Let’s try a brief thought experiment. Imagine you live in a rough neighborhood. Some of you may not have to imagine it. You know that just a few households are armed with guns, while the others are armed with whatever they could cobble together. In this rough neighborhood, there are some rich folks who have paid for private security. That private security definitely has guns.

As happens in rough neighborhoods, a fight breaks out. The fight is getting out of hand, and it looks like the private security can’t actually protect the people it’s been contracted to.

If you don’t have a gun in this scenario, what would you do, assuming you can’t flee?

Astute readers may have ascertained that this blunt but straightforward metaphor is about the Middle East and nuclear proliferation. The nukes are the guns in this scenario. As it stands, I see no reason to not expect nuclear proliferation across multiple countries over the next few years, or even less.

The whole purported casus belli of this Israeli-American war against Iran is the notion that Iran might be making a nuclear bomb. Never mind that Netanyahu has been peddling this line for decades, and even said the exact same thing about Iraq in the leadup to the 2003 invasion. Let’s take things as they are.

For the record, this war shouldn’t come as a surprise to longtime readers. I wrote in 2024 that fighting Iran is a historically bad idea, and I stand by that.

But let’s continue the thought experiment. If you were leading Iran right now, after being attacked for the potential for building a bomb (twice in a year!), why wouldn’t you just go ahead and do it? Let’s assume for a moment that Netanyahu was right and that Iran was indeed a threat. Wouldn’t these strikes simply accelerate demand for nuclear weapons?

Similarly, if you were Turkey, who Israeli President Naftali Bennett recently said “Is the new Iran,” wouldn’t you consider getting yourself some nukes? Watch the video below and pretend you’re the leader of Turkey for a moment:

Erdogan has already publicly complained about the hypocrisy of being held back from developing nuclear weapons (2019 article). The United States has shown itself to be a poor ally, allowing its allies to be attacked by other, more preferred allies. Remember when Israel bombed Qatar to kill Hamas negotiators? That wasn’t long ago. Recall the current US president has insulted NATO (not that it shouldn’t be insulted), and you’re a member. Why stay?

Consider further: The US ambassador to Israel recently said, on a podcast heard by millions, that he is in favor of the Greater Israel project. When asked what he thought about Israel taking all the land promised to it in the book of Genesis — from the Nile to the Euphrates — Ambassador Huckabee replied, “It would be fine if they took it all.” That’s official US support. And he said it just one week before the war began.

Accomplishing this feat would require the conquest of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and Turkey. Netanyahu said on April 1st he wanted to make Israel into a “Supernation in the region.”

Israel is currently invading southern Lebanon, has taken parts of Syria, and has waged a multi-year against Gaza. In the context of the videos above, check the map that shows the region between the Nile and Euphrates, as described in the Book of Genesis:

Now, I don’t know about you, but if I were in charge of the countries in the red boundary — and cared about my people — I’d do anything to resist being conquered. That “anything” would most certainly involve acquiring nuclear weapons.

Does Iran have designs in the region? Quite clearly. Historically, when it’s healthiest, Iran has had its population and economic center in Mesopotamia. So, countries across the region have far more than one country to fear.

But you notice how nobody is messing with North Korea? Of course you do. Everyone does, and is taking notes. The takeaway is dead simple: “If you have nukes, no one will dare attack you.”

Comes the reply: But Russia is at war, and no nukes have flown!

Yes, indeed. That’s because Russia is holding back. A nuclear launch from Russia would lead to literal armageddon, and we’d all die, since they have thousands, and so does the US. This has been war-gamed to death.

But a country with a few, or several, or even a few dozen nukes? That’s a different story. A scenario in which regional powers like Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or, yes, Iran, build nukes makes sense. We’re not looking at an end-of-the-world scenario here — merely invasion deterrence. Maybe.

These don’t need to be massive, Tsar Bomba-style nukes either to deter military aggression. Now that the US has shown it’s unable to protect its quasi-vassal states like Bahrain, the UAE, and even Saudi Arabia from Iran…well, what are they to do?

To be clear: I don’t like this scenario one bit. Nuclear proliferation is something the world has been working to prevent for decades, and this conflict in the Middle East could undo those decades of work.

Worst of all, this proliferation could have been avoided. It could have been avoided by not attacking Iran in the first place. It could have been avoided by preventing Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons at all. But here we are — alea iacta est.

Even if the Iran war were to end tomorrow (and I pray it does) the long-term implications for the region’s security are profound. Civilian infrastructure, for one thing, has proven too vulnerable to be left to air defenses alone as a deterrent. And strikes on civilian infrastructure are only beginning.

Now, consider other regions. What would you do if you were South Korea, or Japan, or Taiwan, or even Singapore?

I don’t have an answer to where this goes, and I don’t think anyone else does either. But it appears clear that nuclear proliferation is back on the table, even if it’s not widely being discussed yet.

What do you think? Can proliferation be avoided? Is there a better alternative? I’m all ears.

Leave a comment

Having an existential crisis is a bit of a luxury. The conditions that lead to one are not always luxurious, however. What’s worse, having one can be a self-reinforcing process that leads to an abundance of navel-gazing and little action. That’s why I’ve been stuck on this post for a while, and why I haven’t published for a while, for which I apologize to my readers. There’s a reason I’m going to give you some backstory, which will start right now.

Here’s what happened: Towards the end of January, I suffered a pulmonary embolism in both lungs. The doctors didn’t tell me at the time, but the right ventricle of my heart was close to failure. I spent time in the hospital, got treatment, and am ok now. But I’d be lying if I said it didn’t throw me for a loop.

For one thing, it came unexpectedly. What I thought was a bad cramp in my calf lasted just a few days before I felt something dislodge and move up my back like a worm while I was walking upstairs. That something turned out to be a blood clot. My vision darkened in the periphery, I couldn’t breathe, and my heart rate shot through the roof. Luckily, I remained conscious and got to the hospital posthaste since I had an idea what had occurred. Had my son not been there, I may have just laid down for a nap and not woken up.

If you’re curious, a blood clot dislodging and moving is a very strange feeling. In many ways, it’s the polar opposite of an orgasm: Things are moving in your body but entirely in the wrong way, it’s panic-inducing and claustrophobic, extremely uncomfortable, and can take life rather than create it. That’s an elegant metaphor if I do say so myself.

The cause of the blood clot remains unknown. I know where some readers’ minds just went: No, I didn’t get the COVID jab. Rather, my hunch leans to another near-death experience. I got hit by a truck and nearly flattened last May while on my motorbike and am lucky to be alive. I was largely immobile for at least a month and suffered damage to…well, everywhere. So, the clot could have formed as a result of broad-spectrum blunt force trauma from hitting pavement at high speeds. If I were a cat, that’d be two of my nine lives this last year alone.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t take the opportunity to thank those who went out of their way to help me. So, thank you, truly. You bought me some vital time.

From Personal to Planetary

Near-death experiences bring life into sharp focus — the bullshit is shunted to the periphery while the most important parts become impossible to ignore.

For me, two impossible-to-ignore questions bubbled to the surface:

1. What am I for?

2. What are we for?

In other words, where can I find meaning in the world?

These could sound like basic-bitch campfire stoner questions. But they’re really not: These are the core fundamental questions each person and each society has had to grapple with since time immemorial. What I, personally, am for, is for me to know. But what we are for is a question that our increasingly globalized society is failing to address on any non-superficial level, and I think it’s eating away at us.

When I ask, “What are we for?” the word “we” can carry a lot of meanings. It can mean, for example:

• Our families and extended families

• Our towns

• Our nations

• Humans as a species

• Living beings in general

Historically, answers scaled up seamlessly from family to species. Every religion and every society in history has provided an answer for all of those categories, most often unequivocally.

Mind you, meaning doesn’t have to be complicated to be fulfilling. Some prehistoric society could have satisfied their people by arguing that all life existed for the amusement of a turtle god. In more modern terms, the Spanish Carlists’ “God, Country, King” is simple enough to get people where they need to go.

His methods were obviously insane, but Ted Kaczynski was dead right when he argued that, for most of humanity’s lifetime, survival itself was meaningful. However, he further argued, when survival is guaranteed, people will seek out a simulacrum of meaning to replace the struggle that defined our species’ survival since time immemorial.

But when you search for meaning in the current post-war liberal urban monoculture — when you ask what we’re for — you’ll find a combination of confusion and silence.

That freaks people out, and it should. Because it’s not accidental — it’s what happens when a culture stops offering any unequivocal answer to “what are we for?” Bread and circuses only go so far.

To illustrate this point, let’s conduct a thought experiment. Pick a country. You can ask, “What is the purpose of ______?”

I’ll take my own country as an example here. What is the purpose of the United States of America?

In the past, these answers were readily available: To provide opportunity, to provide for religious freedom, to grow wealthy by one’s own merit, without the oppressive governance and religious wars of Europe. It was a frontier society that was optimistic — a way to escape the claustrophobia of a crowded Europe.

But what purpose does the United States serve in a full world? Is its task, as Woodrow Wilson argued, to make the world “safe for democracy?” Does the nation exist to enforce intangible ideals? Does it exist just so some people can get really rich?

The intangible concepts ring hollow when you examine the country’s history. We overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran. We prevented the 1962 election in Vietnam that Ho Chi Minh would have won. I could go on, but readers will get the point: At best, the country applies its high-minded concepts selectively. This rings hollow as hypocrisy — democracy, but only when we like it.

That hollowness is deafening, ringing like a bell, and we all feel it whether we know it or not.

I’d invite readers to ask the similar question of their own country: What is it for?

Leave a comment

Failures of Meaning

The most popular answer to the question of “What am I for?” is simply to get really rich. Billionaires are lionized, wealth is tracked like a scoreboard, and the idolatry of money seems to be a core value for many.

But we’re far from the first people to worship money. Consider Marcus Licinius Crassus, the richest man in Rome in the 1st century BC. His wealth, equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars today, came from ruthless real estate plays, political connections, and slave-run silver mines. He could buy armies, influence politics, and bankroll Julius Caesar.

But Crassus is no one’s favorite Roman. He died in ignominy in an incredibly stupid invasion of Parthia (Persia). As the story goes, he died having molten gold poured down his throat to mock his wealth following his capture after defeat at the disastrous Battle of Carrhae (53 BC). Yes, it is relevant to write now that fighting Persia was stupid then, and it is now, too.

Comfort and safety fare no better as core purposes. They’re pleasant accompaniments to life, but when they become the central goal, societies lose the edge that survival once demanded. I’m looking at you, Europe.

Every empire that has made its material well-being and personal safety its core ethos has failed, most often to rougher, hungrier people with ambition and drive. That is, to people who have a clearer sense of their own purpose. In the very first post on this publication, I called the growth, stalling, and contraction of empires the Hobbesian Dilemma. The purpose of an empire is to expand, and when it loses that impetus, it begins to rot.

Money, comfort, and safety aren’t paths to meaning. They’re comfortable distractions from the inevitable void we all face. That void shouts at all of us: “What are you for?” Those who have an acceptable answer thrive, while those without one wither.

And the clearest sign the fire has gone out in a society? When it stops having children.

What Are We For?

Fertility rates have crashed worldwide, to records never seen before. It’s not just in wealthy countries — it’s everywhere. Developed countries average 1.4-1.5 children per woman, way below replacement rates. Economics are part of the birthrate crash, yes. But far more importantly than that, I believe a pervasive nihilism is the main driver of crashing birthrates worldwide. We face a spiritual vacuum unlike any other seen. Ironically, it’s because we understand more than we ever have.

This is because we lack a positive, forward-looking answer for what our purpose is. Our current political systems don’t answer it. Our religions fail to take into account the massive strides we’ve made in understanding our place in the cosmos and how things work. Consider: We didn’t even know there was more than one galaxy until the 1920s. Religions forged in earlier eras struggle to incorporate this vastness, or just how much weirder physics works than anything we thought we understood before, to the point where it all just seems absurd.

But that very absurdity is what we alone can confront and turn into meaning. It may be daunting to consider our place in such vastness and complexity, but we alone can do it. It’s what makes us human, after all.

The real question is this: What makes humans different from other species? Lichen and bacteria and rabbits are excellent at surviving and reproducing, but they’ve never written a symphony, built a telescope, intentionally sailed across an ocean, or asked themselves what they’re for.

Every branch of our family tree traces back to ancestors who refused contentment — who looked beyond the horizon and moved. If they had settled for the status quo, we’d still simply be a curious species of apes, never straying far from our species’ cradle.

Indeed, I think the main driver of our current nihilism is this: There is no more Earth to colonize. Nowhere worthwhile on land, at least. We as a species are starting to feel claustrophobic, and we never have before in recorded history.

We’ve colonized every corner of this planet because discontent and relentless curiosity drove us outward. Now, this same drive turns us inward and curdles into nihilism. But the frontier isn’t gone — it’s above us, where it’s always been. Just like always, that same discontent and curiosity that makes us human will drive us there, too. It must, or we’re not human.

A society that aims for the stars would invigorate exploration, internal drive, and the Faustian spirit that Oswald Spengler described: constantly striving, never relenting.

You may, at this point, ask, “How is this relevant to us now if future generations will be the ones to actually get to the stars?” Simple: Make those new generations. For the overwhelming majority of people, having children will be their most meaningful contribution to a species-wide project, and not a minor one, either.

Make no mistake: The process of us aiming for the stars will be a mess. Earth will never be perfect. Humans will never be perfect. New beliefs will come and go. But the stars represent the endless expansion our species has always sought — this time, with actual boundless limits. Above all, it puts front and center the fight to survive we’re built for.

And hey, even if we fail catastrophically and die trying: At least it’s better than merely being the boot-loader program for machine intelligence.

Let’s lay out the foundation. In the book, three super-blocs — Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia dominate their spheres. Oceania covers the Americas, the UK, southern Africa, and Australia and New Zealand. Eurasia spans from Lisbon to the Pacific. Eastasia mostly includes China and its near neighbors.

A fourth zone, stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, is one of permanent, managed, and carefully orchestrated war to get rid of excess production. This system keeps the proles down and creates constantly-changing enemies for leaders to direct and control their peoples’ ire. A cabal called the High controlling all three organizes these wars. A lot of this is left intentionally vague, but here’s a map for reference. The grey zone is the contested zone:

This rigid, tri-bloc system didn’t emerge from nowhere. Orwell implies it was forged in the fires of a devastating nuclear war that upended the old world order. This is what led to the system in the book.

So, before we dive in, let’s answer emphatically: No, we are not currently living in the geopolitics of 1984.

But we’re not that far off. Rather, it looks more like the time before the setting of the book. So what would it take for us to get there?

The Three Blocs are Already Here (sort of)

The Blocs of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia already exist. Sort of — basically in their infancy. These are the US-led NATO nations, Russia, and China. Imagine these as seed crystals of potential future super-blocs like Orwell described.

While right now it might look like there’s a multipolar world, with the US and EU helping Ukraine and Taiwan to fight Russia and China aggressing their neighbors, there are really only three major power centers. Europe is an old man leaning on a cane but promising rearmament, South America is directionless though not without potential, and the Anglo world is united behind the United States whether they like it or not.

Eurasia and Eastasia are certainly not formed yet, as the EU is fully committed to supporting Ukraine. Russia and China, along with Iran, have aligned with each other to combat what they see as Western aggression, and are key players in the BRICS super-alliance. So, they’re probably not fighting anytime soon. Indonesia has recently joined BRICS, as well, adding another regional heavyweight to the bloc. Brazil is the “B” in BRICS so its influence in South America will be huge. The question with BRICS is if it will last under bureaucratic, military, or economic pressure.

One major question that will arise, and which I doubt Orwell foresaw (I don’t blame him) is the nuclear weapon proliferation that has made India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea all wildcards. India, hamstrung by its infrastructure, is not yet a superpower, and it has largely played neutral so far, despite joining BRICS (it’s the I).

But the perpetual wars? The fighting in parts of the disputed zone? They’re all there. Destroying the foundations of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and so on, fit perfectly into the narrative. Little Britain, having lost its empire, looks to its former colony for protection. Those parts fit.

So, right now, it may be easy to look at the world via a West-vs-BRICS lens. Alliances of convenience are exactly that — convenient — so I doubt BRICS would last under intense pressure. But the three seed crystals of blocs? They’re still very much there and aren’t going anywhere.

Perpetual War, 21st-Century Edition

We’ve all lived through decades of perpetual war. The US has been at war for much of my lifetime. Proxy conflicts are continuing and spreading. And this trend doesn’t seem to be stopping.

A perfect example is America’s war in Afghanistan. Twenty years, trillions spent, and the surplus vanished into the military machine. Sound familiar?

If you’re cynical like me, you probably believe it didn’t exist for some noble goal, but rather to redirect resources to state-friendly organizations like weapons manufacturers and banks. The current proxy wars, like Ukraine, exist not to be won but to bleed the opponent of resources. Taiwan hasn’t popped off yet (and we should all pray it doesn’t) but it could at any moment. The new frontiers seek control of resources like Venezuela’s oil and Africa’s mineral resources like cobalt. Israel’s brutalization of Gaza has set a spark in the Middle East that may find its powder keg.

The problem: Any of these conflicts could escalate and get much hotter at any point. It only takes a few mistakes to get to something nasty. Global military spending hit a record high of some $2.7 trillion in 2024, growing nearly 10% over 2023 figures — the largest year-on-year jump since the Cold War. Europe promises more — the money is the message. So, how might we slide from today’s chaos into Orwell’s engineered stalemate?

What Would It Take to Get to the Geopolitics of 1984?

The following will be a fun thought experiment of a terrifyingly plausible checklist that could lead us to the real geopolitics of 1984.

1. Escalation in Ukraine, Taiwan, or elsewhere spirals into tactical nuclear use, devastating Europe and parts of Asia while sparing the industrial cores of North America, Russia, and China. Germany’s chancellor Merz has recently trotted out the idea of forced conscription, so it appears the EU is hell-bent on continuing the war in Ukraine. In this scenario, Russia ends up dominating Europe, or they merge, much to Britain’s horror. This leads to Airstrip One (Britain in 1984).

2. A collapse or forced absorption of hedging powers like South American countries, or India and Pakistan. Imagine India splitting into many countries (which it historically was), or Brazil’s government losing legitimacy, or Indonesia splitting into different countries. We’d need a major economic disruption to have that happen, but that’s absolutely in the cards.

3. The sudden death of the dollar would cut the legs out from American economic and military hegemony, forcing it to retreat to its own sphere of influence, i.e. the Western Hemisphere and the Anglosphere. Imagine rationing, a breakdown of international trade routes (currently guaranteed by the US Navy) and a greater focus on internal trade.

4. A catastrophic cyber or solar event that kills the open internet, leading to permanent national intranets (should people manage to rebuild them).

5. Open coordination between the three remaining elite circles (an actual “High” like the one Orwell described).

6. Normalized 4-year “Hate Cycles” with seamless alliance flips and memory-holing. This has already happened, too. We were supposed to hate Saddam Hussein, then Slobodan Milosevic, then Osama bin Laden, then Vladimir Putin, then Xi, or Netanyahu…you get the point.

7. Ubiquitous, flawless, cheap deepfakes, with no trusted primary evidence left. We are close to here already.

8. One full generation, born after the major war, that has no memory of anything other than CBDCs or algorithmic loyalty systems.

   Thanks for reading The Proper Gander! This post is public so feel free to share it.

   Share

Wrongthink and the New Ministry of Truth

Every emerging bloc runs its own memory hole. In the US, government-pressure campaigns on platforms and algorithmic shadowbanning quietly reshape what millions see while digital silos create parallel realities people live in. This creates a chilling effect on discourse where people are afraid to speak their own minds even in private conversations.

It’s not just a chilling effect, either. The UK has locked up more people for wrongthink online than any other Western democracy.

That telescreen in 1984? It’s a child’s toy compared to the phone in your pocket. The telescreen watched you, sure, but today’s pocket supercomputers know you better than you know yourself. Orwell never imagined the kind of power algorithmic nudging could have on populations, which could well lead to civil conflicts in many countries, or how data could be collected in such vast amounts and analyzed by AI systems. We all know we’re being spied on all the time and, in a word, it’s creepy. The Stasi would be jealous.

Censorship is rife everywhere, and deepfakes will become ever more common. Covid broke many people’s brains and tribalism regarding all kinds of political opinions keeps people divided in Western countries, weakening them. History has been rewritten: Statues torn down, former heroes decried as racists or whatever. Censorship is by no means limited to Western countries: Russia, China, and many other countries each have their own version of wrongthink, and they’ll enforce it brutally or softly depending on the person.

Orwell imagined state propaganda dominating everything. He never foresaw private platforms, armed with AI, doing the job more efficiently — and voluntarily accepted by its users, doped up on pharmaceuticals or booze or weed. That’s more Huxley territory.

Add to that mass migration of non-assimilable peoples as well as irreconcilable political differences and you’ve got a recipe for disaster that’s ready to serve as a poisoned cocktail.

This control sustains and divides the political blocs, further crystallizing the current seed crystals that may emerge post some horrific thing we all want to avoid.

Why We’re Still Not There

Despite the disturbing parallels and that plausible checklist, several factors still stand between us and Orwell’s world. Some are hard barriers, while others are pure wildcards.

Hard constraints

First, nuclear weapons remain too destructive for anyone to treat nuclear war as truly “limited.” There is no scenario in which a nuke flies and all the rest don’t — this has been wargamed to death. Mutually assured destruction is very much still on the table.

Second, the global economy is far too intertwined. China would collapse without American and European markets, and Western countries would collapse without Chinese goods. In many ways, this was a system intentionally designed to prevent war.

Third, leakage points abound in global power structures: crypto, mesh networks, independent media, and even dissenting elites. Power structures aren’t nearly as monolithic as they seem.

Most importantly, there is no unified “High.” This is the conspiracy theory of all conspiracy theories — that, in fact, no one is actually in charge. This is a controversial statement and I bet I’ll hear feedback on it.

Wildcards

There’s more, too. For example, if young white European men are conscripted and given guns, there’s a decent chance they turn them on their own politicians. In the US, there’s a non-zero chance of a civil conflict breaking out since it’s in its Fourth Turning, and it’s impossible to predict how that’d really go. One thing is sure, however: It would weaken the seed crystal of Oceania.

Taiwan could decide to peacefully join China (I am not recommending that), and Ukraine could finally surrender to Russia. Note the use of hedging language in the previous sentence.

