremely successful [13]. Russia immediately moved back in to make up with the Egyptian military who felt betrayed by the US.

Though the US was much better shape than it was in 2006, Russia and China could still recover from the Arab Spring and could still take down the US dollar. This is when things started escalating seriously.

[9] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/28/tunisia-ben-ali
[10] http://thediplomat.com/2011/03/chinas-nimble-libya-pullout/
[11] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/us-syria-iraq-idUSTRE72A3MI20110311
[12] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/06/syria_fake_certificate_facebook_attack/
[13] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275677/Cradle-Arab-Spring-goes-flames-protesters-bomb-Egyptian-presidential-palace-youths-torch-cars-funeral-Tunisian-leader.html

Part 5: Escalation

By the end of 2012, things were going south for Obama’s administration. Facing an election and various controversies such as the Benghazi scandal (which was simply Fast and Furious 2: Middle East and North Africa edition), they had to drop Clinton and give her time to lick her political-wounds. The Muslim Brotherhood connections were widely exposed by the republican party (who indeed had their own connection to terrorist groups in the middle east [14]).

By March 2013, the war in Syria had been turned around and the Muslim brotherhood was losing badly. To cut a long story short, a chemical weapon attack was faked and the US attempted to enter the war directly in September. The US population was completely against it and due to behind closed doors promises of action by Russia towards Europe (specifically the UK), the US administration was isolated. The social media mechanisations that were used to launch the Arab Spring were long discredited in the eyes of those spreading information and Obama/Kerry were not able to convince the masses of their narrative. An attempt was made to launch kinetic strikes against Syria [15], but according to my information these were apparently shot down by a Russia sea-borne missile defense system in port in Syria. It doesn’t matter what actually happened, but in the end, the US had to concede to Russia, who offered a way out of the mess of Obama’s creation: cross-concession. The US agrees to stop funding the Muslim brotherhood in Syria and refrain from threats to the Syrian military which weakens their readiness against local battles and Syria hands over its chemical weapons. This was aligned with US regional objectives, so it was an offer Obama couldn’t refuse.

Plan C was then set into motion: the Ukraine scenario. Failing to force the Russian black sea fleet out of its Tartous port, the plan was set into motion to force it out of the black sea itself, rendering it worthless as Tartous was a small port and wasn’t connected directly to Russian military industry. Using social media again and long harboured misgivings in Ukraine, the US state department launched a $5 billion campaign to take down the neutral regime in Ukraine and replace it with a US-aligned regime. Before this could happen, the Russians leaked [17] out damning phone calls detailing plans in Ukraine. Though the establishment media made a good attempt at suppressing the leak, these made big tractions in social media and they had no choice but to report on them. The coup was delayed to cope with the narrative fallout, but happened a few days later. Russia overestimated the importance of the narrative, but the US noted how disruptive the leak was to its time table. The EU and US were euphoric, without Ukraine, Russia could never be a strong power according to Brzezinski[18].

Russia was then forced to act in a manner that would destroy its public relations. Russian troops stationed in Crimea, aided by special forces that infiltrated all government sectors with the support of most of the local population, took over Crimea without firing a single bullet. Though not ideal, this was just the incident needed by the US to turn around the “good faith” among people Russia had been brewing on the internet for years.

[14] http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/09/25/how-john-mccain-wound-up-canoodling-with-terrorists/
[15] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6ysvC83B-A
[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY
[17] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk
[18] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-eurasian-chessboard-brzezinski-mapped-out-the-battle-for-ukraine-in-1997/5373707

Part 6: BACKGROUND: Preparing the narrative

During the preparation for strikes on Syria, the US government repealed a long held law to avoid local propaganda [19]. It’s important to note, the law is only for propaganda directed at Americans rather than propaganda for foreigners. While this law was only for state funded media, the evidence of top-down control by the White house and attorney governor at the very least, is out in the open [20]. But despite this, the government knew the majority of people distrust mass media [21]. The internet posed a difficult problem, should an extremely unpopular action be used to catalyse civil strife.

Both the Arab Spring and the coup in Ukraine utilised a powerful weapon, social media. When one creates a weapon, they’re usually also working on its counter. A year after the attempted coup in Iran, an attempt was made by Joe Lieberman and other senators to introduce an “internet kill switch” [22]. Various excuses were made for the proposal, but the only reasonable one is fear of a nation-wide revolt. But the plan was flawed as was seen in the Arab Spring.

