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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s