Additionally, we have no idea where this AI ride is going to take us. It could be revolutionary tech that provides sci-fi abundance, it could be a Shoggoth that destroys humanity, it could be a dud, it could lead to economic collapse, or anything in between.

Furthermore, as I’ve argued in another article, cratering birthrates will lead to a proliferation of new belief structures, as mass die-offs always have in the past. These new belief systems will challenge existing structures and lead to new ones.

These forces — structural and chaotic — means the future remains open. For now.

The Blueprint

The seed crystals are visible, with three clear power centers. The wars are already surplus-eating and endless. Information control is far more sophisticated than Orwell imagined, and internal division is doing the Party’s work for it. The checklist to full super-bloc stalemate is disturbingly short, and several boxes could be ticked by accident tomorrow.

We’re emphatically not living in the geopolitics of 1984. But the blueprint has been drawn, it’s sitting on the table, and construction crews are already on shift.

The only question is whether we keep building, or whether the hard constraints, the wildcards, or sheer human unpredictability knock the scaffolding down before the walls go up.

For now, the future remains open.

Leave a comment

The old joke nails it: Two economists spot a pile of dog shit, pay each other $100 to eat it, and high-five because the GDP just went up $200. That’s Line-Go-Up Economics in a nutshell: mental water aerobics for the morally flexible and terminally credentialed.

I once worked for the US Census. If you trust the official population numbers out of Nigeria, Bangladesh, or Washington, open this early article I wrote in another tab and watch your faith die. If you still believe the numbers, I have bridges for sale, cheap.

But economic data is especially abused. The individual can be broke, the family priced out of the housing market — doesn’t matter. As long as the chart goes up, the priest-class of economists and politicians gets to high-five and buy new private jets.

This is not an accident. Rather, it’s a deflection from a simple reality we all know: Those at the top of the economic system — Epstein’s regulars, Davos headliners, Larry Summers types — really don’t give a damn about you. And they don’t just not care. They have contempt for you.

They’ve been running the same rigged casino for decades, and they’re winning bigly, so why would they stop now? If they ever lose, they just get bailed out, while you get stuck with the bill and some bullshit lecture.

The House We Never Slept In

I’ve got some personal experience with this rigged system. In 1999-2000 during the height of the dot-com bubble, I was a teenager, and my mother was working for a tech company in Austin. It’s one of those companies whose stock went parabolic post-IPO: a 1,500% increase between February 1999 and June 2000, giving it a market cap of $9 billion.

We thought we were rich. My mother had stock in the company, so we bought a house in the nicest part of town. It was perfectly fine as it was, but money does funny things to peoples’ heads, so we decided it had to be remodeled with the best of everything. The most ridiculous and nouveau-riche part was installing columns from a French monastery. We spent more than a year remodeling that house.

Then the dot-com bubble burst, and my mother, with a stock vesting mess on her hands that took a lawyer a year to settle out, got laid off. By the time she got any stock, the price had plunged. We lost around a million bucks in that time. We had to sell the house, not having spent one night in it. Fortunately, we broke even, but the house we had to sell is now worth millions, having rode the wave of Austin real estate prices.

The higher-ups at the company? They made off like bandits. Our potential generational wealth? Gone.

I tell you this as a cautionary tale: Bubbles pop, and when they do, it’s easy to get screwed. It’s even easier if you get greedy. And my goodness, greed is prevalent these days — but it’s nothing new.

The Biggest Party Ever Thrown

Imagine: Around 2,870 years ago, King Ashurnarsirpal II of Assyria decides to throw the biggest private bash the world’s ever seen. He’s just completed his new palace in Kalhu (Nimrud, northern Iraq). He doesn’t just send out a few engraved invites. No, he invites some 69,574 guests for ten straight days. Tens of thousands of livestock are slaughtered for the occasion, and beer and wine flow like rivers.

It was a rager for the ages, but it wasn’t just to have a good time. It was the OG flex. He built a massive Banquet Stele that read “I spread a feast like a god.” The banquet was designed to demonstrate his power, funded by tribute from crushed enemies and built with slave labor.

The hangovers? Not his problem. The bill? Paid by the people he looted. Sound familiar?

A few centuries later, when Xenophon marched his Ten Thousand past the once-magnificent palaces and cities of Assyria, abandoned and half-buried in sand, not even the local shepherds knew who built them.

Fast forward to now and we’re in the middle of the biggest party ever thrown — except this one’s called the AI boom, and the host is a cabal of trillion-dollar tech lords, Wall Street vampires, and central bankers who’ve been spiking the punch for decades.

Trillions of dollars, fresh-printed by the Fed and shoveled into data centers, GPUs, and “innovation” funds, are fueling a euphoria that makes Ashurnarsirpal’s feast look like a potluck.

Consider: Nvidia — a company that makes fancy graphics cards — has at times been worth more than the entire economy of Germany, the world’s third-largest. Does that sit right with you?

Microsoft and Amazon are snapping up farmland in the middle of nowhere, getting tax breaks you’d never dream of, while your electric bill jumps 40% because their server farms drink more power than Sweden.

The president gets on TV and brags about “the strongest economy ever.” GDP ticks up a couple of points because of all the concrete-pouring and chip-hoarding.

Everyone high-fives, and the line goes up.

But like every great party, the buzz eventually wears off and the hangover kicks in: regret, shame, self-loathing, the creeping realization you did things you can’t undo.

Some guests — the ones who were already rich — wake up fine.

The rest of us get the cleanup bill and a lecture about “living within our means” or some such dreck.

Then the hangover fades, memory blurs, and you have another drink, another line, shoot for another moonshot. Because fuck it, right? You have to live a little.

The dealers know this. So they pour another round, crank the music, and the line goes up again. At least, it will eventually.

The Quiet Panic in the VIP Room

The party hosts are already starting to sweat. White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks recently said the following:

Translation: If the music ever stops, the whole economy goes tits up.

The Financial Times points out similar problems. A recent headline (paywalled) reads, “America is now one big bet on AI.”

That’s basically a hostage video.

Because Nvidia can be worth more than Germany, server farms can drink more power than nations, and the line can keep going up…

Until one quarter the models don’t turn a profit, or a big fund decides to take its chips off the table, or the Fed can’t cut rates any lower because of inflation.

Then the biggest party ever thrown becomes the biggest hangover ever recorded.

That is, unless you believe in the AI dream of permanent abundance. Do you? Drop a comment below if so.

Leave a comment

The Cantillon Effect on Rocket Fuel

New money never spreads evenly. That truth is officially called the Cantillon Effect, but ordinary people know it as trickle-down-economics not trickling down.

No, the new money lands first, always, with the connected.

In 2025 that means Palo Alto hoodie princes, hedge-fund lords in Greenwich, or Stanford dropouts who wake up billionaires because the right VC wired them nine figures before breakfast.

Larry Summers — the architect of the 2008 bailouts — kept showing up at Epstein’s townhouse and pocketing his money for MIT long after Epstein was a convicted sex offender.

No consequences, same class, same protection, same money firehose.

By the time any of those dollars reach you, they’ve already become what you know too well: higher housing prices, higher rent, higher groceries, higher everything.

Since ChatGPT launched, the top 0.1% vacuumed up three-quarters of the new household wealth while the bottom 80% got poorer in real terms.

They get the champagne and you pick up the bar tab. What a deal!

The Two Futures and the Giant Misdirection

There are only two ways this current run ends.

Their future

The AI bet half-works. The models get good enough to replace half the white-collar jobs, but not good enough for sci-fi abundance.

So the people who own the chips, the data centers, and the power plants end up owning the robots too.

You rent your life in monthly installments: $9.99 for the writing bot, $19.99 for the driving bot, $49.99 for the “don’t-go-crazy” therapy bot, $300/month for the booze-delivery drone for when you do.

UBI slop keeps the herd quiet, the Lolita Express gets rebranded, and the line staggers upward a bit longer.

Our future

The bet fails. One bad quarter of “We’re still not seeing ROI” and the whole house of cards shudders. Data center construction freezes and boom towns bust. Nvidia drops 70%. The “strongest economy ever” looks like Pets.com in 2000 but this time with unpayable debt and a tapped-out Fed. The hangover kicks in and we all wonder, bleary-eyed, how we got so drunk on our own hype again.

Fake wealth evaporates. The line goes down. Capital gets dragged, kicking and screaming, back into steel, soil, and human hands.

The misdirection

The cracks are already showing. Zohran Mamdani’s win in NYC is about money: rent freezes, free child care, tax the rich. $4,000 rent, maxed-out credit cards, and unpayable student debt hurt worse than ideology.

That’s what both Left and Right elites are hiding. They want you thinking the rage is about culture wars, pronouns, whiteness, guns, January 6th, or whatever else the outrage machine decides to spit out.

The rage is way more simple than that, though: People are angry because they’re poor.

A recent excellent article pointed out a heartbreaking, absurd fact: The Poverty Line, developed as a concept in 1963, is defined as three times the cost of a minimum food diet from back then, adjusted for inflation. Food was way more expensive then, and housing and childcare way cheaper. As the author points out, $100,000 is the new poor.

The Left and Right are both in on the grift, pointing fingers at each other’s phantoms while the Cantillon Casino cashes in. It’s deliberate. It’s intentional: Shock a cage with two rats, and they fight each other, not the finger on the button. This is a proven thing in social mammalian psychology, and the elites know it. Interestingly, rats that are restrained supine are attacked more than those who can defend themselves. Make of that what you will.

When the GOP fails to smash the casino — and they will, because their donors adore it — the rage can turn into wildfire. Sometimes it’ll look like Mamdani populism, sometimes Bolshevism-lite, sometimes neo-fascism.

The only real fault line left to exploit at the top is Israel, which younger people are turning against in record numbers, viewing it as a key symbol of elite rot and corruption. Someone’s going to blow that fault line wide open. Place your bets.

The Final Question

They don’t care about you. They never did. The social contract, that we all get rich together, is broken.

My family learned this with an empty house in 2000. We all learned it again when Epstein “killed himself” and Larry Summers, despite fresh Epstein emails outing more cozy chats, gets little more than a slap on the wrist.

Tolkien nailed the whole thing in The Lord of the Rings in describing the fallen kings of Gondor: “...the blood of Númenor waned in them, and their wisdom failed, and they became as other men, and were childless or of few children, and the glory of Gondor faded.”

Childless, hollow, fertility-collapsed parasites who love money and nothing else. That’s your elite in 2025.

The line was never going up for you. Question is: Do you keep clapping while they cash out — or do you finally stop playing their game?

It is April 12, 1861. After the contested election of Abraham Lincoln, after which several states seceded in fury, Federal forces still hold Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina, under outgoing president James Buchanan. Buchanan calls secession illegal but war unauthorized. Lincoln insists on a peaceful resupply of the fort.

To the Confederacy, the fort is an imperial outpost on sovereign soil. It is unacceptable.

At 4:30 AM, Confederate batteries open fire. Thirty-four hours later, Major Anderson surrenders.

Few foresaw the brutality of the war that would follow. But it came. Four years. Six hundred and twenty thousand dead. At the time, some political rags in both the North and South posted breathless accounts, but it took many ordinary people months to grasp just what they were in for.

This was two full Fourth Turnings ago. There are a lot of details to get lost in here, but to keep things simple:

• The country had divided irreconcilably — morally, politically, and economically.

• The war did not begin in a vacuum. Decades of violence and political differences (Bleeding Kansas, John Brown’s raid, the caning of Senator Charles Sumner) had already bloodied the ground.

• It wasn’t just populism. Elites on both sides backed the fight.

I fear we’re nearing our own Fort Sumter moment. If I had to place a wager in Vegas on where it’d start I’d put money on Chicago or Los Angeles. Imagine: A protestor shoots an ICE agent. Or an ICE agent shoots a protestor. Or a governor orders the arrests of ICE agents. Any spark will do.

The divide today is unbridgeable just like it was in 1861, but in a different way. Then, a Mississippian and a New Yorker could at least agree: God is real and America is a Christian nation. While they may have disagreed on a number of intra-theological aspects, the core foundation was still there.

Today? We don’t even share the same reality. Two Americas now live in separate information ecosystems, with their own facts, morals, and visions for the future. This chasm — deliberately widened since 2008 and accelerated by algorithms — is the engine of the coming crisis. Charlie Kirk was gunned down mid-sentence in Utah two months ago as thousands looked on. Thousands on the Right thought, “Oh shit — that could be me.” The shooting has already started.

Meanwhile, entrenched elites are throwing themselves behind movements, drawing their own distinct battle lines. Like in 1861, elites profit from the divide. Soros, Fink, Ellison, Musk, Adelson — they have strong agendas that require popular support. And that support has been weaponized into the dumbed-down Left vs Right that’s ever-prevalent.

You can’t reconcile with someone who believes your worldview is not just wrong, but evil. So where do we go from here?

Subscribe now

Mapping the Chasm: The Core Irreconcilable Differences

In the first post of this series, I admitted being quite wrong when I’d said — in earnest hope about a year ago — that the Left and Right were obsolete. Instead, the opposite is true: The Left and Right represent not political blocs so much as fundamentally opposed worldviews — two civilizations sharing one flag.

An Important Note on the Right

Readers should note that the “Right” is by no means monolithic. There currently exists a major schism within the Right, featuring two major sides in the populist crowd, and a third on the elite side:

• One wing: Older, America-as-Empire conservatives: pro-Zionist, interventionist, dominant since Reagan.

• The other: A rising America First surge: anti-Zionist, anti-war, young, and embracing cultural and ethnic identity they were taught to reject.

• A third, elite-oriented: Technocratic, oligarchic, neo-feudalist. These are your tech moguls trying to figure out what to do with the plebs when the robots take over.

We’ll dissect this fracture in future pieces. For now, we map the current chasm between Right and Left as it exists on the populist level.

Let’s start with the battlefields.

The nature of truth and reality

Truth and reality are no longer debated — they are declared war upon. The Right and Left do not merely disagree. Rather, they operate in parallel universes, each with its own physics.

For the Right: Reality is objective, borders are real, and cultures clash. Historical patterns are real and relevant to today. Truth is discovered, not invented, like gravity or chemical properties.

For the Left: Reality is a social construct. Truth is subjective, defined by lived experience and power dynamics. “My truth” is sovereign. Facts bend and biology yields.

No battlefield exposes this rift more starkly than the transgender movement. Why, one might ask, would such a tiny percent of the population — less than 1% — turn into such a cultural flashpoint?

Because it’s got little to do with policy. It’s about whose reality rules.

For the Right, a man can’t become a woman or vice versa in the same way the sky isn’t green and chickens don’t give live birth. Nature doesn’t negotiate.

For the Left, identity is self-authored. If you are a woman in your truth, then you are — full stop.

Most on the Right don’t particularly care what adults do in private. The war began when this ideology marched into classrooms, when children were taught sex is a spectrum, truth is negotiable, and biology is bigotry.

Don’t tell me it didn’t happen. It did. And it still does.

This argument isn’t a debate. It’s a schism in the fabric of reality itself. Sure, both sides are capable of cherry-picking scientific data to back up their points, but for the Right biology is unbending.

The foundation of society

The Left and Right don’t just disagree on policy. They disagree on what a society fundamentally is.

For the Right: The nuclear family, faith, and ethnic and/or cultural nationhood are the load-bearing beams of civilization. Society is built on tradition, heredity, and shared blood and culture. Break these and the whole house collapses.

For the Left: Society is built on individual autonomy, intersectional identity blocs, and the state as parent. The traditional family and nation are oppressive relics that should be deconstructed, not defended.

For an example, let’s look at Critical Race Theory as taught in schools, both in K-12 and universities. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Left realized that dominating education was critical to their success in the future. Thus began the Long March through the Institutions, which has been thoroughly effective — the vast majority of teachers and professors lean left.

The fight about CRT in schools isn’t about history. Rather, it’s a proxy war for who owns the next generation and what they’ve been taught to revere. That this fight is in public schools is crucial: Homeschooling may be growing in popularity, but it’s retreat rather than victory.

For the Right, children should honor their ancestors — flaws and all — as the bloodline that built the nation.

For the Left, children must atone for their ancestors as perpetual oppressors in a system designed to crush. If their ancestors were the oppressed, the children must be lifted above their peers to enact generational justice.

One side teaches pride. The other teaches guilt or vengeance. There is no middle ground when one worldview looks to the past as glorious and the other as shameful.

The concept of justice

Between the two sides, justice is not a shared word. It is a weapon — or at least it can be. To be clear, either side is quite capable of abusing the justice system, as we’ve seen more than enough in recent decades.

For the Right: Justice is blind. Equal rules apply to all, merit trumps privilege, and outcomes are earned by sweat, skill, and choice. Equity is just nepotism with a Social Justice filter. No one gets a head start, and no one gets a handicap.

For the Left: Justice is about equity. Equal outcomes are enforced for designated groups by systemic discrimination against oppressor classes. The State can and should be used as a weapon against political enemies.

I grew up believing in a color-blind, meritocratic society. Most of us did.

But look around. It’s impossible to ignore how racially inflamed societies have become across the Western world. This didn’t happen by accident — it was engineered.

The Digital Iron Curtain

The chasm that divides our society isn’t accidental. Information control, the most powerful weapon of our age, is being used to engineer and maintain this divide. Why? For one reason, it’s highly profitable. But there’s an element to it that goes beyond profit as well.

This isn’t new in theory, but it’s new in practice. In 1861, newspapers split America into two realities, but much information still spread the old fashioned way — by word-of-mouth. In 2025, algorithms do the splitting much more efficiently: faster, cleaner, and at scale.

Rather than partisan editors, AI engagement engines pull viewers left or right. And instead of regional distribution, we get global, instant, and personalized news.

Right-leaning users get crime stats, border chaos, and outrage clips. Left-leaning users see systemic racism, climate catastrophism, and trans kids in danger. Both got COVID fear-mongering, censored information, and no shortage of rage-bait.

Until recently, the bias was systemic. The Twitter Files — released after Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (or X, whatever) — revealed heavy government pressure for left-leaning censorship from the Biden administration. Other social media figures like Mark Zuckerberg further publicly confirmed this.

The result? Information silos so tight even the aware can’t escape without incredible effort.

Back in 1861, you could at least walk to the other side of town and hear what other people thought. Now, you can’t even find the other side.

The Great Diversion

The chasm between the Left and Right didn’t just appear. It was redirected.

In 2008, the banks failed. The people rose — both Left and Right — in the Occupy and Tea Party movements. Remember the “We are the 99%” chants? The Occupy and the Tea Party held plenty of animosity against each other, but each correctly identified major financial institutions as the problem. Even then, the divisions between the two were easily exploitable.

But for a brief moment, the people saw the real enemy: The merger of Washington and Wall Street. They saw the beast, naked and afraid for the first time. That’s when the Great Diversion began.

The seeds of division were thrown onto fertile ground. As a large, diverse nation, there are a million ways you could get Americans to fight each other. There was already a Left and Right, so that was an obvious place to start. The media led the Great Racial Awakening, with articles containing the words “race/racism” skyrocketing following 2010. Algorithms turbocharged all this, and still do.

So, we fought over race instead of bailouts. Bathrooms instead of banks. Flags instead of foreclosures. People fought their neighbors while their pockets were being picked.

The Left was sold Identitarianism. The Right was sold the Culture War. Both were distracted from the real theft: The giant sucking sound of money going from Main Street to Wall Street.

The elites didn’t just profit from the divide. They orchestrated it. They funded the NGOs, pushed the narratives, and kept the rage pointed sideways — anywhere but up.

The results were trillions transferred, trust destroyed, and nations (yes, plural) about to ignite. Meanwhile, the machine is still running.

The Digital Iron Curtain didn’t create the divide. Rather, it weaponized the diversion, which grows stronger every day.

Now, while the powder keg is full, and matches are being flicked towards it, the elites have already built their bunkers. They know what’s coming.

Share

Navigating the Unbridgeable Divide

The differences we’ve explored here aren’t political. They’re civilizational.

The Digital Iron Curtain is not a bug. It’s engineered, carefully constructed to keep you distracted, divided, and bleeding.

To embrace the Fourth Turning is to see the truth: We’re in a struggle for America’s soul. The Left and Right are at each other’s throats, and violence is already quite real. Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the attempted murder of the president, violent mobs — it’s all already started. If this were a baseball game, we’d only be in the second inning. For my non-American readers, there are nine innings.

Your neighbor is not the enemy. The Beast is: Washington, Wall Street, and those who see you as livestock on the tax farm. Elites wrestle for control behind the scenes in DC, Silicon Valley, and other power centers while the rest of us are distracted by the outrage du jour or new trend.

But it’s too late. The fight is coming. It will be ugly, it will be necessary, and it may be long.

I’m not calling for war. I’m warning you it’s coming whether we want it or not. And if it does, the best we can hope for is something like the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The worst case scenario…well, that’s a nightmare. We can avoid it if we’re lucky, but luck is running out.

Strengthen your family, arm yourself and your mind, and choose your ground. Because the powder keg is full, and all it will take is one match.

When the smoke clears, there will be one America. Not by vote, but by blood and will. This is not the end, but the reckoning. What comes next is up to us.

Leave a comment

Last time, we established that the storm was coming. As the clock strikes midnight on a crumbling citadel — where AIPAC wines and dines Congress, big pharma funds the FDA, and Congress spends more than ever — 2025’s Fourth Turning storm exposes a foundation of rot.

Wise founders knew lasting systems outlast leaders, their genius crafting structures to endure well after they leave this mortal coil. But like people, these frameworks age, corrupt, and falter. These crumbling structures are felt both intuitively and rationally across the West today, signaling that either change or failure is on the way.

Confidence in government, finance, and civic life has never been lower, fading in this predictable and predicted phase of the Fourth Turning. In the US, confidence across 17 major institutions is at a historic low of just 28%. The lowest? Congress, netting just single figures of support.

History teems with such institutional collapses, but the rot and erosion we’re currently witnessing carry a bitter edge, laced with rage. Post-WW2 and older edifices alike sink like castles built on sand, as their foundation — fiat currency — is inherently unstable. It’s been unstable for decades already, and is only getting worse.

Money shapes value. When it shifts, the structures built atop it erode. From Washington to Brussels — from U.S. military bloat to Europe’s border crisis, COVID mistrust to judicial failures — the decay spreads, and at a faster pace than ever before.