The Tunisia government enacted an crude form of an internet kill switch and the government fell. Egypt’s government enacted a more robust kill switch, and it also fell. The only state that avoided using an internet kill switch was Syria and the government is still in power. It was clear that simply jamming a signal would not calm people down and bring them back home, certainly not in the US where people are largely sedated through internet-borne entertainment. Needless to say, the internet kill switch plan was shelved, something more subtle was required.

[19] http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/
[20] http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/21/white-house-justice-sought-stop-attkissons-reporting-fast-furious-scandal-documents-reveal/
[21] http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/09/gallup-60-dont-trust-mass-media/
[22] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/internet-kill-switch-woul_n_615923.html

Part 7: Censorship mechanisation

Months before the fake chemical weapons attack in Syria, an important event occured that most geopolitical analysts misinterpreted: The Snowden surveillance leaks. Those concerned with foreign policy said that Snowden, being originally a CIA agent [23], was still working for them and was attempting to brew bad relations with either Russia or China where he originally escaped to. This theory is patently false, the leaks were far heavier and had a much larger shift in public perception than relatively simple and lower classification embassy cable leak. The Snowden leaks were all TOP SECRET and hugely damaging to the NSA and SIGINT organizations around the world. As an important aside, it had no effect on HUMINT organizations such as the CIA, that have different, more tradational and arguably more reliable means of collecting information and ensuring OPSEC.

Those concerned with domestic policy were too busy reacting to the leaks with disdain to really understand the purpose behind them. The information that was leaked detailed the general idea behind decrypting secure communication, splicing undersea cables and mass surveillance. But it did not really go into the specifics, something that foreign governments and terrorists would definitely benefit from. Whether Snowden deliberately leaked only these details as a ruse, or only had access to these details that he syphoned off the NSA is unknown, what matters though is how the leaks affected the population’s behavior. To be specific: the chilling effect it caused. Knowing you are constantly monitored changes the way you behave. It force you to restrict the topics they are willing discuss. You should know this well, as the social justice warrior’s weapon of choice is doxxing. Exposing people’s true identity brings all the consequences of their institutional and employment mechanisations from online discourse into the real world.

As the on-going disclosures by the corrupt [24] Guardian newspaper star Glenn Greenwald reveal more and more about mass surveillance, there is one certain outcome: normalization. People have now largely accepted the surveillance and a few more intelligent people have moved on to encrypted communication. But conversing with each other is useless when we want to get a word out! What’s really required is anonymity in social media. This is the element that allows a revolt to take place, whether against game journalism or a suddenly unpopular ruling regime. Anonymity is currently required to go against a narrative when your very livelihood (i.e employment… for now) is threatened by the easily offended. Facebook took things one step further [25] and added an algorithm where stories that are marked as “fake” are suppressed in a feed, not completely censored. This avoids bringing attention to an act of censorship and side steps the Streisand effect.

As far as mechanisations go, the UK is in the lead with the prime minister labelling what he calls “conspiracy theorists” as “non-violent extremists” [26]. Cameron is about to propose a new law to effectively ban online anonymity and privacy by banning point to point encryption [27]. This won’t fly in the US, so Obama is proposing the same thing in a different way, “encouraging” businesses to essentially hand over private encryption keys allowing the US government to execute targeted man-in-the-middle attacks and effectively decrypt all traffic.

But why are the leading figures of the US establishment fearing some sort of revolt? [29] Things aren’t great at the moment, but there’s nothing really pushing people to move against the ruling oligarchy. This is where things get dark and the background to all of this begins to make sense.

[23] http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/
[24] http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/
[25] http://time.com/3675115/facebook-fake-news/
[26] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCSxVpwW-0o
[27] http://www.businessinsider.com.au/david-cameron-encryption-apple-pgp-2015-1
[28] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/25/cybersecurity-information-sharing-bill/22229049/
[29] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/davos-income-inequality_n_6546728.html

Part 8: BACKGROUND: Missiles of the patriots

If you’ve noticed a recurring pattern so far, every plan that has been put forward has actually failed to achieve its objective, but there has always been a contingency plan running in parallel that catches up and continues. This is the normal way a learned strategist works and though it’s a slow and delicate process, no state can afford to work in a straight line. The US is in total diplomatic and economic war with Russia, and Russia is losing military and diplomatic clout daily, its latest loss in Cuba. Cuba and other traditional allies of Russia such as Belarus are not satisfied with its performance in the middle east and are judging Russia by its ability to protect its own interests there. After all, if it fails to do so, what’s the chance of it protecting them should the US turn its attention on them and utilise fourth generational warfare against them as in the Arab Spring [30]?