Fiat currency isn’t the sole cause of corruption or failing institutions. Rather, it’s an amplifying factor and an accelerant that leads to a more rapid decay than sound money itself would.

Institutional decay is far from new, but it’s now at a critical point. What happens in the next several years will determine the direction of the collective West over the next century or more.

There’s more. In addition to the corruption, I can’t help but sense a dose of disdain and even malice Western governments have towards their own people. The options are simple: Either governments are so incompetent they don’t know they’re kicking a hornet’s nest, or they’re doing it on purpose for their own ends.

Let’s look at how we got here, which institutions are in the roughest shape, and what we can expect in the future.

The Crumbling Foundation: Setting the Stage

Public support for institutions has been on a long, steady slide for decades. In the US, public trust in the government began its decline in the late 1960s and accelerated in the 1970s, recovering briefly under Reagan, climbing under Clinton, and spiking briefly under George W Bush before plummeting to where it is now.

A cascade of betrayals — the Dot-Com bust, the post-9/11 security state, the WMD lies of Iraq, and the 2008 bailouts that socialized Wall Street’s losses — systematically stripped my generation of any remaining institutional trust.

One key takeaway from 2008, for those paying attention, was that even the slightest retrenchment in debt meant certain death for the financial system. Look at the part under the arrow. That tiny downturn almost destroyed the global economy. The takeaway: The debt must flow or the whole system goes kablooie.

Let’s look briefly to Europe:

• Eurozone Crisis: Periphery countries like Greece, Portugal, Italy, and Spain saw their trust in national institutions crater due to post-crisis austerity and high unemployment.

• Cracks Showing: The economic crisis and “bail-in” in Cyprus in 2013 spooked euro-holders, as the bail-in model was confirmed by the ECB as the model for future economic crises.

• Migration Crisis: Migration had already been a major issue in Europe prior to the Syrian Civil War, but accelerated rapidly afterwards. It’s been a major catalyst for destabilization continent-wide. We’ll cover this more later.

The Anatomy of the Rot: A Sector-by-Sector Dissection

The erosion of trust the West has experienced isn’t just an abstract feeling. Rather, it’s a rational response to the systemic failure of our most critical institutions. Let’s take a look at the rot in each, flipping over the dead logs to see what creepy crawlies lie underneath.

Finance: The Engine of Corruption

The core engine of corruption is the financial system and, specifically, the fiat currency system that drives it. Being able to debase money and create it out of thin air leads to problems, and has done so going back to ancient times — this is nothing new. Now, however, it’s easier than ever to do, as money can be made by the push of a button.

Fiat money separates reward from effort and gives corruption the full-steam go-ahead. Note the stark split between labor productivity and income in 1971, the year the dollar was fully removed from the gold standard (see chart below). It’s no accident.

A key reason for both increased wealth inequality and corruption is found in the Cantillon Effect. New money benefits the already-connected, like banks, governments, and asset owners like stockholders first. The productive class gets it later. Think trickle-down economics, except nothing ever trickles down (it never did anyway). Take a look, for example, at how historically low Fed funds rates made a stock boom, and how printing money in the wake of the 2020 crisis skyrocketed stocks even further. Given that around 10% of Americans own some 90% of stocks, you’ll get the picture. Now, take the time machine test: Imagine telling anyone 30 years ago about billionaires worth hundreds of billions of dollars. It sounded absurd then, and it still does today.

The bailout culture created in 2008 undermined any sense of financial fairness — which was already scant at that point. This system of privatized gains and socialized losses is now deeply embedded in the public psyche, to the point where ordinary citizens fully expect that to be the case in any future economic crisis. This is not just an American thing, either — as mentioned above, the 2013 Cyprus bail-in crisis showed Euro holders that their deposits are really just unsecured loans to banks, and not really theirs at all.

Then there’s the ESG and Stakeholder Capitalism that’s been wielded like a blunt force object to enforce a global, anti-national identity across corporations. Asset managers like Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard own enough shares in enough major companies to set policies that affect the whole world and, in many ways, set cultural tones. Why have so many companies gone woke? It wasn’t just their morals — it was enforced by their large shareholders.

The COVID Crucible: The Mask Comes Off

If you were to nail down any one thing over the last 20 years that broke public trust in governments, it was the COVID crisis. This was the ultimate stress test of our institutions, and they failed spectacularly. It revealed institutional insanity, cruelty, and hypocrisy, all wrapped up in one creepy package that led to a crisis of legitimacy. The COVID era revealed institutional failures on four fronts.

1: Abandonment of Principle. In both the US and the EU, the rule of law and bodily autonomy were taken from their purportedly sacrosanct pedestal and lit on fire.

There’s a litany of legal and moral violations that could span pages, but I’ll cover a few. In the US, for example, the CDC unconstitutionally announced blanket eviction moratoriums from September, 2020 to the end of August, 2021. Any tenant with more brain than morals would have stopped paying their rent, which happened plenty. Combine that with workers deemed “essential” and “non-essential” and there was an arbitrary mess well beyond the rule of law.

That the Biden administration even attempted to enforce OSHA mandates stipulating companies with over 100 employees require testing spoke to the fervor of the madness. The military required the vaccine, as did hospitals. Mask mandates were common and many states either attempted to create or did create vaccine passports. The same was common in Europe, with Austria, for example, imposing a full vaccine mandate. I hopefully don’t have to remind you of much more here:

2: Corruption of Science. It’s hard to overstate just how much faith has been lost in scientific and medical institutions in the wake of COVID. Health agencies became propaganda arms, and once-lionized figures like Anthony Fauci are facing scrutiny for what were, at the time, obvious lies.

In the US, The NIH/NIAID’s funding of gain-of-function research — and the cover-ups that followed — eroded public trust in public health authorities. Meanwhile, the CDC’s wishy-washy, made-up guidelines on masks and social distancing created arbitrary rules that were often cruelly enforced by lockdowns that prevented family gatherings, stopped loved ones from visiting family in hospital, and destroyed much of social life. The same can be said in Europe, just with different institutions.

3: The Censorship-Industrial Complex. COVID saw the full merger of state and corporate power to silence dissent. This gave governments a taste of raw censorship power, which many will be loath to let go of. It’s a terrible precedent to set.

In the US, for example, the White House directly flagged a huge number of posts across social media as “disinformation” and leaned on social media platforms to take the posts down and ban users. This information is now widely public via the Twitter Files, Mark Zuckerberg’s own words, and Google’s recent announcement that the government asked them to censor or ban certain creators.

Obviously, this is directly in contravention to the First Amendment, which also prevents the government from forcing companies to do what they wouldn’t do on their own.

In the EU, The EU’s Disinformation Unit partnered with Big Tech to remove “harmful” content, which led to governments arresting citizens for “spreading fear” online.

I recommend looking more into these breaches, because they’re only going to get more common in the coming years.

4: The Ultimate Hypocrisy: Borders and BLM. While citizens across the US and Europe were locked down to prevent the spread of COVID, countless millions undocumented migrants crossed into the countries illegally. They weren’t tested for COVID and weren’t subject to vaccine mandates, all while legal citizens faced travel bans and other restrictions.

Meanwhile, in the US, the BLM riots — which happened right in the middle of lockdowns — were allowed and even encouraged to happen. Mass gatherings, we were told, were superspreader events. But somehow the virus knew to avoid BLM riots, right?

The border crisis as well as BLM riots during COVID proved the lockdowns were never about health. They were a demonstration of power, with the policy aim being control, not safety.

The Political System: From Representation to Parasitism

The concept of the Uniparty in the US is well established, and for good reason. No matter who we actually vote for, we get the same thing: More spending, more war, more support for Israel, and more debt. The theatrical opposition is purely that — theatrical — and while you may see public figures get excoriated in front of Congressional committees, little happens.

A key reason is this: The US Congress is captured territory, owned by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Military-Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, and, increasingly, Big Tech. This donor money dictates policy, not the national interest of ordinary citizens. Americans are increasingly aware of this, yet little can be done in our current system as politicians need to bend the knee in order to receive donor funds. This is Turchin’s “elite overproduction” in summary: If one aspiring politician won’t kiss the ring, another will. And they’ll spend as much as they want without limit, because money can always be borrowed (printed).

The donor-driven spectacle is matched only by the sheer incompetence of the State. There’s no better example than California’s $100 billion-plus high-speed rail fiasco. It’s a monument to bureaucratic bloat that remains nowhere close to finished and is hugely over-budget. And that’s just for 800 miles of rail. Meanwhile, in China, nearly 30,000 miles of high-speed rail has been laid in the past few decades. It makes us look downright silly.

While state legislatures and the national Congress run its circus, the Deep State runs its own show. An unelected bureaucracy committed above all to maintaining its relevance and job roles, it plays an enormous role in the actual direction of the country. I call this institutional capture The Praetorian Problem, as capture of power in centralized empires happens every single time. Read the article linked in the previous sentence for more details.

Laws for Thee but not for Me

Similarly, two-tiered justice has made massive inroads across Western societies. During COVID, ordinary citizens were fined or arrested for opening their businesses or even attending church. Meanwhile, political elites like Gavin Newsom and Boris Johnson were caught having lavish parties during the height of lockdowns. Laws for thee, but not for me? Absolutely.

The pandemic gave governments power to bypass legislatures and rule by decree. Using emergencies to push agendas is a time-tested strategy for any government, going back as far as governments have existed, from Washington to Rome and Beijing to Babylon.

One can’t ignore the damage done to the US before COVID either by the entirely-manufactured and now-disproven Russiagate hoax that hamstrung the first Trump administration. This rabbit hole deserves its own post, but it looks likely that justice may finally happen for this deeply divisive and cynical political ploy.

In Europe, two-tiered justice is on full display. In the UK, citizens are arrested for “offensive” social media posts. In Germany, the network enforcement law forces tech companies to censor speech on behalf of the state under threat of fines, privatizing censorship.

Europe is subject to a supranational European Court of Human Rights that supersedes national, democratic decisions regarding things like immigration and censorship. That the EU dares to call itself a democracy is a sick joke.

The Media: Fourth Estate to Fifth Column

Across the Western world, the press has abandoned its duty to inform and has instead become the propaganda arm of regimes. People are quickly becoming wise to this, switching instead to alternative media — but that alternative media is now coming under its own form of censorship. For example, TikTok was forced to be sold to billionaires like Larry Ellison, and is already undergoing mass censorship.

The synchronized narratives across much of the globe during the COVID pandemic, as well as during elections and during crises like the BLM riots and January 6 show just how controlled the press really is.

The active suppression of stories like the Hunter Biden laptop, done in lockstep in the leadup to the 2020 election, shows direct collusion with the deep state.

Further, active fomenting of social, racial, and gender divisions by toxic and clickbaity articles and videos — both for profit and division — have undermined the credibility of all major journalistic institutions. According to Gallup, only 12% of Americans have any confidence in TV news, and less than 20% have any confidence in newspapers. That’s an absolute cratering.

The media has lost all legitimacy, and rightly so. Their decay is one of the most visible to the public, and one of the most impactful.

Academia: From Pursuit of Truth to Factory of Resentment

Top universities used to be places of wonder. In recent decades, if you told someone you went to Harvard, you automatically gained respect. Now, recent graduates may be met with disdain. It’s difficult to understate the effect of this loss of institutional trust.

Rather than inform, many universities now exist to indoctrinate and dismantle Western civilization. This is no accident! This is the result of The Long March Through the Institutions, beginning in the 1960s and 70s, when Leftists made it their aim to dominate critical pedagogical institutions. It worked, and now students from top institutions leave with more opinion than fact, and quite skewed opinions at that. The stereotype of a normal kid going to college and coming back pierced and with blue hair is a stereotype on purpose.

DEI bureaucracy, CRT, and gender ideology replacing core curricula mark a turn back from high-minded philosophical thinking to self-interested, me-first, biological thinking. This harkens back to JD Unwin’s shift down the civilizational ladder away from Rationalistic and towards Zoistic (see previous article for context).

Academic institutions will be the first to label those protesting mass migration as racist, as well as call those who see it as part of a broad pattern “conspiracy theorists.” These terms are losing their bite — people are waking up.

European intellectual institutions, birthplace of anti-western thinking like the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, saw their ideas infiltrate the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s, gaining dominance through postmodernism in recent decades. Having exported these theories, they now heavily influence the Western World, often to our collective detriment

The Malice Factor: Incompetence or Hostility?

From all of the above converging factors, one key question arises:

Is the institutional rot due more to incompetence or to malice?

A valuable saying goes like this: Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. But three times is enemy action.

The patterns are too consistent and cross too many institutions and borders to be accidental. Incompetence is random and, occasionally, would lead to good outcomes. What we’re seeing is malice.

Policies of open borders, weaponized justice, financial transfer to elites, and COVID-era control all share the same outcome: The weakening of the native population, the dissolution of national cohesion, and the transfer of power to a global elite.

Look no further than the mass migration occurring across the Western World to see the malice. Replacement Migration isn’t a theory: It’s UN Policy, as outlined in this document. Sure, a large part of the migration is desperation in the face of declining populations and worrisome pension schemes. Some political leaders do earnestly believe they’re doing the right thing, often out of naivety. But if things simply weren’t going to plan, governments would change their tack. Most are not because the ideology is too pervasive.

The most evil thing I’ve ever witnessed was governments telling their young people their countries were overpopulated and to stop having babies. Then, just years later, they turned around and said people weren’t having enough babies so immigration was necessary, contradicting the very overpopulation problem they had previously warned against.

I repeat: This is evil, and it must end.

Rot Before Renewal

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

-Tacitus, Annals, Book 3

The rot across Western institutions was predictable, and is now total and undeniable. Things may look bleak for now, but look at this time as a good and necessary thing. A terminally diseased system can’t be reformed. It must be allowed to fall so something new, built on sound principles like sound money, free speech, and national sovereignty can take its place. For now, there are too many laws, our system is top-heavy and overly complicated, and it’s produced a confused, tangled mess. Look at the looming government shutdown over yet another Continuing Resolution spending bill — it’s the same story, again and again.

In the previous article, I used the metaphor of a forest fire needed to clear out the underbrush and allow new life to flourish. Out of this conflagration must come more localization, government reforms, sound money, free speech, and a more optimistic society. We’ll build new institutions that earn our trust. In the ashes of the previous system, we’ll welcome a new dawn. Institutions have had to be destroyed and rebuilt before, and it’ll happen again. Europe rebuilt and came out stronger after the Black Plague. Americans fought for independence from a tyrannical system. It’s just our turn now.

The current struggle will be a painful but necessary part of the Fourth Turning. People are already fractured to the point of irreconcilable differences. Conflict is guaranteed, as diametrically opposed worldviews can’t continue to coexist. Join me in the next article, where we’ll explore those irreconcilable differences, as we break down where we’re headed next.

Leave a comment

A little over a year ago, I wrote an article arguing that the Left and Right were obsolete concepts. In short, I saw a hopeful shift towards a more realistic view of haves versus have-nots on one hand, and integrity versus corruption on another. Surely, the team-sports-as-political-identity phase of American politics was bound to be over, I thought.

Boy, was I wrong.

Instead, the country stumbles, flailing and incoherent, from one crisis to another, with increasing polarization all around. One mistake I made in my previous prognostication was that political leaning would eventually make logical sense, which was naive on my part. Turns out it doesn't. Tribalism trumps logic any day of the week. It always has, and likely always will.

The reasons for my misplaced hope stemmed from observing multiple trends converge on a single point: The US is headed for inescapable chaos, as are its vassals in Europe. In many ways, it’s already there, though the temperature is nowhere near the boiling point.

If you were to stop reading right here, the key takeaway from this article would be this: The chaos we’re seeing was predicted and predictable, and is happening right on schedule. It’s only the specifics that are surprising.

The recent horrific and very public assassination of Charlie Kirk at a university rally and the brutal stabbing of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train are examples of ever-more-common public violence in the US. Mass protests against immigration in Europe and draconian government censorship have their own flavor of chaos. Combine that social chaos with incomprehensible foreign policy as well as backwards and antagonistic economic policy (that we’ll explore in a subsequent post) and you’re looking at a society up the proverbial creek.

Critically, the public reaction to all the above is just as important as what’s happening to begin with. You can be sure some groups benefit from dividing people — but the seeds of division can only grow in fertile soil. I’m not yet an old man, but I’ve never seen society so starkly divided.

So, it’s time to put on our pattern recognition hats. Three major predictive patterns align to make this decade and more one of predicted turmoil. Another fourth predictive pattern casts additional shadows on a backdrop that has not yet made significant waves, but nonetheless presents significant insights.

This article will be the first in a series of three exploring division, chaos, and uncertainty. The subsequent articles will be (in an order determined by my whim):

• Embracing the Fourth Turning: Institutional Rot

• Embracing the Fourth Turning: Irreconcilable Differences

For my dear readers, I want to make a point clear. This is not a doom-and-gloom article series. While I fully expect chaos in the short term, in the long term I’m optimistic. Periodic upheavals are necessary, like occasional forest fires, to burn the deadwood and choking underbrush of a society so that new life may flourish.

So, when I say “Embrace the Fourth Turning” as I do in the title, it doesn’t mean I expect you to like it. Rather, it means this: Accept that the Fourth Turning is real, update your mental model, and prepare yourself accordingly.

Let’s start by examining the four predictive, converging models that lead me to the conclusion chaos was predictably inevitable, and then we’ll paint the backdrop it’s all taking place on.

Four Predictive Models

Four Predictive Models

If you were to go ten years in the past and tell the average American that, for starters:

1. There had been two attempts on a presidential candidate’s life in 2024

2. That candidate was Donald Trump

3. There had been a major pandemic in 2020 that shut down the economy and killed millions

4. Nationwide race riots had caused billions of dollars in damage in 2020, and

5. There were wars in Ukraine and Israel the US was funding, they would rightly ask how the hell things got so bad so fast.

You can call this the Time Machine Test to see just how different things are from recently. But bright minds saw chaos of this sort coming. Let’s start with the theory this article derives its title from.

Strauss and Howe’s Generational Theory

For William Strauss and Neil Howe, devolution towards chaos fits their generational turning model. In fact, they’d predicted chaos in the mid-2020s in their 1997 book The Fourth Turning, which examines generational dynamics over an 80-year timeframe, or around the length of a human life. Imagine each generation as seasons of a year.

After each fourth generation in the US, they argue, there is an upheaval that unravels the old order to make way for a new one. The previous fourth turning was the Second World War, some 80 years ago. The previous fourth turning? The Civil War. Before that? The Revolutionary War. This even goes back to England, with the Glorious Revolution. You get the picture.

Each phase in their cycle lasts around 20-25 years, and looks like this:

1. High (first turning): A post-crisis era of institutional strength, collective optimism, and social cohesion, with a focus on rebuilding.

2. Awakening (second turning): A cultural and spiritual upheaval where individualism rises, and younger generations challenge institutional norms.

3. Unraveling (third turning): A period of institutional decline, rising individualism, and social fragmentation, with trust eroding.

4. Crisis (fourth turning): A period of existential upheaval where institutions are challenged and society faces major economic, political, and social crises, leading to a new order.

For Strauss and Howe, their prediction of a fourth turning puts 2025 right in the middle of it, with a potential resolution towards the end of the decade. Ongoing US polarization, economic inequality, and loss of faith in institutions all contribute to the crisis.

Peter Turchin’s Secular Cycles

Historian Peter Turchin’s book Ages of Discord provides a structural and demographic framework to explain why societies, including the United States, go through periodic upheavals. In Turchin’s model, historical instability arises from demographic pressures, economic inequality, and “elite overproduction,” or too many elites competing for the same jobs. Think too many lawyers, MBAs, aspiring politicians, and so on, competing for limited positions. This can end up in political gridlock, for example, which is perhaps the most reliable thing the US government provides.

Inequality has risen sharply in the US since the 1970s, and Turchin predicted a peak in instability between 2020-2030. An example? CEOs now earn 290x the average worker, up from 30x in the 1970s, as the top 1% hoovers up 20% of all income. In 1970, that top 1% only took home 10% of all income. These trends are only widening.

As Plutarch wrote, “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” We’re seeing that in real time.

Turchin really gets into the weeds with statistics and a mathematical view of history. It’s fascinating stuff. He produces charts like this to help visualize change:

See the dotted black line spiking upwards after 2000? That’s the conflict Turchin sees incoming in his Political Stress Index. Look where it’s headed by 2025. The solid black line is his Well-Being Index, backed by loads of data. As you can see, he calls what’s happening now the Age of Discord II.

John Glubb: The Fate of Empires

In 1978, British Lieutenant General Sir John Bagot Glubb penned an essay entitled The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival. Its core argument was that, on average, empires last around 250 years, or ten generations. Glubb breaks down the phases of empire as follows:

1. Age of pioneers: A dynamic group conquers or builds the empires through bold, collective action.

2. Age of conquests: Rapid expansion consolidates power and territory.

3. Age of commerce: Economic prosperity and trade flourish, fueling wealth and influence.

4. Age of affluence: Wealth leads to decadence, with focus shifting to luxury and consumption.

5. Age of intellect: Cultural and intellectual achievements peak, but complacency and division emerge.

6. Age of decadence: Marked by declining civic virtue, corruption, inequality, and internal strife, leading to collapse.

Note that, on July 4, 2026, the United States will officially be 250 years old. While Glubb’s core thesis is an approximation rather than an iron law of history, it seems pretty on-the-money here.

JD Unwin: Sex and Culture

While the above three works are fairly frequently cited in discussions of civilizational decline, JD Unwin’s Sex and Culture (1934) often flies under the radar. As a dispassionate and secular anthropological study of the relationship between sexual norms and cultural achievement, Sex and Culture explores cultural energy through an oft-ignored lens. Unwin studied 16 civilizations and 80 “primitive societies” over some 5,000 years, offering significant breadth without moralizing.

His conclusion? Societies with strict sexual constraints, particularly pre-nuptial chastity and absolute monogamy, exhibit the most “social energy,” leading to advancements in art, architecture, science, technology, and governance. Conversely, when societies liberalize sexual norms, they lose both cohesion and creative energy, devolving within three generations towards what he called a “zoistic” state, or one focused on the self and immediate biological or ego-driven needs.

Critically, Unwin did not argue for a domineering patriarchal society, which is a common knee-jerk assumption for those hearing his thesis for the first time. Indeed, he argued that legal equality between men and women is critical to maintaining a healthy society.

Unwin categorized societies into four types:
1. Zoistic: Lacking complex structures, organized religions, or significant cultural output.

2. Manistic: Exhibiting simple religious practices, basic governance or hierarchies, and modest cultural output.

3. Deistic: Marked by organized religion, formalized institutions, and significant cultural achievements.

4. Rationalistic: Producing breakthroughs in philosophy, science, law, and art, with sophisticated governance and religious structure.

Consider that we’re roughly 3 generations after the sexual liberation of the Western world and you’ll see that this, too, fits the framework of things breaking down by the 2020s.

Unpredictable Pathways Plotted

Pinpointing the exact spark for upheaval is a fool’s errand. Think of Otto von Bismarck’s quip before World War I: “Some damn foolish thing in the Balkans” would ignite it. No one foresaw the Archduke Ferdinand assassination, yet Europe’s statesmen felt war brewing. Today, the patterns converge. Turchin’s Political Stress Index has soared more than 250% since 2000, Glubb’s 250-year decadence looms in 2026 for the U.S., Strauss-Howe’s 80-year cycle marks a crisis, and Unwin’s 3-generation decline syncs with other models. Whether sparked by the Kirk killing, Zarutska’s horrific murder, yet another school shooting, or a black swan event, chaos looks set to broaden and intensify. Chaos moves in interesting ways: gradually, and then all at once.

Forget crystal ball guesses. Focus on broad patterns. The next decade, following the already-wild 2020s, promises to be a roller coaster, with institutional rot and irreconcilable differences between countrymen (our next topics) stoking the momentum. Update your mental models, prepare for the unexpected, and let’s navigate this Fourth Turning together.

Leave a comment

With all the confusing and confounding changes swirling around the Neverending Epstein Saga, I wanted to take a moment to simplify the case and its importance as much as possible. There are far too many weeds to get into, with daily changes, so tracking the situation based on a simple framework helps keep the story in perspective.

To wit, there are two sets of beliefs to consider when approaching the Epstein story.

1. The DOJ and Trump (henceforth referred to as “they”) are telling the truth, or they are lying.

2. The story is of peripheral interest, or the story is of central interest.

Let’s examine each of these sets in more detail. For reference, these opposing ideas can be considered on a sliding scale as opposed to being absolutes.

Truth or Lies in the Epstein Files?

On the one hand, Trump and his DOJ would like us to believe that they’re telling the truth and being absolutely transparent. The current story according to Trump as of this writing is that the “Epstein files” as we understand them are a Democratic political weapon concocted by James Comey et al in the fashion of the Russiagate hoax. AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have informed us that there is no client list and that, in essence, Epstein acted alone and for his own benefit. Yes, this is an extremely simplified explanation.

On the other hand, there is an absolute mountain of evidence that someone is being untruthful. Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino effectively staked their reputation on releasing the Epstein files. Bondi has promised to release them to the public many times over. Trump implicated Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew in the scandal during his campaign. It’s only in recent weeks the story has changed so dramatically that they now insist there is no information the public should want.

To be clear, I believe it’s quite possible there’s no “list” per se rather than years of documents to wade through.

At the same time, I firmly believe someone within the government is lying — perhaps many of them, but we don’t know who yet.

And why wouldn’t they lie? It fits a pattern of behavior that’s persisted for decades. The government screws up or does something nefarious, then lies about it and tries to cover it up. We’ve seen this same charade for literal decades, going at least back to the JFK assassination, and assuming it would change simply because there’s a new sheriff in town is naïve.

Until we have definitive evidence, we must assume we are not being told the truth.

My readers are intelligent, so I’ll ask: Do you think they are lying? If so, who is lying and why?

Leave a comment

Epstein’s Case: Minor or Monumental?

On the one hand, the president himself — in addition to a number of commentators — has suggested that the public should let the story go, and in no uncertain terms. As this story would have it, Epstein was just a creep who clearly did horrible things, but it’s all over and it’s no longer important. He did it mostly on his own and for the love of the game. It’s certainly not as important as, say, mass deportations, or bringing back manufacturing, or _____ (pick your topic).

On the other hand, for many, the Epstein case is the Rosetta Stone that translates decades of American and transnational corruption for the public to finally and plainly see. It’s not that the crimes committed by Epstein themselves are the key concern, though they’re plenty bad. Rather, it’s why his sex trafficking ring existed and how he got away with it for so long. In short: Who benefits?

Like the government lies the public is all too familiar with, the Epstein case represents the nexus of patterns of behavior that have troubled many of us for far too long. As I wrote before, it’s one rabbit hole that leads to an entire rabbit warren of corruption and villainy. So, for those of us “conspiracy theorists” who see these patterns align, here’s what we see:

• Rampant elite financial corruption and unaccountability

• Intelligence agencies working well beyond their charter

• Moral corruption at the highest levels of society

• Institutional capture by powers hostile or uncaring towards the American people

• Undue international influence on the American government and elite power structure, namely by Israel

• Yet another government coverup to protect the highest echelons of society

• Simply put, it looks and feels like we are ruled by evil

The concept of a honeypot sex-blackmail operation is nothing new. In fact, it’s ancient. Consider:

• In the Biblical story of Samson, Delilah seduces Samson with the goal of him revealing the source of his power (his hair). Once she learns this, she cuts off his hair and delivers him to his enemies.

• Empress Wu Zetian of China widely used sexual blackmail via courtiers and illicit relationships to gain compromising on her political enemies.

• Empress Theodora of the Byzantine Empire relied on sexual blackmail to compromise and neutralize enemies of Justinian in the famously-complex (Byzantine, some might say) imperial court.

This list could be much longer, but the aim of this article is to be brief. The point is this: To expect that sexual blackmail is out of the question, when the story looks exactly like that, is a wild stretch of the imagination. It’s par for the course in complex, high-powered centralized power structures — palace intrigue the modern public isn’t used to.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you probably have a duck. If someone wants you to believe it’s not a duck, it’s on them to prove it otherwise. That message needs to get through to the DOJ and Trump himself.

I’ll ask here, too: What do you think? Do you think this story is of little importance, of paramount importance, or somewhere in between?

Leave a comment

The Story Won’t Go Away

The Epstein story won’t go away until we have disclosure. The American people are right to be skeptical, and should continue to loudly demand accountability. The Trump administration promised transparency, and it’s our job to hold them to it.

There is a mountain of work to be done in this administration, but Trump’s base will not be along for the ride if this situation is not resolved. The administration has a chance to turn things around by being honest, but their current tactics are not working. Waving this story away is a non-starter.

Unresolved, the Epstein story will sink the Trump administration, which in turn may sink the country. We demand justice and honesty. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Subscribe now

Share

Travel with me, dear reader, through three brief examples of population collapses and the resulting changes that followed. This won’t take long, and then you’ll see where this goes.

The Black Death (1347-1351 AD) set the stage for the Protestant Reformation and the European wars of religion to come. The rapid population collapse of anywhere from 30-60% of Europe’s population shook up the social foundations of feudalism and eroded the moral authority of the Church, which was unable to explain or mitigate the calamity. Many who survived the plague emerged with a newfound skepticism towards institutions, resulting in a population that questioned authority much more than before. Combined with the intensity of religious fervor and apocalyptic visions the Black Death produced, the resulting calls for reform—including early violent reform in the Lollards and Hussites—later resulted in major conflict like the 30 Years’ War and the proliferation of new Christian sects.

The Plague of Justinian, beginning in 541 AD, killed anywhere from 25-50% of the Byzantine Empire and much of the Classical world, including the Zoroastrian Sasanian Persian empire. The Byzantine-Sasanian war of 602-628 AD, following on the heels of the recurring plague, further reduced the populations of each empire by perhaps 5-10% in the Byzantine Empire and as much as 10-15% in the Sasanian Empire, especially in its urbanized core around Mesopotamia. The weakening of both empires opened a path for the invasions of the newly-minted Islamic Rashidun Caliphate starting in 632 AD, resulting in the permanent loss of Christian lands in the Middle East and Egypt as well as the end of thousand-year-old state Zoroastrianism in Persia.

The Bronze Age Collapse, roughly around 1200 BC, resulted in the destruction of multiple empires and city states in the Eastern Mediterranean. This, in turn, led to estimated population collapses of north of 50% in Mycenaean Greece, roughly half in the Hittite empire and the same in the city-state of Ugarit, and lower estimates of 10-20% in Egypt and perhaps 20% in Assyria. Overall, the region suffered anywhere between a 20-50% population collapse. While no one is certain of the exact causes of the collapse, the reset of power and social structures paved the way for new methods of thought centering on individual moral responsibility and universal principles, as seen in Zoroaster, early Judaism, and thinkers like Socrates.

To put it very simply: Population collapses clear the slate of old institutions and modes of thinking, allowing for new ideas to arise. Specifically, population collapses often lead to new religions. Consequently, we can expect the modern population collapse we face to be followed by an explosion in new religions and belief structures.

Pyrophytes like giant sequoias require fire to reproduce, their seeds germinating in the ashy soil after the embers cool. So, too, new foundational ideas require the destruction of the old to thrive. As the saying goes, progress happens one funeral at a time. So what happens when there’s a lot of funerals at once?

More importantly, what does this have to do with now, and what does it have to do with the future? Let’s see what’s happening now in the next section, followed by predictions in the third section.

The Modern Population Bottleneck

Make no bones about it — the world is facing a major population collapse this century. Just so we’re clear, a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman is required for a stable population. While previous population declines can be attributed to war, famine, plague, natural disasters, or a number of other icky exogenous factors…no one can really figure out why birth rates are declining so fast now.

Going from 8 billion to, say, 4 billion isn’t necessarily a terrible thing on paper if it happens without violence. That’s far from empty — there were around 1.5 billion people in 1900. But the velocity of the upcoming population decline is the real kicker. It’s coming in fast, especially in urbanized and developed areas, and the swiftness will bring guaranteed instability.

The global total fertility rate (TFR) has crashed to 2.3 children per woman, with developed regions sinking to 1.5 per woman now from 2.3 in 1975. At 1.5 children per woman, the populations of each generation drop by 25%. At 1 child per woman, generational population sizes halve each time. Those are staggering declines without a shot being fired. Major cities are especially hard hit by birth rate declines, with Shanghai and Seoul seeing birth rates of around 0.6 per woman, and Beijing perhaps as low as 0.5 per woman.

There are theories as to why this is, sure. Contributing factors include:

• High cost of living and raising children, especially in developed countries.

• Urban environments have always been population sinks, and more people than ever are living in urban areas.

• Ease of access to and education about contraception makes preventing pregnancy easier than ever.

• Women’s education and employment correlates strongly with fewer children per woman.

• The reduction of extended family structures and broad communities makes raising children more difficult for parents.

• Chemical disruptions in the environment are leading to fertility problems, like continuously lower sperm counts in men.

• Nihilism, materialism, and lack of meaning separate people from the concept of an obligation to future generations.

We could go on. But the sheer scale and speed of the decline in birth rates is staggering, and nothing like it has ever happened before.

It’s global in scale, too. Whereas ten or twenty years ago holding such discussions often got one labeled a racist due to its localization, e.g. “Too many of them are being born and not enough of us,” now the sharp decline in birth rates is a global phenomenon. The projected numbers from the UN predict a steadying out of these sharp declines, but that seems optimistic. Consider as well that censuses around the world are notoriously unreliable — and in many cases likely juiced, like in Nigeria, where states get federal oil money based on population statistics.

The very rosy predictions here suggest a flattening out in birthrate crash that hasn’t materialized yet. Source: United Nations

But even the country with the current highest birth rate in the world — Niger, at ~6 per woman — is lower than Russia’s birth rate was in 1895, at ~7 per woman. So, there’s clearly something about modernity that doesn’t encourage people to breed. Perhaps people don’t breed well in captivity?

Subscribe now

The New Axial Age

Rather than debate the causes of the birth rate decline, I’d like to look at what’s likely to emerge after the population collapse, including how it gets reversed. Many belief structures will not survive the population decline, and we can expect new ones to emerge organically and without warning. At the same time, older beliefs will be challenged and adapt, reinventing themselves. Let’s speculate based on some assumed parameters:

• Global population decline of 20-50% by 2100, with Europe and East Asia hardest hit

• Persistent low TFR below 1.5 in many countries combined with aging populations and potential shocks (economic, environmental, conflict)

• Technological advances (AI, automation) and ongoing cultural shifts

• Belief structures spreading in places where religious fervor is weak (see chart below)

• Military conquests by new religions are exceptionally unlikely given modern tech

• Well-entrenched religions like Hinduism and Ethiopian Christianity aren’t going away

In general, I expect to see a de-centralization of religious beliefs and a myriad of new structures competing for influence. Critically, believers with the highest birth rates will gain influence as time goes on while adherents to belief structures that fail to reproduce will go extinct.

The following are some guesses I’ve made as to what new beliefs could look like. I’d love to hear yours!

Leave a comment

Space Age Maximalism

One of the most likely varieties of new religious/spiritual thought will fall in the techno-optimism camp. Beliefs like this will color human meaning with scientific striving and faith that technology is some combination of savior and ultimate expression of humanity at its best.

Specifically, space exploration could spur on newfound hope in human progress in its drive towards the infinite. Currently, I’m surprised there aren’t major movements seeking to link exploring the cosmos with deep spiritual purpose. For one thing, space exploration heeds the innate call of adventurism that most young people, especially young men, feel at some point in their lives. It’s invigorating, and the frontier mentality it would engender encourages self-reliance and optimism, and thus more children. The pull of colonizing the solar system and new planets further provides infinite fodder for developing religious beliefs, especially since early colonists will be somewhat isolated and will certainly develop their own cultures.

Combine the above belief with a dose of post-materialism and psychedelic spiritualism and you’ve got a powerful driving explanation for man’s role in the universe as well as built-in rituals.

At the same time, AI development could easily lead to machine intelligence itself being the center of a sort of worship — not God in any traditional sense, but something entirely new. With the current rate of AI development, long-term speculation here is all but impossible.

Eco-nationalism

In contrast to techno-futurism, eco-nationalism represents more of a return-to-the-earth religious drive, where home and environmental health are the prime focus. Tending the land and stewarding local flora and fauna are an age-old religious practice that in many ways is the default for humanity. This is essentially new-age Totemism, with care focused most intensely on kin, tribe, and the local environs. Science and mysticism will blend to create new, localized beliefs that may extend to the national level but not much further.

As many areas become more rural, those who remain will likely become fiercely independent protectors of their area, drawing deep ties to their specific locale, with local shrines similar to those found in Shintoism.

Simulation Theory Gnosticism

Gnosticism blends quite well with simulation theory. Specifically, replace the Demiurge that created the material universe as a prison for our souls with the programmer who designed the simulation and you’re left with a strikingly similar belief structure. The double-slit experiment could be taken as testimony to the artificiality of our reality — reality has to render objects, like a video game, in order to not lag the system.

Gnosticism has come back again and again in many forms, and simulation theory is my bet for the next form it’ll take. Until now I’m unaware of anyone making it a religious belief. To make a cult out of it, the new Demiurge needs a name, and mankind’s purpose in the system needs to be defined — as does a way to exit the simulation. That combined with a charismatic leader is all it would take, since the groundwork for this belief already exists.

Galactic Polytheism

Nearly every group of people worshipped the sun at some point. Whether they knew why or not, the fact remained — without it, we don’t exist. So, worshipping the sun and other heavenly bodies makes a lot of sense.

Now take that concept and apply it more broadly. Without the sun, we don’t exist. But without Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of our galaxy, our sun wouldn’t exist. This level of hierarchy could easily be adapted down the chain, including celestial bodies like our own planet and others we may inhabit in the coming centuries.

I don’t anticipate anything like this taking hold in a non-spacefaring civilization except for a few whackadoos. But if our descendants end up in space sooner than expected, a new non-earth-focused belief could well be in the cards. Spatial oddities and wonders like nebulae could replace wonders of the world, and superstitions around portentous or cursed comets and asteroids would abound.

Butlerian Jihad

We can fully expect a backlash against techno-dominance from a number of groups — and not just the Amish. There will be people who want to burn down all AI systems or anything that looks like one, as happened in Frank Herbert’s Dune. And while it’ll be easy to paint these reactionaries as silly neo-Luddites, they’ll have plenty of valid questions to consider, like:

• At what point is enough tech enough?

• What is the end stage of human-AI interaction?

• Do we profane existence with our creation of thinking machines?

• Are we betraying our purpose by handing off thought-work and creativity?

A combination of traditionalism and aversion to anything that looks like humanity’s attempt at playing God will be radicalizing for many. Some anti-tech movements could quickly turn violent and would likely turn to terrorism and sabotage, while others (like the Amish) will keep to their own.

Christian Renaissance

Christianity has survived an enormous number of changes throughout its history and proven itself to be flexible in the face of change. While overall trends of church attendance are down across the board in developed countries, some interesting factors show potential changes already underway. For example, in the US, some 39% of Christian millennials attend church regularly in 2025 — nearly doubling the 2019 number at 21%.

My instincts tell me that soft, often limp-wristed versions of Protestantism will continue to hemorrhage attendees in traditional protestant homelands as young people seek out messages that are more relevant to changing circumstances and are perceived to have more spine.

Christianity has survived enormous civilizational shifts and performs exceptionally well when its back is against the wall. See, for example, the tiny kingdom of Asturias surviving in northern Iberia only to become the seed the Reconquista sprang from. A pressed, harried Christianity will likely result in a more militant church, as has happened before.

Islamic resilience

Islam’s tide is still rising: Estimates expect some 2.8 billion Muslims by 2050. The growing economic power of the traditional Ummah combined with the pressure placed on countries hosting increasing amounts of Muslims, e.g. Western Europe, means Islam is set to play an enormous role over the next century. Whether this leads to cultural syncretism, cultural dominance, or a backlash in Western countries is still uncertain — though peaceful coexistence appears increasingly unlikely.

Conflict between Christianity and Islam in Africa, especially in Nigeria, will also play a key role in the development of both religions in the region — for example, an increase in militarism.

East Asian X-factor

With birthrates in this region among the lowest in the world, East Asia provides ample ground for new belief structures to take root. Even though East Asia (officially) is thoroughly un-religious, countries in the region have shown themselves more than able to fall in line with new ideologies — and rapidly, at that.

Consider the wild shifts Japan went through in the last century alone — from imperial worship and expansive aggression to…whatever is going on there now (reader challenge: try to name it!).

These shifts can be devastatingly disruptive, too. China’s Taiping Rebellion was led by a man who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ. The result? Some 20-30 million people died, or around 5-10% of China’s population. Maoism, which has all the hallmarks of a religion, had an even larger effect on the country which I won’t belabor here.

Groups like Falun Gong in China are crushed by the CCP, which refuses to allow ideological dissent. So, until the CCP is gone, a new religion coming out of China is unlikely.

South Korea stands out as the most likely candidate for a new religious outburst in the region. Its culture of intense social pressure leaves plenty looking for religious solutions, especially those focusing on community and purpose. The country’s religious landscape is already an eclectic blend of Confucianism, Buddhism, Christianity, and shamanism. Combine that with its global cultural reach and you’ve got a potential hot launch point for a new belief. A charismatic leader could put his brand on a new belief and rapidly spread it.

Share

Growing from the Ashes

Barring catastrophes or major wars — which are always possible — the population decline this century will likely lead to a proliferation of competing new belief structures. If it can be managed peacefully, I think that’s a good thing. The word “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, but I’d like to remain optimistic.

The 20th century set the stage for future belief structures by tearing down the old ones. The two World Wars killed off the old world, paving the way for Communism and Global Monoculture Liberalism. Those systems, in turn, have proved to be not fit for purpose, as they fail to reproduce themselves.

Consequently, the 20th century could be seen by future historians as humanity’s era of adolescent angst, where it goes through different phases like being a goth or a prep trying to find itself. Our descendants in the far future may find the names Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed as foreign as we do Marduk, Enki, or Enlil. Whether they end up setting up galactic temples outside the event horizons of black holes and casting in sacrifices or building space-cathedrals, stupas, and mosques will be determined over the next few hundred years.

Or hell, who knows, maybe we find out that space aliens are real and we’ve been worshipping them all along.

Leave a comment

Picture this: A group of men surround an enormous biomechanical creature of indeterminate size. Belching and pulsating in the dark, it writhes its limbs in incomprehensible movements while growing without end.

The men attempt to describe it by feeling its various parts and calling out what they feel. “I feel humanitarian aid,” one cries out, while another announces, “I think I’ve found job creation.”

Others, still, deny the existence of the Leviathan at all.

Finally, a sighted man with a flashlight enters and shines a light on one hindquarter of the beast, parasitically attached to the framework of American governance. “Guys,” he says, “You are not going to believe this.”

You may have gathered by now that this is a rehashing of the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Instead of an elephant, the Leviathan in question is the previously inscrutable anatomy of the American Deep State. The man with the flashlight is DOGE. You can just write things.

As blind men, many of us failed to accurately grasp the beast’s true nature and size. It’s far larger than any one man can understand, so it takes significant teamwork to note its countless limbs — some sclerotic, some sinewy — as well as its massive arteries, redundant organs, and gaping maw. We’ve only begun to explore it, and what’s already been discovered is incredible.

Exploring the Anatomy of State

It took until now for neocons to admit the Deep State is even real.

In Fiscal Year 2025, the US is set to spend north of $1 trillion in interest on its national debt of what will soon be $37 trillion. A reasonable question would be, “How the hell did this happen?” How did our Leviathan get so enormously hungry and overgrown that we can no longer afford to feed it?

This is the question the DOGE team has been tasked with answering, and the answers have only begun pouring in. We’re set for shocking revelations of corruption, fraud, and waste to last us at least through this year, and possibly the next several. It’s not just DOGE doing the revealing. What will we discover when the Epstein, JFK, RFK, and MLK files are released? What will we learn from long-classified documents about 9/11 or UFOs? Where do the secrets and corruption end?

Shutting down the US Agency for International Development cut off blood flow to one of Leviathan’s limbs. It was a low-hanging fruit — an easy action item to immediately cut waste and fraud. Minor findings included crumbs in its fat folds like $15 million for condoms for the Taliban, millions for LGBT inclusion in Macedonia (out of hundreds of millions over decades), and $11 million to Vietnam to encourage people to stop burning trash.

NB: As a resident of Vietnam, I can promise you that money did not make an impact.