This is true for BRICS as well, their plan to effectively bankrupt the US is on-going and involves hoarding precious metals by closing energy trade using them. Russia and China have accumulated huge amounts of precious metals in the past few months and the rate is accelerating after deals made between Russia and Turkey to trade in gold bypassing US sanctions. Russia is busy trying (and largely failing) to woo South Americans into allowing it to open a permanent naval base there. China may just succeed with that proposition.

On the military side of things, both Putin and Obama have been increasingly bellicose in their statements. Obama has issued thinly veiled threats towards Russia regarding its actions in Ukraine. [31] Surely a hot war between these powers could never break out? No one could survive a nuclear war after all — or so people claim.

That is essentially what has been (thankfully) popularised by movies, but reality has largely moved on. Despite their differences all states share a primary goal: survival of the state. Survival of the majority of people (i.e workers) is a secondary goal. What makes up a state? The elite (i.e very wealthy) people of a nation that act as the brains alongside their security apparatus which acts as the nervous system. A nuclear war threatens the existence of both the state and the majority.

… However, anyone who has seen the devastation left behind from a civil war [pictured: Homs, Syria] can attest to the fact that it is as bad if not sometimes even worse than a nuclear war. Rather than face an externally 4th generational war, the nuclear option increasingly becomes attractive for any of the three states should they near economic collapse. Furthermore, a much weaker state such as Russia has no other alternatives when faces with conventional warfare than to immediately escalate to a nuclear war as it threatened a few months after intercepting the missiles launched at Syria [32]. But launching a nuclear war to avoid a civil one currently has non-negotiable and devastating consequences.

Let me make one thing clear: I don’t think nuclear war is likely in the short term at least, neither does any of the states involved, but even a small (and growing) likelihood must be accounted for. In game theory, the “end game” conditions will affect the decisions made right now and to be completely informed about the real reasons for moves. You must be aware of the “win condition” of a state and the different threats that it faces.

(continued below)


This is where the state of missile defense enters the equation. Without much fanfare, the US restarted its ABM program at the end of 2001. What most aren’t aware of however, is that Russia already had a proven ABM system that also utilises nuclear-tipped missiles such as the SH-08 that can down most weapons around a certain perimeter. [33] Russia has also developed a new system, potentially a satellite killer [34] with a EKV but with no one paying attention to collective security agreements any longer, it has not made it public. China made its EKV public in 2007 through a missile test [35]. Russia is currently aiming to complete its S-500 program that is to have the ability to shoot down any “space object” including hypersonic missiles by 2017. In most likelihood, as it has been delayed several times, and due to the economic warfare faced by Russia, it won’t be completed until 2019. Similarly, the final phase of the US ABM system will be completed around 2019-2020 going by the program’s schedule.

In parallel with missile defense, the Russians have been building up their nuclear stockpile, which now far exceeds that held by us in the west [36]. Obama attempted to preempt this move with a very threatening executive order [37] dealing with Russia’s highly enriched uranium required to make three-stage nuclear devices (in layman speak, megaton city-destroyers). Whatever he tried to do behind the scenes has largely failed and Russia has been acting in a more secretive way on alerting the west of the locations of its stockpiles. [38] Alongside its now larger nuclear stockpile, Russia has successfully tested ABM-proof submarine launched missiles. But even with these advantages and its Kaliningrad site outfitted with ABM-proof SS-26 Stone (9K720 Iskander) hypersonic missiles, the US still holds the first-strike advantage over Russia. In terms of the outcome of such an exchange, the two states are held at parity, thanks mainly to Russia’s “perimeter” (aka deadhand) automatic retaliation system [39].

Some of those who have followed what I said so far, checked the sources and concluded that I’ve provided accurate information, must be asking, why haven’t I heard all of this before? Well, can you imagine how people’s priorities would change should they become aware that they’re facing a small but steadily increasing risk of annihilation. This is where we move on to the contingencies in play, for all scenarios, economic collapse or the aftermath of nuclear war.

[30] https://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-UW.pdf
[31] http://ibtimes.com/obama-says-us-will-not-resort-military-confrontation-russia-considers-more-sanctions-over-mariupol
[32] http://rt.com/politics/nuclear-strike-attack-rogozin-053/
[33] http://atlanticsentinel.com/2014/02/nato-missile-shield-prompts-russia-to-expand-defense-systems/
[34] http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/mysterious-russian-satellite-object-201428e-raises-fears-we-may-be-on-the-edge-of-a-space-arms-race/story-fnjwlcze-1227129084515
[35] http://web.archive.org/web/20070210230411/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070119/ts_afp/chinausspacemilitary
[36] http://rt.com/news/193604-russia-nuclear-capacity-start/
[37] http://whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/25/executive-order-russian-highly-enriched-uranium
[38] http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/23/russia-pulls-out-of-two-decade-deal-to-co-operate-with-u-s-on-safeguarding-its-nuclear-stockpile/#__federated=1
[39] http://www.businessinsider.com.au/russias-dead-hand-system-may-still-be-active-2014-9

Part 9: Threat matrix

When the survival of the majority is threatened by an internal or external cause, the elite will act in a manner that protects them primarily and secondarily protects the majority until that majority begins to threaten the elite. Traditionally, at that point in time, the security apparatus is activated against the people and a civil war breaks out. Without outside support, the theory goes, the security apparatus will win.

Should the confrontation continue between the states, and at the current rate things are going that looks to be the case, eventually one or more of them will enter a state of effective bankruptcy. With the missile defense system coming up in 2019-2020, the decision makers in power will have (at least) the illusion of an unpunishable strike [40]. But should the state accept its fate of bankruptcy, as the Soviet Union did in the 80s, it will ultimately face the civil war consequences.

Ideally, a state should hold both options as credible in order to be able to hold the nuclear option as a credible threat against the other states as well as a means to avoid a preemptive war when one of them is cornered and the likelihood of a confrontation goes to 100%.

This dynamic is a problem in the US due to the 1st and 2nd amendments. The public is very well armed and there are enough people who know how to use a weapon such that, in case of any confrontation, they will be able to not only defend themselves but confront those actively putting them or their family in harm’s way. Thanks to the 1st amendment, people can (in theory) be as informed as they want to be about current international and local events, the risks and opportunities they entail. People can be prepared and prepare together without legally facing persecution. Currently, people are uninformed, but the situation can revert to that in the 80s where the anti-war movement was large and vocal.

It is thus important to keep people uninformed about the risks at play, with Obama casually saying he “won’t strike Russia” and no one calling him out for hinting that he can [31]. At the same time, it’s important to demonise the other states in order to set the narrative for the population and keep the threat at hand credible. After all, the US military is composed of the US people and if the elite are seen driving the US people to certain death over nothing but their own survival, the military will refuse — or force them out of power. If however, the accepted narrative is that of external state threatening the existence of the US and behaving in an aggressive irrational manner, the military is compelled to go along with the population’s will or be seen as traitors.

We now enter speculative territory, but largely important to at least explore to see the bigger picture at hand. In order to remove the threat of the 1st and 2nd amendments, several elements have been launched simultaneously to effectively wage psychological and economic war on the US people and the west in general. The economic means are obvious, by putting youths in debt and bringing foreign workers to keep unemployment high as possible, most people are too poor to be able to project their power in any meaningful way.

The phenomenon of social justice warriors is likely a manifestation of these attempts at psychological warfare called social engineering [41]. Instead of the majority of relatively poorer people taking those with a truly privileged position (the elite/wealthy) to task, the majority gets locked in a war among each other. Male against female, black against white and so on. A lukewarm civil war now brews in the west with both “right” wing and “left” (identity politics) wing elements. The dynamics favour the “left” thanks to decades of social engineering by both local and foreign (i.e the now defunt soviet union) agents. Where the “left” fails (as it has in the case of GamerGate), selective enforcement and institutional corruption is used to set a narrative that allows them to effectively bypass reality. The “left” is chosen not out of preference of the elite, but because the logical conclusion is pure nihilism and complete chaos among the poor and middle class families in the US.

At the same time, the same mechanisations that favour the SJW narrative are used to cover up the international realities that ultimately effect western citizens. The, western people will be locked in battles they believe are far more important to them than what’s going on in Azerbaijan or Ecuador. These issues are indeed important, but without the context of the bigger picture, the blame is incorrectly directed at the mechanizations rather the mechanizers. As long as the system grinds on, the masses can never threaten the elite and will eventually be forced to hand over their 1st and 2nd amendment rights thanks to the views of an increasingly growing minority who favour authoritarianism over freedom.