While it’s entertaining and often baffling to look at the silly and wasteful spending programs that came out of USAID’s $44 billion slush fund, there are far more serious implications and findings.

For starters, the above programs — among many others — are the soft power tools of American foreign policy. Why, specifically, programs like LGBT inclusion and DEI initiatives were favored by USAID are well explained by N.S. Lyons in a recent piece:

The Long Twentieth Century has been characterized by these three interlinked post-war projects: the progressive opening of societies through the deconstruction of norms and borders, the consolidation of the managerial state, and the hegemony of the liberal international order. The hope was that together they could form the foundation for a world that would finally achieve peace on earth and goodwill between all mankind. That this would be a weak, passionless, undemocratic, intricately micromanaged world of technocratic rationalism was a sacrifice the post-war consensus was willing to make.

The ostensibly noble goal of USAID was originally to spread peace via the power of the American purse. But in the six decades of the organization’s existence, it became in many ways a grift factory with entire nations and classes of bureaucratic hangers-on depending on its beneficence. And that’s the charitable take.

In reality, the slush fund behind USAID became an unaccountable war chest to propagandize the globe and undermine foreign governments at the expense of the American taxpayer while funding programs many would object to. The propaganda was indirect, as in ideologically-driven programs, and it was direct as well, as in directly funding journalists and media outlets. For example, USAID was funding a vast, worldwide propaganda network covering 6,200 journalists, 707 non-state media outlets, and 279 media NGOs over 30 countries.

But that’s far from all. USAID was also:

• Spending hundreds of millions to funnel illegal migrants into the US via NGOs

• Funding Pfizer (its 2nd largest fund recipient) to the tune of $4 billion in 2024

• Funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance

• Sponsored online censorship worldwide on a wide variety of hot-button topics

Now, one could argue that a propaganda and agitation apparatus — especially internationally — was valuable during the Cold War. Run as a patronage network, USAID provided an effective soft-power bulwark against Soviet influence. But the Cold War is long behind us, and the US now has ten times the national debt it did in 1991 after the fall of the USSR.

Unfortunately, rather than reap the peace dividend the country had been promised, the American people were forced to continue to pony up funds for increasingly absurd projects. To play at magnanimity when you’re rich is one thing — to do it when you’re staring down the barrel of a sovereign debt death spiral is madness. Are we really supposed to fund every downtrodden person in every corner of the world while our own people need help?

Certainly, there were some valuable programs that’ll get rebooted once they’re rerouted into the State department. But the free lunches couldn’t last forever.

This particular rabbit hole goes very deep, and I don’t want to go down it too much further here because USAID is only one part of Leviathan’s anatomy.

Leviathan Loses Weight

In what’s one of the biggest moves of the last few weeks — and that’s saying a lot — President Trump called for discussions with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin to create a trilateral discussion on military spending. The goal? Reduce military spending in each country by half. Watch:

Such a cut — roughly half a trillion dollars — is unprecedented. If there’s any part of Leviathan that’s grown way beyond its intended purpose, it’s the Department of Defense. DOGE has yet to be unleashed on the DoD, but the Pentagon is famously wasteful. The fraud, corruption, and waste unearthed there will make USAID look like chump change. It’s also a way to claw back a US military that’s wildly overextended, and may reduce the odds of a major power conflict.

I’m of the opinion that closing USAID and especially the National Endowment for Democracy was a prerequisite from both Putin and Xi before considering any such talks with Trump. Reforming the DoD will be a monumental task. However, if it can be done while saving money and reducing the risk of global conflict, it’s one of the best possible moves for the country.

To reiterate: US debt is wildly out of control. Military spending has grown steadily for decades even without a sufficient threat to justify it.

You can expect a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth from Congress, defense contractors, and the many parasites the DoD has accrued over the years. But like a diabetic patient, the Leviathan will be forced to lose weight or have limbs amputated entirely.

The DoD is but one part of Leviathan’s anatomy. Health and Human Services has a budget of $1.7 trillion this year. What can be cut there, one wonders? What waste will be found at Housing and Urban Development?

What, too, will be found of the potential audit of Fort Knox and the US gold supply?

Leave a comment

The Beating Heart of Leviathan

What we will find, after a thorough examination of Leviathan’s anatomy, is its ever-beating heart. This is the Federal Reserve, from which all money flows. This will likely be one of the last points of attack for DOGE and the new administration, if they make it there at all. Should they manage to even identify the Fed as one of their targets, I’d throw a party.

The reason is straightforward: The US has been a nation ruled by usury for more than a century. Our entire financial system is corrupt from the ground up. A nation that is not in charge of its own monetary supply is not in charge of its own destiny, and will forever be beholden to a system that’s doesn’t have its best interests at heart.

The US will never pay back its debt. It’s impossible. It’s not just a US issue, either — mounting sovereign debt (and private debt, and unfunded liabilities) is a worldwide phenomenon. As I wrote in The Alfred Hitchcock Theory of Debt,

There are three ways out of enormous sovereign debt problems:

1. Grow your tax revenue enough to pay off the debt and/or decreasing spending, e.g. by growing the economy and reducing government services

2. Monetize the debt, i.e. devalue the currency to make the debt worth less in real terms

3. Default on the debt and face sky-high future borrowing costs and penalties as well as the social unrest that goes with them

Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and replacing it with a new monetary system backed by something tangible, like precious metals or commodities, would prevent the US from hurtling off a debt cliff. It’d be essentially an even more radical form of option 3, but radical changes are needed now.

How exactly would such a scenario unfold? God only knows, but it needs to happen. In the short term it will be painful, but there’s little choice. The life cycle of fiat currencies is nearly complete, and worldwide they’re headed to zero. It’s just a math problem. The upside is that sound money will prevent corruption in the future. Cheap fiat money is what’s led our Leviathan to grow so out of control, and it can’t be allowed to continue.

The alternative to this option is ever-increasing inflation, punctuated by sharp cycles of deflation, that will eventually impoverish the vast majority of the country.

The US will have to perform a never-before-done heart transplant surgery on itself if the country is to survive. What’s happened so far with DOGE is simply a warmup to the main event. Got popcorn?

Share

It wouldn’t be any kind of year in the 2020’s without another End of the World scare. So, behold some really Bad Ideas™ fresh out of the oven for your regularly scheduled programming. Did you think the DC blob would let you relax after the election? I was ready to talk about some good news for a change. 

The scenario: As the Ukraine war sails past its thousandth day, and with just two months until Donald Trump resumes the US presidency, the Biden administration has finally decided to allow long-range strikes from American weapons into Russia. Specifically, Ukraine is now authorized to use the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, with a range of around 180 miles or 300 kilometers. Reports indicate that Ukraine may have as few as 50 of these missiles, which is strategically insignificant. Zelensky noted that Ukraine has long-range drones and “more than one” long-range Neptune missile. 

Now, if you’ve been following this conflict and are aware of geography, you’ll know a few things:

• The war is proceeding disastrously for Ukraine, and its Donbass front is collapsing

• Ukraine is fully dependent on Western support and its desires matter little now

• 180 miles is not particularly deep into Russian territory

• The ATACMS are unlikely to have any material effect on the war effort

• The billions of dollars thrown at Ukraine from NATO countries represent a boon to arms manufacturers but a boondoggle to polities

• There have been numerous long-range strikes inside Russia prior to this announcement

So what gives? What’s the goal of this announcement, and what can we expect to see? We’ll examine three conflicting viewpoints — optimistic, realistic, and unhinged — but first let’s nail down the facts. 

On Tuesday, November 19, some 6 ATACMS missiles fell on a military installation near Bryansk, in Russia’s southwest. So far no casualties have been reported and the damage has been minimal, at least according to official sources. The missiles struck a relatively low-value military target, most likely for propaganda purposes. 

The big news, however, is this: In response to the strike and the new US policy, Russia has updated its nuclear doctrine. As of Tuesday, the new doctrine stipulates:

…Any attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power would be considered a joint attack, and that any attack by one member of a military bloc would be considered an attack by the entire alliance, it said.

"We will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia and we will react accordingly," Putin's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said in English, adding that U.S. personnel and data must have been used in the ATACMS attack on Russia.

That Russia has updated its doctrine to such an official announcement is not terribly surprising, but it is bold—they’ve set a red line. At the same time, Russia has endured long-range attacks previously without significant changes, so just how bright is that red line? 

For example, in June, beachgoers in Crimea were splattered with the remains of an ATACMS missile carrying cluster bombs. In September, a massive explosion at a munitions depot near Tver exploded after an alleged long-range drone attack. Russia could have updated its nuclear doctrine either time, but didn’t. 

But other rumblings indicate this week’s move may be more than just the status quo. In addition to Russia’s update of its nuclear policy, two internet cables have been cut in the Baltic sea — one between Sweden and Lithuania, and another between Germany and Finland. Though the culprit is as yet unknown, cutting cables has long been a possibility for Russia. Some reports indicate the cable damage may be the result of a Chinese cargo ship “accidentally” dragging anchor: 

Furthermore, massive Russian missile attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure has led to blackouts in Odessa and other cities, indicating Russia’s response to escalation. 

The panic is real. On Wednesday, November 20, the US State department issued this announcement: 

This is a new level. So what’s different about now as opposed to previous long-range strikes? What could the US-led NATO hope to accomplish with the official announcement, and what does Russia’s response mean? 

Because this is all baffling and no dust has settled, let’s examine three outcome scenarios. These are distinctly different viewpoints, and I’m not sure which to believe yet. 

The Optimistic View

Allowing ATACMS and other long-range missiles to be fired into Russia will accomplish jack squat. So why allow it? 

Doing so could simply be a way for the Pentagon to throw more money to ATACMS manufacturer Lockheed Martin. Since president-elect Trump has indicated he wants an immediate ceasefire to the war, defense contractors are likely pushing to use as many munitions as possible to allow for additional orders. With each missile costing $1 to $1.5 million, Lockheed Martin is happy for these things to be flung around. 

While this is morally and economically bankrupt — the Broken Windows theory of economics on steroids — it’s more humdrum than an escalation towards World War 3. Ukraine acts as the world’s largest money laundromat for the next couple of months and this all gets wrapped up. The Pentagon has just failed its 7th audit in a row and the incoming administration will want to know where the hell all the money has gone, so if you’re in the military-industrial complex you smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. 

From Putin’s point of view, Russia cannot allow an escalation from the US to go unchallenged — thus the heated rhetoric and large-scale infrastructure strikes. At the same time, NATO and Russia have successfully avoided nuking each other for more than 70 years now. As the rabid US foreign policy establishment will be put down in a couple of months, Russia can wait a measly ~60 more days until Trump’s inauguration. 

The Realistic View

American and European foreign policy leaders may simply not be thinking about the second- or third-order consequences of their actions. They fell prey to groupthink as those in the DC and Brussels blobs often do, convincing themselves early in the war that Russia’s military was rickety and would collapse with a few pushes. They may earnestly believe that allowing additional munitions to Ukraine can help break Russia’s army, or at least scare it into backing out of the war. 

Ironically, this is a trend throughout history — Napoleon and an Austrian painter both thought Russia would be a pushover. Whoopsie. 

Furthermore, using the missiles may be a cover to help extract non-Ukrainian soldiers trapped in the Kursk pocket. NATO soldiers on Russian soil (as is reportedly the case) would be more than just a bad look — it’d be a casus belli for Russia and a permanent stain on NATO’s reputation.

Zelensky is likely using the missiles as a way to continue the life support NATO is providing to Ukraine. While he has to know they’ll make little difference to the outcome of the war, continuing to provoke Russia and impress benefactors with large-but-ineffective explosions will keep the gravy train rolling for at least a while longer. 

From Russia’s point of view: Moscow may not yet be content with its territorial gains. Having spent more than two years in bloody conflict, four oblasts plus Crimea and a declaration of neutrality from Ukraine doesn’t seem like much. Russia could be looking to take this opportunity to absorb all of Ukraine’s black sea territory towards the traditionally-Russian Odessa. This would further link it with the breakaway province of Transnistria in Moldova. 

This would bring it in line with Russia’s previous territory of Novorossiya and grant significantly more sea access than it currently has. It would also leave a broken and forever-weakened Ukraine on its border as a weak buffer state. Again falling in line with tradition, this would make Ukraine once again literally mean “Borderland.” Yes, there are lots of conditional verbs in these paragraphs, but the scenario makes sense on paper. 

Russia's constant need for warm-water ports would be satisfied, and its border security would be significantly increased. 

How the Trump administration would respond to such demands for territory is yet to be seen. My guess is that Trump doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine except for ending the bloodshed of the war while divesting the US from a bad investment. Eastern European borders change all the time anyway, so who cares? The US can lick its wounds and go home, leaving Europe to figure out its own security. Maintaining an empire has been a costly affair for the US, and many Americans have had enough of it. There’s plenty to fix domestically, anyway. 

Subscribe now

The Unhinged View

These fuckers in the Biden administration are crazy, and they’re trying to start World War 3 to cover their asses and not go to prison or worse. They’re so spiteful they’d happily saddle the incoming administration with a horrific war. They’re so psychopathic they’d willingly burn down the whole world rather than admit defeat or be held to account. 

So too are the malignant narcissists running European NATO nations, not least of whom is the odious new NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. They’ve sold their souls to try to get a hold of the sweet, sweet resources in Ukraine and Russia and they’ve failed miserably. They put everything on the line to support the war, including their pitiful military resources and their shambolic economies. Now, having bet and lost the farm, they’re utterly screwed and are falling for the Gambler’s Fallacy that one more roll of the dice can turn the whole thing around. 

Western leaders are also pissed off that Putin seized Rothschild assets in the form of the Yukos oil company and are out for blood. Nobody messes with the banking cartel, damn it! 

Putin and his buddies, knowing just how insane Western leadership is, take very seriously the threat of a sudden nuclear attack from the ATACMS or another weapon system. After all, the ATACMS are nuclear-capable missiles. The short range of the ATACMS give the Kremlin essentially no time at all to decide if an incoming missile is nuclear or not, so they have to assume it’s nuclear and respond in kind. This concept isn’t new: The lack of time to make decisions is precisely what the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 1987 was all about. Now we’re down to even less time with short-range missiles. Russia has now begun mass-producing mobile nuclear shelters.

Negotiating is clearly not an option because the word of NATO leaders is dogshit. “NATO won’t move one inch to the east, Mr. Gorbachev,” said James Baker III in 1990. How’d that turn out?

Since every war game involving nukes ends up in a general nuclear exchange, the whole northern hemisphere goes kablooie the next time an ATACMS missile is fired.

That is, unless the aliens we’ve been hearing about suddenly intervene in their UFOs and save us from a global nuclear catastrophe. Wouldn’t that be a neat introduction to E.T.? 

Share

Which Way? 

Which way does this situation go? I’d love to take the optimistic view and see a peaceful drawdown in Ukraine under the Trump administration. More likely, I believe, is something like the realistic option (hence the name). The unhinged view is unfortunately not out of the question. Even if you’re not the praying sort, now might be a good time to send a mental postcard to the deity of your choice. 

As always, I’m curious to hear what readers think. What is the most likely outcome of this scenario in your opinion? 

Leave a comment

With the US election less than a week away as of this writing, journalists are spilling ink by the barrel and tongues are wagging non-stop about November 5. While we can expect great controversy between now and then as well as between now and inauguration day — and likely longer — there are previous controversies that have not yet been wrapped up. 

Before we, as a nation, move forward in any positive direction, we need to perform some serious self-reflection. The truth must come out on some of the darkest aspects of our nation and its history. Specifically, or at least for a good start, we need to see full declassification of the JFK files, a release of the Epstein client list, and a full release of documents related to the ongoing and ballooning P. Diddy scandal. 

Why those three topics, you ask? First, because these are known cover-ups involving some of the highest-level state and non-state actors in the world. The connections are staggering and implicate household names, which can potentially rewrite how we understand status and power. The word will soon come out that many, many people knew what was going on and did nothing. 

Second, these three scandals appear to all fit the same overlapping Venn diagram involving intelligence agencies, the mafia, sexual coercion and blackmail, human (including child) trafficking, and a whole lot of money. As we’ll explore in a bit, when multiple rabbit holes go into the same hill, you’re looking at a rabbit warren. 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, these episodes tarnish the soul of the nation. Poorly-hidden secrets undermine the moral authority of any society, and they especially do so when horrific crimes are involved. Hypocrisy is an ugly sin, and a nation cannot consider itself wholesome or even whole when hypocrisy is at its core. 

So, consider the three covered-up scandals above tips of the same enormous iceberg of corruption, or rabbit holes to the same warren, or weeping sores atop a festering wound. 

What happens in private between consenting adults is no one’s business. But the words “consenting” and “adults” are doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, and in many cases the victims of sexual abuse in Diddy and Epstein’s case either weren’t consenting, weren’t adults, or both. 

How does this relate to JFK? We’ll get there. Sexual blackmail and coercion have been going on for decades. 

Unfortunately, it’s easy and inviting to look the other way and pretend none of this is happening or has happened — far more comforting indeed to believe it’s impossible. Sadly, it does indeed appear to be true, and ignoring it only makes it worse. 

Let’s start with Diddy. 

Connections Everywhere

First, a little comic relief, courtesy of South Park: 

Trey Parker and Matt Stone rarely miss with their celebrity roasts, and this one hits the mark. Not even Satan wants to do what Diddy does. 

The fact that the term “freak-off” has entered the vernacular is noteworthy in itself. If you want a quick refresher on the original charges brought in September in New York, check here. 

The original charges from Diddy’s September arrest are expanding. On October 21, 5 new accusers, including a 13-year old girl, have all come forward to accuse Diddy of sexual assault. Another case that’s recently surfaced is his drugging and assault of a 10-year old boy, an aspiring rapper to whom Diddy offered stardom and then threatened his family. You might want to avoid that article if you don’t want nightmares. 

Speaking of nightmares, you can bet that Justin Bieber has plenty of nightmares of Diddy, to whom he was introduced by Usher when he was 15, and left in his custody for 48 hours. Usher himself appears to be a significant victim of Diddy, having attended his “Flavor Camp” at age 14. It fits a pattern: Aspiring parents sent their talented child to Diddy in an attempt to win stardom. Then things get ugly. 

To be clear, the trial won’t take place until May 5, 2025, and Diddy has entered a not guilty plea. But given the number of accusers and the few people rushing to Diddy’s side, the news so far looks damning. Diddy and many other celebrities are currently under investigation for a number of sexual abuse and human trafficking crimes, more of which are coming out every day. The official charges include racketeering, e.g. profiting from crimes. That charge could easily include extortion. To add fuel to the extortion and/or blackmail fire, Diddy reportedly had hundreds of hidden cameras in his homes. Just what and who was he recording at his freaky parties?

There’s no way to cover every aspect of the case here. So, here are a few WTF points to expand on: 

• Billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio became Diddy’s business coach in 2021.

• A member of the Sinaloa cartel (unsuccessfully) sued Diddy for $666,000 for ruining his drug business after the cartel member refused to traffic minors to one of Diddy’s parties.

• Ron Burkle, a major Democratic fundraiser, infused $100 million into Diddy’s Sean John clothing company in 2003. Burkle is also the godfather to Diddy’s children and formerly close friends with Bill Clinton, whom he allegedly flew on his private plane nicknamed “Air F*ck One” after Clinton left office, leading to allegations of sexual assault. Burkle is also verified to have been on the Epstein flight log. 

Those are just tidbits, and you can find more. Clearly, this situation is far more than just a lurid celebrity scandal. Just how many people P. Diddy is connected to is staggering — essentially everyone in both popular entertainment and politics. Besides the (funny) fact that he’s currently housed in the same jail cell as Sam Bankman-Fried, trying to comprehend a map of everyone connected to Diddy would be like examining a massive spider web while on LSD, and equally unsettling. 

Subscribe now

The Friends You Keep 

It’s no secret that Diddy helped Obama during his Senate campaign via his hilariously-titled “Vote or Die” campaign. In a 2004 clip during Obama’s senatorial run, Diddy offered to later help Obama become president: 

Now, this in itself isn’t an indication of anything untoward, as Diddy was operating politically at the time to drive the youth and minority vote. To be fair and avoid partisanship, Donald Trump has openly said Diddy was a good friend, as have many other A-list celebrities. 

Things start to get weird when you notice that many close associates of Diddy have appeared on the Democratic campaign trail stumping for Kamala Harris after Diddy’s house was raided. 

Take Usher, for example, who as mentioned above lived with Diddy at just 14 years old when Diddy was 23. He recently appeared at a Kamala Harris campaign. 

So did John Legend, who is apparently close with Diddy and collaborated with him on a recent album, campaigning with Harris on October 29. 

This bit with John Legend could be easily ignored, if it weren’t for his wife Chrissy Teigen publicly claiming the best “public place they did it” was “At the Obama thing.” 

This is the same Chrissy Teigen who deleted a slew of vile posts on Twitter, but since the internet is forever, here’s a sample:

Teigen nuked her Twitter page in 2020 after she claimed harassment from “conspiracy theorists” drove her from the platform after an apparently false allegation of her being on the Epstein flight log was released. But you don’t have to be much of a conspiracy theorist to instantly see this is some sick shit. There’s more, too, if you care to look. 

For now, these connections are only speculation and not airtight. But what friends you keep says a lot about you, and these are weird connections indeed. 

To summarize this Diddy news:

• Evidence is increasingly clear that Diddy drugged and raped many people, including minors, and many of his associates were aware of this behavior. He additionally has a well-known history of violence and intimidation. 

• Hidden cameras throughout his houses and connections to the highest levels of society beg the question of what power Diddy held over those he videotaped in illegal acts.

• Diddy’s association with the rich and powerful, including many Democratic party players, further begs the question of if he was some sort of intelligence asset, as he’d have had blackmail material on many people. 

Different Rabbit Holes, Same Warren

Perhaps coincidentally, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend/madame lost her appeal case the day after P. Diddy was arrested — specifically, on September 17, 2024. The fact that Maxwell was sentenced for sex trafficking to no one, apparently is alarming in itself, as is the idea that Epstein’s original Florida deal ensured prosecutors wouldn’t go after his co-conspirators. 

The Epstein case has been covered in great detail many places elsewhere, but still a million questions remain. Some pertinent questions include:

• Why has no one besides Maxwell been prosecuted for participating in Epstein’s trafficking ring? 