What is the best way to fight back since we have multiple threats, our own and foreign states? If we preemptively “fight back”, it might be just what Russia and China were waiting for. If we don’t, we are resigned to whatever decision the elite make that puts their survival as the primary “win condition” of the game. The best way to fight back is to force ourselves in that win condition. Firstly, we can do so through media, and that isn’t limited to news. Media includes social media, movies, music and video games. The second way is through education, but it’s important to note, the most effective way is to educate the young, not those of our generation or those older than us. This is where we accidentally found ourselves stuck in cogs running the system.

When you look at the big picture it’s not hard to get overwhelmed how things relate to each other. But we have to go through one more step to understand why a long-term project such as social engineering education can be possibly related to war.

[40] http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/05/world/europe/russia-us-missile-defense/
[41] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/darpa-social-networks-research-twitter-influence-studies
[42] http://www.wired.com/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaganda-ops/

Part 10: Securing the aftermath

Let’s briefly consider what some might consider to be the best case scenario of the international conflict outlined in the parts 1 to 5. Russia and China fold, they accept all terms and conditions of the western elite. There is a single monopoly of power in the world, with an international surveillance over every human being and censorship to prevent revolts. But unknown to the security apparatus, all of the mechanizations would have worked to serve a dual purpose. The elite have as long as they want to run their social engineering programs and will naturally take a path that serves their interests alone, as established individuals.

A culture destroyed by social engineering would have effectively reduced the risk to the elite to zero and brought them back to a feudalistic scenario that heavily favours the established. Human populations will be treated as they always have been, as nothing more than cattle and the traditional means of controlling a cattle’s (admitted impractically sized) population is implemented. All kinds of insane justifications will be used to commit acts of mass barbarity or pure ignorance, just like in the dark ages, with a new religion based on slave morality (the prototype being SJWism, with the original sin being privilege and the only means of repentance is to listen and believe among other obvious analogies). A brave new world, utopia for the establishment, a hellish dystopia for what will be left of their servants.

In what some others might consider the worst case scenario, the US, Russia or China overstep the other some time after the missile defense shields are up and running. Misinformed about the effectiveness of the ABM system, a leader decides to launch a conventional strike against a high value target, invade a territory controlled by the other state or launch “de-escalation” strikes through the use of tactical nuclear weapons in order to force a peaceful conclusion of the conflict (i.e to get the other side to fold by admitting their bluff). Well before the risk of nuclear war becomes a reality, the elite power base on both sides and their extended families (aka “our best and brightest” as they will be called) will have secured their safety in the form of underground bunkers [44][45][46][47].

The good news is that the majority of nuclear weapons will not even take off from their bases or bunkers, both sides, worried about each other’s nuclear stockpiles rather than annihilating the other’s population, will target those alongside the ABM systems. The majority of nuclear weapons will be destroyed in their sites. However, both sides will dedicate at least some forces to cripple the other’s economic and political power base. Majority cities will be targeted alongside heavily industrialised areas. The bad news is regardless of the target, the radioactive contamination will spread far and wide, destroying much of the soil relied on to obtain food. Life will be harsh for those living on the surface. While life will be uncomfortable for those secured below, they won’t have to worry about long-term damage to their genetics and off springs.

There will be only one logical concern for all states. Those on the outside attempting to break into the bunkers.

[43] http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation
[44] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2847238/Inside-Russian-bunker-designed-hold-2-700-people-Moscow-struck-nuclear-attack-supplies-two-days.html
[45] http://rt.com/news/prime-time/moscow-bomb-shelters-outskirts/
[46] http://www.businessinsider.com/us-site-y-911-phase-ii-tel-aviv-israel-2013-3
[47] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-overseeing-mysterious-construction-project-in-israel/2012/11/28/e5682d8e-38b6-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html

FINAL Part 11: Psychopolitics: Weaponising the youth

By the time the ABM system has come up, those who are 11-13 years old today would be the young adults of society, those most able-bodied and generally healthy enough to survive a nuclear war. Should war come later, it would be the younger people, but regardless, all of them would have went through years of CommonCore education promoting authoritarianism [48] and well acquainted with “gamifyied” training processes [49]. These people will be no threat to the elite who will remain safe in their bunkers. They will be as docile as rabbits in a field, perhaps occasionally passively-aggressively attacking others to “check their privilege”. Gone will be their sense of what real privilege is and gone will be the independent though that fails to develop when a child is over-stimulated with psychopolitically designed “educational games” for many hours of a week.