• Where did Epstein get his money? 

• Why did a man as powerful as Bill Gates need an already-convicted Epstein to set up a meeting with the Nobel Prize committee to try to get Gates a Nobel Peace Prize? Note that the two traveled together to the meeting. 

• Why was Epstein meeting with CIA chief Bill Burns, Obama’s White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, and Edmond de Rothschild CEO Ariane de Rothschild after Epstein had been convicted? 

• What’s up with publishing magnate Robert Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell’s father) and his weird death, and where did the £460 million from his companies’ pension funds go? 

As-yet unproven rumors have long been circulating that Epstein was an intelligence operative, perhaps working for both American services and Israel’s Mossad to collect control files on important individuals via sexual blackmail. While we may never know the truth, the protection and sweetheart deals offered to Epstein in his original Florida arrest put up more red flags than a Soviet parade. 

By that, I mean I’d be shocked if it turned out he wasn’t an intelligence asset. 

It’s unclear whether we’ll ever find out who exactly did what with Epstein on his creepy little island, but one thing is clear: Neither Epstein nor Diddy invented sexual blackmail. 

Share

Back in Time

An LA Times article from 1993 summarizes Anthony Summers’ book, “Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover aptly. To quote, 

“Top organized crime figures Meyer Lansky and Frank Costello obtained photos of Hoover’s alleged homosexual activity with longtime aide Clyde Tolson and used them to ensure that the FBI did not target their illegal activities.”

“As head of the FBI, Hoover obtained information about the sexual lives of Washington’s power elite, including John and Robert Kennedy, Eleanor Roosevelt and others, according to a number of biographers.”

Summers alleges that CIA director William Donovan obtained compromising photos of Hoover as the two quarreled over the direction of US policy. 

Much work has been done into these investigations since then. The best has been from Whitney Webb, whose two-part book “One Nation Under Blackmail” delves deep into the origins of this blackmail, including all the power players involved. 

In short, this practice really gained steam in the era immediately after the Second World War and the creation of the CIA out of the OSS. The mob merged with intelligence assets to fight communism — for example, by running operations in Italy to prevent a communist victory in the election of 1948. 

In what’s perhaps a familiar-sounding story, mafiosos like Lewis Rosenstiel along with political figures J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn — counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy — would host sex extortion parties. Among the places they would be held were at New York’s Plaza Hotel — specifically, in the infamous Blue Room. This blackmail ring apparently began with mobster Lewis Rosenstiel. As Webb writes,

There’s a lot more to this story, and since much of what’s in this section is drawn from Whitney Webb’s work I’ll refer you to her for more. 

Now: What does this have to do with JFK and his assassination? First, JFK made the mafia very angry by not invading Cuba after Castro’s revolution in 1959. The mafia, whose “official” accountant was Meyer Lansky, was making a fortune in Cuba via casinos — and lost it all after Castro took power. 

This is the same Meyer Lansky who smuggled guns for a nascent Israel and formed a key component of the Jewish-Italian Mafia in the US, which went to great lengths to support Israel in its creation. Kennedy’s rejection of Israeli access to nuclear weapons in 1963 came only months before his assassination in November of that year. The mob had all the reasons in the world to whack him, and the willingness to do so, too. 

Interests converge with the CIA and certain Pentagon players, as well. The botched Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 combined with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 led to a lot of consternation in the halls of power, who were already entangled with the mafia. As George Carlin said, “You don’t need a grand conspiracy when interests converge:” Lots of people wanted Kennedy dead. 

Here’s the connection to now: Roy Cohn was Trump’s mentor for much of his early career and until Cohn’s death of AIDS in 1986. In his earlier life, Cohn was “bitter rivals” with RFK Sr., who aimed to take down the mafia. The 1968 assassination of RFK Sr. is still one of the weirdest stories in US history. So, the fact that Trump and RFK Jr. have teamed up is very interesting. 

Even more interesting is the fact that Trump recently said, to millions of viewers on Joe Rogan, that he’d release the JFK files should he become president. Perhaps the assassination attempt on Trump pushed him and RFK Jr. into the same corner? 

The Faustian Bargain

If you’ve wondered why so many mediocre people rise to the top in entertainment and politics, there’s an apparently simple reason: You have to make a deal with the devil to get there. Whether it’s being involved in shocking debauchery that allows for blackmail, looking the other way and saying nothing, or collecting information on rivals, things get dirty on the way to the top. 

The system of power doesn’t necessarily reward talent. It rewards loyalty, which is ensured by kompromat. The sexual blackmail rings established decades ago appear to be functioning as intended. 

What we don’t know right now is…well, a lot. We’re aware of the cases of Diddy and Epstein, but those are just two players. How many others are there that are still secret? If you see one rat, there’s likely many more you haven’t seen yet. The next several months in the Diddy case, for example, are set to be shocking indeed. 

The point is this: The Faustian Bargain many power players have had to go through is a winnowing mechanism to cut down any who might A) might object to depravity and B) refuse to allow themselves to be compromised. One person telling the truth can start a fire that burns the whole house down — it just takes the right spark. 

Purging the Spirit of Caligula

A Roman Emperor by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema (1871). Caligula’s corpse is splayed out on the floor while his successor, Claudius, hides behind a curtain.

There’s nothing new about the rich and powerful being involved in debauchery. In every society on Earth, especially prosperous societies, the wealthy have let money amplify their darkest desires, while their power prevents any accountability. 

The emperor Caligula was famously educated in the ways of debauchery by his predecessor Tiberius. Tiberius had retired to the island of Capri after the traumatic death of his heir, Germanicus, and, as the story goes, threw himself into a great number of vile acts. 

In short, a powerful man retreated to a private island where he could indulge in perversion and bring along the next generation of power to groom and pass on that behavior. Sound familiar? 

There are countless other examples. As an interesting note, in 1501, former Cardinal Cesare de Borgia, illegitimate son of pope Alexander VI, hosted the shocking Banquet of Chestnuts at the Papal Palace, involving “50 honest prostitutes.” That this was only 16 years before Martin Luther’s 95 Theses is a strong indicator of the corruption of the Church at the time, as well what a reaction to corruption can look like. 

The difference between now and then is significant. We now have the ability to widely spread and share information about malfeasance by the wealthy and powerful. In short, behavior that could get swept under the rug in the pre-information age can now become instant, worldwide news. 

Before anything else, though, the truth has to come out. 

A person involved in or affected by depravity requires courage to speak up — which can be terrifying, to be sure. But a reckoning has to happen. We all know twisted things are happening at the highest levels of society. The question is: What are we going to do about it? 

Leave a comment

If you live in a Western country and haven’t figured it out yet, the message is clear: Your government hates you. The last several years have shown plenty of evidence to this effect, but the abysmal response to the hurricane-stricken areas of the United States is one of the clearest demonstrations yet of the government’s contempt for its people. 

Hanlon’s razor states this: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Certainly, bumbling bureaucracy is par for the course for any government. But what’s happening in the southern Appalachians isn’t adequately explained by stupidity — not even close. It’s clear that “someone” is going well out of their way to frustrate rescue attempts at the very least, and potentially aiming for something darker. 

Certainly, there are good people within governments, and they’re not monolithic entities as competing factions within vie for power. However, it’s readily apparent that the real decision-makers are more than a bit uninterested in the well-being of their citizens. Consider, in the southeast US: 

Civilian helicopter pilots are being threatened with arrest for attempting rescue missions.  

Business owners in Asheville are being threatened with arrest for trying to collect their belongings: 

As of October 3, Democratic North Carolina governor Roy Cooper has still not deployed the 1,000 troops approved to aid in the rescue efforts, who are currently stationed at Fort Liberty. Meanwhile, an unknown and probably quite high number of people are trapped in towns that are totally cut off from food, water, electricity, and other necessities. This has been going on for several days. So what the hell is he doing? Meanwhile, 700 soldiers from Tennessee’s National Guard have been deployed to the Middle East instead of, y’know…Tennessee.

The FAA has banned drone pilots from flying over some affected areas of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, citing safety concerns. Logically, one would think you’d want anyone possible to help locate stranded people in need of help, especially since many areas are currently only accessible by air or foot. Drones seem like the perfect tool in this case. Again, what the hell are they doing? Is this an attempt to cover up how bad things actually are?

There are even reports of FEMA confiscating donations and supplies and barring civilians from providing aid to victims of what could be the worst natural disaster in recent American history. A reasonable reporter could ask Secretary Mayorkas, “What are you even for?”

Credit where credit is due to the North Carolina National Guard for activating missions, but it’s already days after the hurricane hit. Already too many have died. Furthermore, according to US Congressman Cory Mills (FL-07) Joe Biden’s Oct 3 visit to the region shut down airspace for 4 hours over a wide region where air rescue is still necessary. 

Insult to Injury

It gets darker, and this is why I’m throwing Hanlon’s Razor out the window. On October 3, Department of Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced FEMA doesn’t have enough money to last through the hurricane season. This is the same FEMA that announced $640 million in new funding for illegal migrants just last April. 

Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris administration has just announced they’ll be providing $20 million to Hurricane Helene survivors.

For simple math, FEMA created a budget 32 times greater for illegal migrants than American citizens who’ve survived a natural disaster. And if you are indeed a survivor, you have to apply for these funds — a paltry $750 per person for “immediate needs.” 

Some logical questions would be: How are you going to get money to people in areas with no electricity, no internet, no working ATMs, no functioning banks — and then what happens when there’s nothing to buy? 

It’s simply an insultingly low number for people who’ve lost loved ones, homes, and livelihoods, and stand no chance of getting back on their feet anytime soon. This was the exact same playbook that was pulled out after the Lahaina fire, which also included residents being blocked from attempting to return to their own property long after the danger was gone. 

What’s even more insulting is President Biden pledged $8 billion more for Ukraine as recently as September 26. Combine that with him saying that the federal government has given everything they have to mitigate the disaster (video below) and then having the further audacity to ask American citizens to fund the recovery effort (second video below). 

So Washington has plenty of cash to give to Ukraine and Israel and countless other countries but can barely scrape anything together for its own people? In 2023, the US spent $61 billion in foreign aid, most of which went to just 10 countries. Check out this fun map that shows just how widely US dollars get thrown around everywhere but the US. It’s eye-opening, even if it curiously leaves off Israel. 

When the leaders of government can cough up cash for literally everyone else in the world but not for their own people in a time of need, the conclusion is clear: They hate their citizens. 

Weasel Wording

Let’s go back to that FEMA announcement.  I want to take a moment to parse some weasel wording in that memo, linked again here, because this is ugly. 

As the announcement reads,

More than 5,000 personnel from across the federal workforce are deployed, including more than 1,500 from FEMA. To date, FEMA has shipped over 9.3 million meals, more than 11.2 million liters of water, 150 generators and more than 260,000 tarps to the region.

Look at the word “shipped.” It means something very different than “distributed.” After all, the distribution is the hard part, since shipping pallets and containers of supplies is relatively simple. On the other hand, getting supplies to remote locations where roads are washed out and there are no utilities is a monumental task, especially when many areas are only reachable by helicopter. Doesn’t 1,500 FEMA personnel sound extremely low for a large-scale disaster affecting multiple states?  

This is the kind of weasel wording that’s uber-common in large organizations and governments, where everyone is in cover-your-ass mode. 

Subscribe now

Disgusting Political Considerations and Filthy Lucre

It should come as no surprise that your government especially hates you if you live in an area that doesn’t vote in a way the current party in power wants you to vote. It’s well worth noting that the affected areas lean heavily Republican and, with the US election only a month away, it’s hard not to consider this as a potential reason for the inaction. 

It feels filthy to think that cynically, but it’s impossible not to in the current poisonous political atmosphere. Besides, the cynicism and willingness to sacrifice human life for political expediency is something the US government is well known for. Recall that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright noted the half million Iraqi children dead because of US sanctions was “worth it” as just one example. There are countless others. 

So, American citizens are left to rot — in this case, literally — while nowhere near enough is being done and civilian rescue efforts are actively stymied. Combine this disaster with the Lahaina fire, last year’s East Palestine, Ohio disaster, and 2017’s Hurricane Maria crippling the power grid in Puerto Rico — which was still not fixed by 2022. It’s hard not to notice a pattern of intentional neglect rather than simple incompetence. 

An interesting anecdote that’s just gone viral describes how FEMA turns away relief aid for disaster survivors because the goods aren’t coming from their “preferred vendors.” Victims of Hurricane Irma in the Florida Keys were left for days without help from FEMA and volunteers were turned away for that simple reason. As with any anecdote, it must be treated skeptically, but it fits the pattern: The Feds care about money, not people. That’s hardly controversial. 

Leave a comment

Mineral (Under) Water, and Conspiracy Territory

The effects of this storm could have wide-reaching consequences for the global electronics industry. Spruce Pine, NC hosts a quartz deposit and mines that produce the purest quartz in the world. The town was hit very hard by the storm, and mining has stopped. This quartz is crucial to the production of modern semiconductors. It’s unclear how long the facility will be offline, but considering the extensive damage to the region it probably won’t be back online soon. So, there’s yet another fun bottleneck to work with in addition to the recent dockworkers’ strike. 

There’s a very interesting coincidence in this story as well, so reach for your tinfoil hat. North Carolina has the country’s largest strip of hard rock lithium in its Piedmont region just east of the Appalachian mountains. For example, the Department of Defense just invested $90 million for a new lithium mine in Kings Mountain, set to open in 2026. There’s much more lithium to be had in the region, which is crucial for manufacturing batteries. Combine that with locals not wanting lithium mines in their backyard and you’ll see a conflict of interest here that can at least raise eyebrows given the circumstances. 

What interest, you ask? Albemarle, which operates the Kings Mountain mine, has exactly who you thought they did as their chief shareholders:

Anytime Larry “Stinky” Fink’s grubby paws are involved with something, I get suspicious — which is often these days. You know those major institutions want that untapped lithium without all the pesky people on top of it.

Combine that with the fact that the affected areas of the region rarely get hit by hurricanes and eyebrows may climb yet higher. While weather modification — including that of hurricanes — might seem like something deep out of conspiracy territory, it’s real and has been around for decades. Consider the case of the first hurricane seeding attempt led by General Electric back in 1947, when airplanes dropped a load of dry ice into the eye of a hurricane that had already veered off into the Atlantic. From NOAA: 

The scientists were eager to examine the storm the following day.  However, when they flew to the predicted storm location, they had trouble locating the eye.  After some hunting around, they found the hurricane center nearly 100 miles (160 km) west of where they expected it to be. To their astonishment, the hurricane had made a 135 degree left turn and was now moving due west.  On top of that, it was strengthening!  By the afternoon of the 15th, Hurricane King struck Savannah, GA. One person died in the storm surge and US$2 million in damage was done to Georgia and South Carolina.

The public was outraged that the scientists had caused the storm to swerve into Georgia and threats of lawsuits were thrown about.  GE’s case was not helped when the head of its Laboratories, Dr. Irving Langmuir, issued a statement that he was “99% sure” the storm had changed course due to the seeding.  Chief of the Weather Bureau, Dr. Francis Reichelderfer, thought differently and appointed three of his weathermen to find a case where a hurricane had followed a similar track but had not been seeded.  The case was published, demonstrating that hurricanes could swerve like that without the used of dry ice, and the threats of lawsuits eventually evaporated.

The unusual path of the 1947 hurricane:

To be clear, I have absolutely no proof that Hurricane Helene was at all unnatural, so consider it pure tinfoil hat speculation. However, bearing in mind that hurricane modification attempts began 70 years ago, it’s reasonable to suspect they never stopped. Helene’s path was unusual for sure, as hurricanes historically have veered east.

NATO’s New Secretary-General

As a brief conclusion, consider: Mark Rutte, former Dutch Prime Minister, was just made the new Secretary-General of NATO. Rutte essentially declared war on his own farmers, indicating he’d forcibly purchase farmland and evict farmers to reduce nitrogen emissions. This led to wide-scale farmer protests in 2023, which somehow feel like a long time ago. Too much is happening. 

Rutte recently indicated he’s in full support of allowing Ukraine to use NATO weapons to strike into Russia. Russia, meanwhile, has indicated they’re considering changing their nuclear strike policy, making such attacks considered a declaration of war by NATO. Rutte, meanwhile, “doesn’t see any imminent threat of nuclear weapons being used by Russia,” which are absolutely famous last words. 

So, hey, great — another warmonger at the helm of NATO. But as his only real combat leadership experience was against unarmed farmers in tractors, one wonders why he specifically was chosen to head a military organization. Maybe he’s just really good at taking orders. 

Share

As of this writing, it was less than a month ago there was a failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump. It was less than a year ago that the Middle East was largely at peace. Five years ago the world was relatively stable and nobody had heard of Covid. Fifteen years ago the US national debt was ~40% of where it is now. Somehow, however, many of these things feel like old news. And these are just examples. 

We are absolutely in the fastest-accelerating period of history since the leadup towards the Second World War. It seems that much of the world is either undergoing or about to undergo a radical transformation. What comes out on the other side is either a guess or up for grabs, depending on your point of view. 

The question at hand is this: Will we go through this change peacefully or violently? Can we manage to step back from the brink of Chaos™ without tumbling into it? 

There’s an old trope — specifically for YouTube videos, but which works for articles as well — that goes like this: When someone asks an open-ended question in the title, the answer is usually “No.” 

In this case, I’ll simply answer: “Maybe — but not for long.” Because this Chaos™ comes in many forms, we’ll have to take a deeper look at some of the broader trends to pass judgment. 

For the record, I’d very much like to avoid a violent conflagration, no matter the size or type. At the same time, many of our systems are dated and no longer work, and need to be discarded or replaced. 

I’m far from the only one who thinks that — the term Great Reset is official lingo, after all — and I think there are many positives that can come from significant changes, and I do hold some hope. At the same time, we’re already in stormy weather, and should anticipate worse.

Our Stupid Economy

On the day this is being written — namely, August 5, 2024 — there’s been big news in stock markets worldwide. The largest one-day crash in Japanese history has taken place and markets around the world have routed. 

Now, is this the end of the world or a 1929 Black Monday event? I don’t think so. Stock markets have been hugely overvalued for some time, especially since the massive Central Bank injections of cash in the Covid panic. I don’t want to get too deep into the weeds on stocks since this is a broad overview, but a correction in bubble-territory stocks like Nvidia was well overdue. 

After all, it’s the backdrop that really matters. This economic turmoil is painted on a palette of out-of-control national debt — most notably in Japan, but in most advanced economies as well. At the same time, BRICS has risen as a challenger to the 70-year-old Dollar (and Euro) denominated economic hegemony. While still nascent, BRICS presents a potential force to be reckoned with in the future. 

To use an example from a nature documentary, think of a young lion that stands a chance of replacing the old lion once he’s well past his prime. The question is how much fight the old fella has got left in him and if the youngster is up to the task. Additionally, any potential BRICS currency is unlikely to replace the Eurodollar system so much as offer an alternative to it. So, really, it’s more likely the young lion starts his own pride, old man be damned. 

There have been doom-mongers regarding the Eurodollar system for decades now, and they’ve been surprised every time the financial power-peddlers find a way to kick the can down the road and stretch that road a little longer. There was a distinct air of despair back in 2013 regarding the Euro, and we’re well past that. The bears missed out on one of the biggest bull runs in history.

But we know that this system is finite, as all fiat systems have been in the past. I previously called the suspense regarding the ever-impending collapse of the modern economic system the Alfred Hitchcock Theory of Debt, because it makes for excellent, if nerve-wracking drama. Pass the popcorn!

Much, of course, depends on what Central Banks decide to do. A major factor behind this particular round of financial panic has been trouble in the Yen carry trade due to massive intervention in the value of the Yen by the Bank of Japan. In short, the Yen has quickly regained a lot of its value, and that’s made many problems for some people, but it was intentional.

On top of problems in stock markets, the potentially quadrillions (!) of dollars in derivative bets placed on top of all sorts of inscrutable financial assets, and Central Bank moves is what happens in the realm of geopolitics. Because that’s what will most likely shape where economies head in the near future — not that financial systems couldn’t have a stroke and drop dead of their own accord, of course, since many countries are in a debt death spiral. 

Conclusion: Can we step back from the brink economically? Too early to tell short-term. Long-term? No way.

War in the Middle East

Hoo boy. Things are getting spicy in the Middle East. As of today, top Russian security official Sergei Shoigu has arrived in Tehran for as-yet undisclosed reasons, but it sends a strong message of solidarity. Israel’s recent “decapitation” attacks of both Hezbollah and Hamas leaders Fuad Shukr and Ismail Haniyeh in Beirut and Tehran, respectively, point to clear escalation in an already-tense situation. Iran has vowed retaliation, as has Hezbollah, though little has happened yet. Notably, Haniyeh was Hamas’ chief negotiator with Israel, which puts a Gaza peace deal well off the table. 

Rumor mills suggest that Iran may attack Israel on August 12, known as Tisha B’av, the Jewish Day of Disaster. This day commemorates the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem. Take this rumor as exactly that — rumor — and with a hefty dose of salt, since it comes from unnamed “American intelligence sources” who excel at stirring the pot. Attacking on a day of national Israeli importance isn’t something new, however, as the Yom Kippur war of 1973 evidences.  

Whatever the case, the odds of a broader conflict involving Israel and Hezbollah increase by the day. This occurs as the US sends additional military support to the Eastern Mediterranean, including the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. 

Following Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress in which he received dozens of applause breaks — which would make even a Soviet Premier’s eyes roll — one can safely assume the US will continue to support Israel. Oh, and the Houthis still largely control access to the Red Sea despite American air efforts. 

Conclusion: Can we step back from the brink of a broader war in the Middle East? Unlikely. 

War in Ukraine

The biggest news out of Ukraine recently, besides that the war is still going on in brutal fashion, is that Ukraine has finally begun flying F-16’s. Whether this is simply a Hail Mary attempt to claw back territory or a way to expend older tech so that military-industrial manufacturers can get contracts for newer stuff is up for debate. It’s difficult to see how a handful of F-16’s will make a significant difference in such an air-defense-heavy environment. 

An important note is that the F-16’s will be based in Ukraine itself and not in Poland or Romania, and that they’ll allegedly be piloted by Ukrainian pilots. Russia has noted that F-16’s are indeed nuclear capable and will be treated as such, meaning there’s a good chance they get destroyed on the ground before many sorties can be flown. Were the planes to launch from NATO territory, there’s a good chance they’d be treated as a nuclear threat, and that’s the path to nuclear war. 

Relatedly, the US has vowed to station long-range missiles in Germany as a threat to Russia. Why, precisely, Olaf Scholz would agree to such a proposition is an excellent question, but Putin has noted that he would respond in kind by increasing Russia’s ability to strike Europe. It’s interesting to note that the US has promised long-range and not intermediate-range missiles, despite the US withdrawing from the INF treaty in 2019. 

The most likely scenario at the moment is that the war continues in a status quo, as Putin is probably waiting for election results in the US in November. So, unless something really wild happens in Ukraine, we’re “simply” looking at more bloodshed for the next few months as Ukraine is unable to dislodge Russia from its acquired territory. Should Trump win the election, an end to the war is likely. Should Harris win, well…who knows. 

Conclusion: Can we step back from the brink of a larger war in Ukraine? It depends if someone does something really stupid or not. 

Turmoil in US

It’s hard to wrap your mind around just what’s happened in the US in the last month. Within a month, Donald Trump narrowly escaped assassination and there are more questions than answers regarding the attempt. President Biden backed out of the presidential race — many argue against his will — to be replaced by his Vice President, Kamala Harris. Harris has then gone on to secure all the Democratic delegates needed to run for president, and all without a convention or a vote. For reference, the Democratic National Convention was planned to start August 19 in Chicago. I say “was” because, well…what’s the point?

That this all happened in the space of less than 3 weeks is nothing short of historic. We won’t know what to make of it until we’ve had some good time to process it. I certainly haven’t had time to digest it yet. Naturally, this occurs on the backdrop of a rapidly rising cost of living, illegal migration at levels never seen before, protests against the war in Gaza, and all sorts of weird-and-weirdly-overlooked things happening like Jordanian illegal immigrants attempting to breach a military base in Quantico back in May, whose identities weren’t released until now.  

And what happens come November? Place your bets!

Leave a comment

Conclusion: Can we step back from the brink of turmoil in the US? Unlikely. 

Civil Unrest in the UK 

Riots in the UK have dominated headlines for the past several days, especially following the murder of three young girls by a man born in Wales of Rwandan descent. This follows riots in Leeds in the Islamic community following the seizure of a child by the local government. The specific reasons for the riots are overshadowed by a much larger pictures: that of the overwhelming number of illegal migrants in the UK. 

If you wonder why society is destabilized, the above chart should explain it. No society in any era could assimilate that many people of different cultures in such a short time without trouble. 

In short, the tinder was already laid and all it took was some sparks. It’s no surprise that clashes would come. They’re nation-wide, too, and extend to Northern Ireland. When you have the Union Jack flying next to the Irish flag at protests in Belfast, you should pay attention. 

At the same time, PM Keir Starmer has come out in fierce opposition to the protests he’s deemed “right-wing.” This has further inflamed many who do not consider themselves right wing but do consider themselves fed up. You can be sure many peaceful Muslims are also rightfully upset at being racially targeted. Further violence appears inevitable, though the effectiveness and fairness of the government’s response is yet to be seen. A profound loss of trust in both the media and the government makes any institutional response more likely to further inflame tensions.

Ed. Note: Be sure to see Andy’s comment below for insight regarding statistics, contextual framing, and the intentional divisiveness of both media and government.

Conclusion: Can the UK step back from the brink of further racial violence? Not bloody likely. 

Subscribe now

Social Divide and the Consequences of Imperial Overextension

The above examples are only that — examples — of areas Chaos™ has wormed its way into our world. There are many more specific topics, but there are two pernicious and pervasive problems that cast a shadow over the world. 

The first is that teams are forming for what appears to be an imminent major conflagration. This is happening both within countries and without. The teaming-up within Western countries, for example, makes for starkly divided teams that live in strictly separated environments. These information environments are driven both by physical location and tech algorithms, and I don’t see a way to overcome either of those problems at the moment. One team is firmly pro-death or at least anti-human, as well. Here’s a fine and common example in response to referring to rats as “vermin”: 

The above is just one throwaway example of a growing and sense of nihilism and self-hatred. No society that considers themselves vermin can succeed.

On a larger scale, countries are forming teams for a potential major conflagration. It seems to be arriving on schedule. This is precisely what happened prior to the First World War. In this case, the US-UK-Europe-Japan led maritime alliance is opposed by the Russian-Chinese-Iranian led land-based alliance. Whereas Germany was successfully blockaded by Britain’s navy during the First World War, no such maneuver would be possible in a more modern conflict. 

Should a major conflict break out between these nations, which is my greatest current fear (having overtaken economic problems), I believe we’ll quickly discover surface fleets are obsolete after a US carrier is either sunk or damaged. 

These are the consequences of imperial overextension and hubris. Russia and China recently flew a joint reconnaissance mission near Alaska — the first of its kind — as a message that the US would have to face both should a conflict break out. It would likely have to contend with Iran as well. There is no way the current US military can maintain a conflict against three major adversaries. I am happy to argue why in a future post.

The second problem is that we’re in entirely uncharted waters technologically. In eras of new technology, conflicts can go sideways quickly. Since this is indeed uncharted water, I can’t plot a course or see the horizon. I have no idea how tech will play out in conflicts over the next decade, and I doubt many do.

Without going any further, here is my final conclusion: something is going to break. I don’t know what’s going to break first. But, like a long summer without rain, there has to be a storm. Our current institutions are old and dated. That goes from economic models to diplomatic structures, social structures and really just about everything. 

The hope I have, that I mentioned above, is that enough damage can be done to centralizing powers without too much loss of life. Left to their own devices, people are clever enough to rebuild social structures, while centralizing powers take significant time to gather resources. That is, unless AI makes us all slaves, in which case you’d better be nice to your local ATM. 

Leave a comment

People cling to the concept of Left and Right even though the ideas are long past their expiration date.

It wouldn’t take much to convince a person with any knowledge of the French Revolution that basing any of our systems on it is a Bad Idea™ and should be avoided. It was a bloody mess, marked a pivot point in history, and resulted in one of the most significant wars of all time, i.e. the Napoleonic Wars. 

Yet we use a heuristic derived from the French Revolution to describe modern political sentiments — that of Left and Right. Without overdoing detail, during the French Revolution those who were in greater favor of radical social reform (put mildly) sat on the left side of the National Assembly, while those who favored preserving social institutions (like the royalty) sat on the right. 

In modern-speak, those on the Left represented what we’d now call progressives, while those on the Right represented conservatives. We still use these terms today. 

But I contend these terms are obsolete and no longer serve any good purpose. While the terms for many years provided valuable quick insights into where a person stood politically, they no longer do. This is especially true in elected politicians in Western countries, but can be applied to everyday people as well. 

Note that in this case “obsolete” does not mean “totally useless.” It simply means “outdated” or “no longer applicable.” A spear is obsolete, but it doesn’t mean it can’t still kill a man. It’s simply no longer an effective tool for the modern era. 

Instead of Left and Right, I propose two different models: An Up-Down model and an In-Out model. I’ll explain these in greater detail below. People will likely still, out of habit, use a Left-Right model to describe their own politics and that of those in positions of power, but the lines have become so blurry and warped that they no longer make sense. 

Consider: Where has the populist, working-class, anti-war Left gone in most Western countries? Why is there a surge in “Right-wing” nationalism in so many countries? Why have political parties across political spectrums in the West become pro-war and pro-big business? And, if you live in any nation based on elections, why do average people rightly feel like they have less of a say than ever in their nation’s decisions? 

As an example, some 70% of Americans polled supported peace talks to end the war in Ukraine — but our Congress has just sent tens of billions of more dollars to further support that war. Where’s the representation? There are countless other examples. 

The Defunct Political Compass

You’ve likely seen political compass tests that place you in one of four quadrants, representing a left-right x axis and an authoritarian-libertarian y axis. While this model has provided a valuable quick overview of a person’s overall political leanings, the Left-Right model is no longer applicable, so the whole thing is a vast oversimplification based on outdated concepts. 

The main outdated concept is found in governments themselves: In much of the Western and developed world, governments no longer adequately represent their populations. Instead, they represent a number of different interests that are certainly not themselves representative of the desires of their constituents. These include influences from big businesses like the pharmaceutical, arms, private equity, and tech industries, as well as transnational institutions and many more. I’m sure you can think of your own examples, and I’d love to hear about them. 

Leave a comment

So what does the Up-Down model look like, and what does the In-Out model look like? Let’s discuss. 

Up and Down, not Left and Right

I was never intended to make a living as a graphic designer.

In the Up-Down model I propose, the concept is simple. 

Up represents:

• Stronger government centralization

• More government control

• More representation of moneyed interests and less representation of ordinary people

• More power towards unelected bureaucracies

• National or global and not local focus

• Little accountability for elected and bureaucratic officials

Down represents:

• Decentralization of power

• Less government control

• Representation of ordinary people rather than moneyed interests

• Less power for bureaucracy

• Local and not national or global focus

• Greater accountability for elected and bureaucratic officials

If you’ve gathered by those definitions and/or from my previous writings that I’m more in favor of “Down,” then you’re an astute observer. But the “Up’s” are definitely on the rise and have been for many decades. A quote attributed to Oscar Wilde goes, “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” And how!

Left unchecked, government power will always grow. It will also grow less accountable to its people. As I wrote previously in a piece entitled “The Praetorian Problem,” this is an age-old problem that every powerful country faces. Once entrenched, power and the power-adjacent will be loath to give up that power. 

I provided a comical example of bureaucracy gone mad in an old piece in which I compared the freedom of something as simple as getting a haircut in Texas to Vietnam as well as the licenses necessary to become a humble barber. As a brief example, in Texas it takes the same amount of time to earn a barber’s license as it does to earn a pilot’s license. In one instance, someone could get a bad haircut or lice. In another, an airplane could crash into a mountain or building. These are obviously consequences of a different scale — but these events requiring equivalent training are the results of bureaucratism. 

Things get far more insidious than that small example, of course. It’s a culture-wide phenomenon where the center of power, in this case state/provincial, national, and transnational capitals, act like black holes for money and power. The more they absorb, the greater their influence. And the greater their influence, the lesser their accountability. 

Share

The Inside-Out Model

The Inside-Out model is even simpler than the Up-Down model. Think of it as a series of concentric circles, with the center being the core of Power (capitalized intentionally). 

Inside means:

• Greater access to power and wealth

• More favorable treatment by judicial and bureaucratic systems and greater access to privileges

Outside means the opposite:

• Less access to power and wealth

• Less favorable treatment by judicial and bureaucratic systems and less access to privileges

This is far from a new concept, and can be best described by Feudal systems. For reference, I believe we are entering a new Feudal age. More on that in another post. But as a quick run-down of what Feudalism used to look like: A serf or peasant owed allegiance to their local lord. Their lord owed allegiance to his lord, and so on up to the highest power in the land, whether it be a duke, king, emperor, or otherwise.

Ask yourself: What level of access to wealth and power do you have? Where would you put yourself on the inside-out model? As opposed to the Up-Down model, the Inside-Out model is one of fact rather than belief. As a US citizen with a degree, for example, I’m far closer to the Inside than an illiterate cobalt-mining child in the Congo regardless of where I think power should reside. 

Subscribe now

What Does Up-Down and Inside-Out Look Like?

Even someone who had never heard of North Korea could understand a lot about the country from this one image.

If you want a perfect example of an Up-In country, look no further than North Korea. It could hardly be classified as Left or Right, since it’s simply a dictatorship where the people have no say. This model is a common one throughout history, as exemplified by the Absolute Monarchy of Louis XIV, the Tsars of Russia, or the Austrian Empire through the guidance of Chancellor and Foreign Minister Klemens von Metternich. Other examples include multiple Chinese dynasties, ancient Egyptian and Assyrian kingdoms, and so on. If the way to get towards power and wealth is to be closer to the center of power and the people have no say in their government, you’re looking at an Up-In regime. 

In an Up-In regime’s best form, a wise ruler guides his or her people towards wealth and wisdom while providing security and infrastructure. In its worst form, it’s a full-on psychotic dictatorship like that of Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong, with property theft, little to no personal liberty, and arbitrary governance to the point of state-sponsored murder. 

A Down-Out regime, despite the name sounding like a blues song, looks a lot more like the US in the frontier during its westward expansion, the Cossack “rule” of what’s now Ukraine and southern Russia, many Native American tribes pre- and post-colonization, or Ireland before the Viking or English invasions. Personal liberties were paramount and centralized control was…well, not centralized. In short, it’s not much of a “regime.” 

In a Down-Out regime’s best form, you'll see lots of personal liberty, very little government control, easy access to power, low taxation, and almost no government oversight into daily life. In its worst form, it’s absolute anarchy, as can be seen in post-Qaddafi Libya today or in post-Pol Pot Cambodia. You can expect little to no personal safety and failing infrastructure, if any at all. Localized atrocities can become common and petty tyrants will find their way to power in small areas. 

Note here that I’m discussing regimes, not societies. Whether regimes birth societies or vice versa is a chicken-and-the-egg question that could be argued either way, and countless historical points could back up either claim. Regardless, societies eventually form regimes, and regimes centralize power. Given time, stability, and interstitial crises, a Down-Out regime will eventually become an Inside-Out regime as power centralizes like it naturally does. 

Homesteaders in front of their Nebraska home in the 1800’s.

As I’ve written before, however, states face a constant battle against entropy after a certain point, where the center can no longer hold and the forces dragging it outwards take hold. Societies usually experience a Down-Out period in their early stages, leading to a centralization of power and the realization of an Up-In regime until that regime collapses or withers. Then things all repeat again. 

This cycle can take generations if not centuries to complete. There’s a happy medium to be found in each version, though it never lasts. Totalitarianism is despicable. Total anarchy is equally despicable. Only despots and their cronies benefit from 100% Up-In regimes, whereas only outlaws benefit from 100% Down-Out regimes. 

How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

Regimes gain power and influence through — ironically — a combination of war, emergencies, and long peaces. A combination of the three lead inexorably to Up-In regimes. Only new regimes or those on the way down tend towards Down-Out structures. 

But it doesn’t have to be that way. For the first time in all of human history, more people are literate than not. More people have access to information than not. We have the opportunity to claw back power from the Up-In model — but only if we do one thing first: kill the Central Banks. And doing so must be treated as no less than a Holy War.

The main driving force between the Up-In’s right now is fiat-based Central Banking. The power to create money out of thin air is a greater power than any magic, and one could argue that it itself is a form of dark magic. This is why I’m calling a fight against fiat Central Banking a Holy War. If being able to create money from nothing were a superpower, it’d be one of the best ones to have — I’d put it above a combination of flight and super strength.

The Up-In’s currently have their power precisely because they can create money out of nothing, change interest rates at will, and beggar a nation’s people by consistently devaluing their currency. Consider that the US Federal Reserve’s current target rate for inflation is 3%, which would mean that the US Dollar loses half its value every 24 years, and you’ll start to see the point — especially since we all know inflation is far higher than that. At the same time, the government still has plenty of money to spend since it’s as real as fairy dust. 

But like all fiat currency systems, our current one — fully in place since August 15, 1971, and beginning in 1913 — will break. The skyrocketing national debts worldwide are prima facie evidence the system is unsustainable. After the breaking will come a reckoning, where those at the top of the Up-In system will seek to further consolidate power by implementing Central Bank Digital Currencies, or a new, programmable digital and fake currency that can be used to coerce behavior. 

This must not be allowed to happen. 

A currency crisis is guaranteed across all the Western world and then some. While this represents an opportunity for those at the top of the Up-In model to gain more power, it’s also an opportunity to pull more power towards the Down-Out model. There will be a power struggle, make no mistake. 

The breaking of systems is a time of great shake ups, and it’s an opportunity we should welcome, since everyone seems to know something big is on the way. I’d rather we just get it done with. 

What will come next I don’t know, and predicting the world’s state in 10 or 20 years’ time is either a fool’s game or fodder for a novel. 

What I do know, however, is this: The Left and Right are obsolete. We have to think on our feet. It’s time for a new mental model to describe political views and models of Power. Try considering these models now: Where do you place yourself on the Up-Down and In-Out models? I’ll be curious to hear your thoughts.

Leave a comment

Let’s have a brief thought experiment. There are five men in a room. Four of them are important decision-makers, and the other is a guard. He’s the only one with a gun. At first, he’s got a deep sense of loyalty and purpose — he’s there to protect men more important than himself, and he’ll put his life on the line if necessary. 

But after some time, he’s overheard a lot of conversations that indicate the four decision-makers don’t necessarily have strong morals. In fact, some of them appear to be working exclusively for their own benefit and not for the larger, noble cause he thought he served. In some cases, he’s been asked to do things that go against his own moral compass in service of these men, and that moral compass thus becomes corrupted. 

At some point, the man with the gun will realize he’s the one with the actual power. Because, despite what your kindergarten teacher probably said, violence can in fact solve problems. It’s the main power from which all others are derived. 

I’m sure readers have grokked this analogy. After all, it’s a fairly universal one. I call it the Praetorian Problem not just because I admire alliteration, but because I think many readers will get the idea.  

It goes like this: In almost every military empire, the same problem arises at some point, usually after a major expansion in power. The power-adjacent — in many cases formerly elite military units or similar — grow in power until they dominate their government. Then they twist the empire’s policies for their own ends. This is an age-old problem that is only exacerbated by the degree of an empire’s centralization. 

I’ve titled this piece “The Praetorian Problem” because there are few better examples of the power-adjacent seizing power than the power the Roman Praetorians had on both choosing and managing the Emperor once the Senate lost its mandate — all the while ballooning their own budget and helping bankrupt the empire. 

Rome is far from unique in this circumstance. Another fine example is that of the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire, who corrupted their Sultans for centuries until their eventual disbandment. The result was the same: The empires were weakened from within to the point that they were a shadow of their former selves, and never recovered. 

One of the major problems that comes from having a formerly elite military unit become bureaucratically entrenched is that they have to constantly pick fights and start wars to continue justifying their own budget and existence. The entrenchment leads to ossification and the wars lead to bankruptcy, which leads to the fall of empires. 

And now to the US

The US has its own Praetorian Problem, though it’s orders of magnitude more complicated than that of the Romans or Ottomans. I contend the US transitioned from a Democratic Republic to an Empire somewhere in the 20th century. When exactly is up for debate, and I’ll be curious to hear readers’ opinions, but the clearest timeline would be after the Second World War. 

What’s not up for debate, however, is that the power wielded by the three-letter-agencies (TLAs) ostensibly under the power of the Executive Branch have far outstripped any Constitutional power ascribed to them. They’re actively undermining the country for their own ends. And I fear that the United States will fall for the same reasons as the Roman and Ottoman Empires, as well as countless others that followed the same arc. They metastasize like a cancer and, like cancer, will kill their host if left unchecked. 

At the same time, the bureaucratic state takes charge of daily affairs in an Empire, almost always to their own benefit. Think of the amount of times the Court Eunuchs in Chinese empires have come to dominate politics and you’ll get a clearer picture here. We have our own Court Eunuchs in the US, but they’re unfortunately unsterilized. 

When you have a Praetorian Problem, it usually doesn’t end well. Maybe we can do better this time. 

But first let’s talk about Rome a bit since it’s fun. 

Praetorians, Janissaries, and the Deep State

Having special guards for the Consul was an old practice in Rome, and the term “Praetor” is one that goes back a long time. But the first real problem of note with the Praetorians was under Sejanus. Sejanus was executed for treason by the emperor Tiberius, but not before he’d drastically expanded the role and power of the Guard, nearly becoming Emperor himself. I recommend readers take the time to read about Sejanus on their own time, since he’s one hell of an interesting character. 

To sum up a centuries-long problem, the Praetorian Guard metastasized into the power-behind-the-power, or what we’d call today the Deep State. They were wildly expensive, often demanding extortionate payments from Emperors for “protection.” This is better known as a protection racket. 

That protection racket began in earnest with the emperor Claudius, who the Praetorians directly thrust into power when they found him hiding behind a curtain after the assassination of Caligula. The Senate was about to proclaim a Republic again, which would have rendered the Praetorians largely out of a job. So, Claudius offered them a hell of a lot of money (5x their annual salary is the most comfortably accepted figure). This set a precedent that would continue for centuries: Each new emperor had to pay protection money to the Praetorians, or they’d lose their heads. In the year 69 AD, for example — the year of the Four Emperors — the first of the Four, Galba, was murdered by the Praetorians for refusing to pay them money they’d been promised by yet someone else trying to be Emperor. 

This payment scheme played a significant role in the debasement of the Roman currency, which itself played a significant role in the weakening of the Empire. The Praetorians were finally abolished by Emperor Constantine, but only after some 300 years of damage, including the assassinations of numerous Emperors. This includes the assassination of Aurelian, who essentially single-handedly brought an end to the Crisis of the Third Century and sought to end the corruption that had become endemic in the Empire.  

Janissaries played a similar role to the Praetorians in the Ottoman Empire, though of course with their own flavor of corruption. Most importantly, they fomented numerous revolts against their Sultan while resisting any outside change or threats to their political dominance. It got to the point where when they were abolished in 1826 it was simply too late for the Ottoman Empire to reform to keep up with industrializing Europe. I could go deeper into the history of the Janissaries or Ottomans, or even other examples of elite units taking the reins of Empire, but we need to get back to now. 

The main point is this: Deep States are nothing new. They happen in every powerful, centralized empire. And they’re damn sure here now. 

Subscribe now

Corollaries to the Modern US Three-Letter Agencies

I gotta admit, I’m having fun with my AI image tool.

The modern United States is orders of magnitude more complicated than Rome or the Ottoman Empire, which were themselves quite complicated. But there are still striking parallels. 

If we were to draw any parallel between a three-letter agency guy and Sejanus, for example, a close comparison would be J. Edgar Hoover, who directed the FBI for nearly 40 years. Both men directed their respective agencies to far greater power than they’d initially been created for, wielding enormous influence in every aspect of internal politics. 

J. Edgar Hoover is the center of a wild number of conspiracy theories, including his unusual sex life, but that’s a topic that’s about as deep a rabbit hole as there is. 

An important note: President Lyndon Johnson lifted the former mandatory retirement age of 70 specifically for Hoover so he could remain FBI director indefinitely. Interestingly, not 3 years later, the same Johnson signed into law the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. So, if you’ve ever wondered why there isn’t a mandatory retirement age for government workers, including Congress, you now have an answer. 