Still wondering how Bill Gates can convince other elites, in a single meeting, about the merits of pooling their wealth together to use it for the “greater good”? He’s just letting them in on the bigger picture and whatever he has said to them convinced them to hand over a huge sum of ill-gotten gains. What could be so important for these scumbags to do so? Does Zuckerberg strike you as an honest individual, for example?

Promoting “social justice” censorship is one of the key elements to force the acceptance of CommonCore and similar programs. It has passed smoothly in Sweden and other eunuch nations, but they knew from the start that America would be a tough nut to crack. That’s why false flagging and media smear jobs are essential to setting the narratives required to force people to act against their own interests. When Five guys burgers and fries was launched, it was hoped that it would be used in the same manner as Rantic media attempted to use the “leaked photos” of Emma Watson during her failed UN speech.

None could have predicted the transition of the five guys saga into #GamerGate. Leak after leak, dig after dig, you all came very close to figuring out what was going on to your hobby. Some were brave and ventured out to see the same pattern repeated in the wider media as Wikileaks recommended you do [50]. This is when the media decided to preemptively attack and smear #GamerGate, which was and still is largely a discussion platform. Essentially, knowing they were playing chess with superior gamers, they flipped the table and defecated on it, then blamed you for the toxic mess of their own doing. Distraction after distraction, the freaks came out and attacked you in order to distract you from your campaign.


You might think that they’ve discredited themselves in front of us and in front of logical people, but in the end they’re not concerned about alienating you at all. What they’re concerned about is you halting their program to turn the youth into censorship-loving psychologically-programmed useless time bombs who believe the only “issue” to be concerned about is identity politics and who have been trained to defy their parents and respect authority.

As the plan goes, they will keep #GamerGate alive with media assaults to generate lash-back, just long enough to use it as a justification for the very censorship they require. This achieves another objective as it brings your ability to do anything about the implementation of CommonCore to a halt.

Should they fail and should the public be woken up about the social engineering, importance of video games and CommonCore, they may have a backup plan, I don’t have enough information to see that far. Perhaps they will launch an inter-racial war to keep us busy and weak instead.

Taking a final look at things, the best way to teach, the best way to bond and the best way to entertain a child is through a game. Nietzsche said “Man’s maturity: to have regained the seriousness that he had as a child at play”. That’s why alternatives to “educational” games must be eliminated or polluted until they are unenjoyable, so that the children never grow up. The only “games” that will be acceptable are those that “educate”, otherwise it will be childish as “gaming has grown up”, an inversion of reality. Who should be in control of that game, the corrupt journalists, the money-grubbing developers producing unchallenging trash to appeal to a larger market, tax-payer funded CommonCore programs or you?

It’s important to note that as well as fighting an external struggle, we must also fight an internal one. We are a degenerate socially engineered generation. We value “individuality” above all and ignore the importance of society and culture at large. We fail to value children as our own future and instead see them as objects of desire, to show off as baby photos to friends, until abandoning them to 12 or more years of brainwashing.

It is through no fault of our own, our parents have failed us and we are placed in the checkmate position today, without prospects of work, without even a bright future to look forward to. Perhaps without even life. But there is still hope and it lies in our children. We will likely not see a bright future, no matter what we do, but we must cleanse ourselves of the selfishness that has driven our parents and us to the point we live in today. Rid yourself of nihilism and remember that no matter what happens in the end, if we protect, entertain and educate our children, who are our precious future, however long it takes, our children or their children, will one day taste freedom.

[48] http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/05/common_core_values_do_they_inc.html
[49] http://blog.satmetrix.com/make-it-fun-how-to-drive-loyalty-through-gamification
[50] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/511727048931282944

Reasons behind Wisdom

Wisdom Reason
Admonitions against arrogance and haughtiness They are symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). People with NPD are dangerous and exploit others. If you do not want to be mistaken for NPD you need to not display the symptoms of NPD.
Admonitions against atheism Most people need meaning more than truth. Most people cannot live in a world without meaning, no matter how true it is. In a large enough society there will always be such people, and without their well being, they will resort nihilistic actions which may be dangerous. This reason is a sort of belief in belief and is condescending.
Admonitions against multiculturalism Listen to Marine Le Pen at Oxford University
Admonitions against gender equality TODO

Least good for the least number

This is the corollary to the greatest good for the greatest number. 

The problem of course is that 

  • the few who suffer often fight back
  • those who suffer rise in number

The law of constant misery seems to hold true. Even if everyone had all their basic needs satisfied (including sex), there will always be slight differences in well being, which will be transferred between members of a society into a group of victims.