There’s much more, of course. If you look to elite military units that have morphed into something much different than their original intent, look no further than the CIA. It began as the Office of Special Services, carrying out dirty and dangerous work during World War 2 before earning its new status. 

And, if you subscribe to the theory that the CIA had at least a hand in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which I do, then it looks a whole hell of a lot like the Praetorians whacking an Emperor that didn’t listen to them. 

That one act might just have heralded a new era, and I’d argue it did. All the alphabet soup agencies are overstepping their bounds and making the Constitution null and void. They realized they hold the real power and not elected officials. There was absolutely no legal authority for the Center for Disease Control and Health and Human Services to prevent landlords from evicting tenants who didn’t pay rent, but it happened anyway. There wasn’t even any Constitutional authority to impose lockdowns during Covid, but it happened. 

The concepts of “Legal” and “Constitutional” have lost a lot of their meaning in the face of permanent emergencies and sclerotic, corrupted elected bodies — composed of people who are often themselves far too old. Regulatory agencies just make up their own rules without any vote from Congress. The US is not the representative democracy it presents itself to be.

And that’s directly tied to the Praetorian Problem. It’s the bureaucratic state taking over actual power and doing whatever the hell they want. In this case, the Court Eunuchs (if you need examples, I’ve got plenty) teaming up with the Praetorians to enforce their will. It’s the full realization of actual power. And if we don’t do something about it fast, it’ll only get worse. I haven’t even gone into the corrupting power of fiat currency, regulatory capture, spiraling government debt, or more, since I want to keep this relatively brief. But I think you get the picture by now. 

Leave a comment

What Is to Be Done?

So, what do we do when we’ve got our own Praetorian Problem? The key is this: Capture of a central government only happens when the government is centralized. A strong centralized government is the problem. In the US, for example, we have at least 50 different containment zones for corruption. But this particular cancer is at the core of the US, and by that, I mean Washington, DC. 

In the wake of the George Floyd riots, the phrase “Defund the Police” became popular. I propose an alternative: “Defund DC.” There are many ways this can happen. We can discuss ideas further in another post. 

I’ll repeat, since it’d make a good chant: “Defund DC.” 

I’ve heard people ask how exactly to stand up to a government that’s gone rogue. The first thing you have to do is get enough people used to the idea. How much “enough” is exactly is up for debate, but it’s more than we have now. I’d remind readers that elected Sheriffs can arrest Federal and State agents who are acting against the law as they can with anyone.

If we do nothing, we can expect more wars, more debt, higher inflation, and an overall deterioration of the country. Think it can’t get worse? I suggest reading up on the Crisis of the Third Century (second time I’ve linked in this article so, seriously, do it), with out-of-control inflation, civil war, and complete instability in governance. The Praetorians played a large role in Rome getting to that point. Let’s not get there ourselves.

Share

As many have noted, and as I’ve written before, many people feel like something big is about to happen. But I didn’t expect something quite this big. 

Believe it or not, it involves red cows, the rebuilding of the Third Temple of Jerusalem, and the potential arrival of the Jewish Messiah. Don’t believe me? Check out the CBS Morning News report below to see I’m not just pulling things out of my ass. Check the Temple Institute’s website as well, which I’ll be quoting later on. 

To not waste your time, the burning questions are these: 

• Why now?

• What makes this time different?

• What can we expect to see in the near future?

For example, why were the Hamas attacks on Israel conducted on October 7, 2023, and not anytime before? 

Why is Israel so brazenly defiant against world sentiment in what’s clearly a genocide, and why do they not seem to care at all about becoming a pariah state, like US Senator Chuck Schumer —a major Israel supporter recently warned? Yes, the events of October 7th were awful. But what’s happening in Gaza is politically unjustified, and speaks to something much larger and more unique to the current time.

So, what makes this time so special? 

In short: The rebuilding of the Third Temple is quite likely in the near future, and perhaps even this year. The unblemished red heifers, long sought, were found in Texas (by a rancher who bred them intentionally, as I understand). By “long-sought” I mean around 2,000 years. Only 9 red heifers have been sacrificed in such a way, and this will mark the tenth. For reference, the very first was by Moses himself. Some prophecies hold that the man to sacrifice the tenth red heifer will be the Jewish Messiah. 

The cows are now of acceptable sacrificial age. They will be burned and their ash mixed with water. This is required to cleanse the site for building the Third Temple as well as those entering it. And the building of the Third Temple is a long-awaited prophecy that heralds different things for different religions. Allegedly, boys have been raised from childhood to be unblemished in Hebrew tradition to make for adequate sacrificers. I don’t know if that’s a real word, but it is now. 

For hardcore Jewish believers, the rebuilding of the Temple means the arrival of the Messiah. For Evangelical Christians, it means the beginning of the Tribulation, after which Jesus will return. Both support it, but for conflicting reasons. For Muslims, it means the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in the religion from which Muhammad purportedly rose to heaven. For Hindus, it means a cow will be killed. For Texans like me, it’ll result in a cow being turned into ash, which is just a damn poor way of doing barbeque. This is an excellent way to piss off as many people as possible. 

So, if you’ve been wondering why Israel has had no compunction in murdering civilians in Gaza, it’s because they don’t care about their image anymore. Their job is nearly done. It’s like a movie villain cackling because it’s too late to stop their diabolical plans. Recall that Netanyahu is politically allied with radical Zionists and it makes more sense.

Subscribe now

Rebuilding the Temple

A model of Herod’s Temple (the Second Temple), by Ariely

Rebuilding the Temple will lead to a messianic age, goes the story. And the person to carry out the ritual sacrifice of the perfect red heifer is supposed to be the new messiah. That’s according to the 12th century Rabbi Maimonides. From the Temple Institute: 

In recounting this historical record in his commentary to the Mishna, the great Maimonides ends with the enigmatic statement: "... and the tenth red heifer will be accomplished by the king, the Messiah; may he be revealed speedily, Amen, May it be G-d's will." 

Sound crazy? It does to me, too. But it doesn’t matter what you or I think. There are people who deeply believe this. It doesn’t mean your Jewish neighbor or friend or the guy running the shop down the street is in on it. In fact, I’d be willing to say most Jewish people, who are just people, oppose it. But there are deeply religious Jews who have been waiting for this moment since 70 AD, when Romans under the emperor Titus destroyed the Second temple. The First, by the way, was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC. 

Currently, the Al-Aqsa Mosque sits atop Temple Mount. Hamas recently released a video describing the timing and reasoning of their attack, which was termed the Al-Aqsa Flood. They specifically named the red heifers being imported to Israel as a reason for their October 7th attack, which was called the Al-Aqsa Flood. 

The Hamas logo prominently features the Dome of the Rock, a shrine in the middle of the Al-Aqsa complex.

Should Al-Aqsa Mosque be destroyed to make way for the Third temple, you can be sure a Holy War (again capitalized intentionally) is on the way. But for true Abrahamic religious zealots, life is much more than just about living flesh, so any sacrifice is worth it. Crusaders and Jihadis alike have died for much less. 

Share

From the Horse’s Mouth

Image of the Temple Institute, by פארוק

In case you don’t feel like clicking links, here’s the text from the Temple Institute’s “Statement of Principles” page. 

Why build the Temple?

Why this fuss over an ancient, seemingly outdated concept? What relationship does the Holy Temple have to our world today? The people of Israel have lived without a Temple for nearly 2,000 years, and seem to be doing fine without one. We don't seem to need it, and G-d certainly doesn't, so why think about rebuilding?

The Torah's commandments are eternal, for now and forever

Nothing can be further from the truth. Maimonides teaches (Sefer Igeret Ha'Shmad) that the performance of all the commandments are not dependent on the coming of the messiah. They are to be fulfilled at all times. G-d does not change His mind, or nullify any of the commandments included in the Torah, which were given once, for all time. In lieu of Temple service, we may observe various "remembrances" of these commandments, but that is all they are - merely gestures of nostalgia.

Fish out of water

But we fool ourselves if we think that the state of Judaism today, without the Temple, is normal. On the contrary, we are like fish out of water. If 1/3 of all the Torah's commandments center on the Temple, it would seem that Biblical observance in the Temple's absence is but a skeleton of what G-d had intended it to be.

Our relationship with G-d

At this one place on earth, unlike any other, the one place that the Creator Himself chose to rest His presence, the rectification of man's connection with G-d takes place. All people were able to come to the Temple to partake in this direct and fulfilling bond; to recharge their spiritual batteries and come away with a renewed sense of purpose and being.

A new era of universal harmony

Every prophet of Israel, without exception, prophesied that the Temple would be rebuilt, ushering in a new era of universal harmony and peace unparalleled in the history of man. Thus, the "movement" to rebuild the Holy Temple is not new. It was born almost 2,000 years ago, at the moment of the Second Temple's destruction. For when the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, it was the soul of Jewish people... and the entire world... as we believe it will be once again.

The rebuilding of the Holy Temple: In our time?

The reality of the Jewish experience means that the Temple will be rebuilt. Many people who visit the Temple Institute are incredulous and cannot help but exclaim: "Do you really think that you will live to see the Holy Temple rebuilt?" The answer to that question is of little importance. Let us rather recall that Jewish history has a trajectory, which began when the patriarch Abraham smashed his father's idols. That trajectory has spanned the millennia, and it is obvious that we are rapidly approaching climactic times, in which the Holy Temple will once again become the focal point for mankind's spiritual focus. Whether this transpires in our generation or not, we can still choose to be active participants, and not simply spectators, in G-d's bold plan for the Redemption of Israel and all humanity.

And from Chabad Lubavitch, concerning the arrival of the Messiah: 

1. The Messianic King will arise in the future and restore the Davidic Kingdom to its former state and original sovereignty. He will build the Sanctuary¹ and gather the dispersed of Israel.² All the laws will be re-instituted in his days as they had been aforetimes;³ sacrifices will be offered, and the Sabbatical years and Jubilee years will be observed⁴ fully as ordained by the Torah.⁵

Writer’s note: It’s interesting that the Jubilee years will be observed, considering the overwhelming and inescapable problem of our current debt-based monetary system. 

Deep Conspiracy?

Interestingly, in 1871, a purported letter from Freemason leader Albert Pike to Italian politician Giuseppe Mazzini predicted the three world wars necessary for the destruction of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in order to usher in Luciferianism. This dives deep into conspiracy theory territory, but it’s worth considering nonetheless. Pike’s use of the term “Nazism” in 1871, when the term had not yet been coined, casts doubt on the story. Still, there seems to be something here. 

To perhaps confirm this, a letter from Cardinal von Hartmann, Archbishop of Cologne during the First World War, wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XV dated 8 November, 1918, 3 days before the end of the War. 

Translated (by a kind Austrian friend), it reads: 

His majesty, the Emperor, has just informed me that he received news yesterday that the " Grand/big orient" has decided to first get rid of all sovereigns, especially him, the Emperor himself, then to destroy the Catholic church, to intern the Pope, etc, and finally to establish a world republic under the leadership of American capitalism (high finance) on the ruins of the previous bourgeois society

The German Freemasons are faithful to the emperor (which is doubtful) and apparently had let him know this. 

Also England seems to want to maintain the existing bourgeois order.  France and America,  instead, are totally under the rule of the grand orient 450.  

Bolshevism should be the the external tool to create the desired conditions 

In view of the huge danger that is threatening not only the monarchy, but also the Catholic church, it is necessary that the German Episcopate has to be informed about this, and also, that the Pope has to be warned. 

Take the above two bits of information with more than a few grains of salt, but they’re most certainly worth considering. 

Subscribe now

Endgame

The alleged altar for the Red Heifer, built on the Mount of Olives (I’ve heard pushback on this so this information may change)

As of now, the altar for the sacrifice has already been built on the Mount of Olives as seen in the video above. They’re ready. The sacrifice could happen at any moment. Rumors suggest it may be as early as Passover this year, beginning April 22. Whenever it happens, my friends, things are going to get wild. 

Key Takeaways: 

• The 10th red heifer in history is about to be sacrificed to prepare for the construction of the Third Temple of Jerusalem

• Rebuilding the temple will require destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque

• According to prophecy, the man who sacrifices the red heifer will be the Jewish Messiah, heralding a new Messianic Age

• Destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque will most certainly lead to a holy war

• Evangelical Christians support rebuilding the Third Temple as a way to get Jesus to return

• I’ve already argued that the Third World War has already begun, and I’m unfortunately beginning to believe more strongly that I’m right

As a parting question, and one I can’t answer quite yet: Why have Russia and China recently vetoed the US proposal for an Israel-Gaza ceasefire at the UN? I have theories, but am curious to hear what readers think. 

Leave a comment

If I’m wrong on all of this, I’ll happily accept the title of king of the crazies. That’s a small price to pay. But all evidence points the other way. 

Recommended additional reading: 

• Chabad Lubavitch’s Laws Concerning Kings and the Messiah (yes, the Chabad Lubavitch with secret tunnels in New York)

• The entirety of the Temple Institute site

If there’s any aspect of current events that defines the gray rhino and black swan metaphor, it is the millions of illegal immigrants pouring into the US and Europe. It’d best be described as a charging rhino with a flock of black swans on its back, fluttering off and laying their eggs who knows where. 

For reference, I’ll be using the term “illegal immigrant” because it is the correct term, and not “economic migrants” or any other terminology. Some immigrants are asylum seekers, yes, but the vast majority of those entering the country cannot adequately be described as such. So, we’ll stick with the real term, since terminology matters. This post is decidedly not about legitimate asylum seekers nor is it about legal immigrants. Talented and educated immigrants should be encouraged to continue to come to the US or Europe (or anywhere else that will treat them well), as attracting the best and the brightest is simply smart policy. 

Another introductory note: Pay attention to knee-jerk emotional reactions you may encounter while reading this post, or any other controversial topic. Often, controversial topics get rooted in a person’s emotional belief structure rather than remaining in a flexible, cerebral state that’s open to change and challenge. The term “illegal immigrant” itself is often enough to cause consternation in many if not outright hostility to whoever says it. Ask yourself: Why is that? Why have soft language terms like “migrants” or explanatory terms like “economic migrants” replaced the accurate term in current discourse? 

Frequently, criticizing immigration policy is misconstrued as demonizing immigrants themselves. Emotionalizing the topic makes discussion much more fraught. So, should you find yourself feeling an upwelling of emotion, stop and consider that emotion and where it comes from. 

Back to the main topic: The border crisis in the US currently dominates much political discourse, with 80% saying the government is doing a bad job handling border policy, and for good reason. We’ve only begun to see the long-lasting and ill effects of the absurd policy of letting in millions of unvetted people from all over the world, and it’s a fool’s errand to predict exactly how this plays out. Because this topic is so large, and I’m American, I’ll largely but not exclusively focus on what’s been going on in the US.

Safe Bets on Insecurity

Eventually, some bad actor is going to hit the jackpot.

There are some assumptions we can make, however. First and foremost, we can assume that hostile actors are sending in spies, saboteurs, and terrorists to cause chaos and disrupt society once given the “go” signal. Consider: If adversarial countries like Russia, China, or Iran are not sending agents across the open border, they’d be woefully remiss in their duties. And, further,  since we’ve somehow forgotten that, yes, Islamic terrorism is a real thing and, yes, many Muslims are (rightfully) furious with the US for backing Israel’s slaughter in Gaza, I’m afraid we’ll soon be reminded of this fact. 

Consider further some ~7.5 million known encounters with illegal immigrants have taken place in the US since the Biden regime came to power, including 1.7 million getaways. That does not include the uncounted illegal immigrants, the number of which we can only begin to guess at. 

If only 1% of those had hostile intentions in the country, that’d represent 75,000 people. Even .1% represents a still-frightening 7,500. Considering the 1% figure is half the size of the entire UK armed forces, that’s a deeply troubling number and comparison. 

From a broad perspective, one could be forgiven for thinking that those allowing this mass unvetted immigration were actively seeking to undermine or outright destroy their own societies. After all, the immigration is optional — open borders are a policy decision. And while there is plenty of weaponized altruism in the form of the naively benevolent, there’s an unmistakable stench of malevolence coming from the top. 

The most important question to ask is this: Who actually benefits from open border policies? I’ll leave that question largely open for now. 

There’s always the argument that immigrants are needed to replace dwindling populations in countries that have somehow forgotten how to have babies. As the argument goes, they’re needed to prop up pension schemes and other government programs with taxable labor. But with untold billions of dollars and euros going to support illegal immigrants, is this obvious ponzi scheme anywhere close to solvent or practical? I’m curious to hear readers’ thoughts. 

Leave a comment

The Way We Were

Having grown up in Texas, I’ve been personally aware of the effects of illegal immigration my entire life. But it wasn’t always the way things currently are. Throughout the 1990’s, for example, the vast majority of illegal immigrants were simply people from Mexico, largely men, coming to work jobs to support their families back home. I worked with many of these men in restaurants and a warehouse, and they were normal guys with normal life aspirations. We’d banter and laugh and have a good time. Legal status notwithstanding, none of them were violent criminals and I certainly wouldn’t have considered them a threat to society. 

For one example, when I was 12, my father and I hired a Mexican day laborer from outside a Home Depot to help us build a patio. After a week working together, he’d proven to be so trustworthy that my father was comfortable enough leaving him alone with me in our house to finish the job. And that’s all that happened — he did his work, we got along well, and there was never any hint of malicious intent from him. Far from it: He was just a guy just looking to make some money. A combination of economic factors and lax border security simply allowed him to make more money than he would have back home. And yes, while policies that allowed men like him in may have depressed wages, you can blame the system, but I don’t blame him. 

His intention was always to return home, and I assume he did. That situation is a far cry from what we’re experiencing now, with people coming to stay permanently. It’s completely different, and not in a good way. 

Malicious Intent and Banal Complications

As I’ve noted previously, a handful of guys with nothing more than a van, some hand tools, and a cell phone can cause huge disruptions to a city. Add guns to the mix and it gets worse. It’s easy to sever fiber optic cables, call in bomb threats, or take potshots at power substations. Since it’s very likely military-trained men have entered the country, we can assume they possess much greater capabilities than just that. Tens of thousands of Chinese, for example, have illegally crossed into the US in 2023 alone. And those are the ones we know of. How many of those are military men? I’m afraid we’ll only find out the hard way. 

Then there’s the more mundane but equally troubling economic aspect brought about by the millions of non-hostile “economic migrants” simply looking for a better life. Mass deportations may seem tempting, but it’d be one of the biggest policing operations in history, so we have to assume millions will remain. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that illegal immigrants cost US taxpayers $150 billion per year, and that number is only set to grow. New York City’s plan to hand out prepaid cash cards to migrants is just one step in goodness knows what direction, but one that likely results in a quagmire. 

Questions abound as to the future of these immigrants. What will they do for work? Where will they be housed? How will they integrate into society, if at all? 

Finger-pointing and Finger-wagging

Common phrases in support of illegal immigration include, “No human is illegal!” And indeed, while no human’s existence is or should be illegal, their presence certainly can be. Imagine I were to illegally cross into, say, Turkey seeking employment and expecting to receive anything but jail time, deportation, or maybe a beating. That sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But it’s the current policy in the US and Western Europe. I promise you most of the world is scratching their heads trying to figure out what on Earth we’re thinking. 

Certainly, it’s hard to blame someone for wanting a better life. It is, however, easy to blame those who encourage the migration and make huge amounts of money off the sordid trade. Non-governmental organizations are making this most massive human trafficking organization of all time a lucrative business indeed, all while encouraging migrants to undergo a brutal and dangerous route to enter the United States. If the mission to accommodate illegal immigrants were truly compassionate, why not just offer direct flights into the country? 

To no one’s surprise, there’s been a major uproar from ordinary citizens and government officials alike. So-called “sanctuary cities” like New York and Chicago are crying foul at these migrants showing up on their doorstep despite calling for them. Many Americans are rightly upset that these migrants are being given housing, cash, and food, often at the expense of the communities they come to inhabit. 

That illegal immigrants recently attacked and beat up New York police officers and were released the next day only to flip off the cameras highlights the madness of the current situation. A reasonable question would sound like, “What the hell are we doing?” 

(Please forgive the Fox News/Sky News insert — it’s the most comprehensive video I could find, and this should not be interpreted as my support for Fox or Sky.)

This is not a problem that goes away anytime soon. More likely, this predicament will fester like an open sore until it goes gangrenous or people have enough and decide to expel them. But how would that even work, and how much would it cost? Should President Trump be re-elected, he promises to conduct the greatest mass deportation in world history, but it’d be a hell of a feat to accomplish. Is it feasible? I doubt it. The blowback would be immense as well, so it may not be realistic at scale. 

Considering integration: Recall that it took two generations of what was generally a moratorium on immigration to the US to integrate disparate ethnic groups, and then consider we don’t have that much time on our hands to solve this problem. 

You’ll note that the above description centers around the US. However, the situation is much the same in Western Europe, with migrants from the Middle East and Africa especially flooding borders. The questions and glaring problems remain the same, with the added effect of a large Islamic presence being fundamentally incompatible with liberal, secular Western societies. I realize that may be an inflammatory statement to some, but I challenge any who would wish to prove me wrong. You cannot have two codes of law and ethics operating in the same society and expect stability. 

Worst of all, there’s no apparent plan in place to ameliorate the situation or stem the tide of immigration. I can’t think of any society in history that has successfully navigated such a rapid and massive influx of immigrants, and I don’t see any good solutions presenting themselves. Rome suffered wave upon wave of migration, yes, but not from the entire world. And the result? Well, it wasn’t a good one.

Subscribe now

An Example from France

The topic of cross-cultural migration has long interested me. For some context, I lived in France in 2005-06 as a student. The huge numbers of immigrants from North Africa especially intrigued me, as many hadn’t integrated into society after generations despite being remarkably friendly in my experience. So, I set about writing a lengthy research paper on the history of the topic, diving deep into policy and predictions. 

My conclusion? It was a mess, governments had failed to anticipate the results of their actions, and the whole situation would only get worse. There was no plan in place then and there still is not. Meanwhile, millions more have come in. 

One interview from a shopkeeper stands out in my mind to this day. As in many cultures, language and behavior patterns differ between ethnic and economic groups. This is true of France’s banlieues (suburb/immigrant ghetto), where things can be a bit rough around the edges, to put it lightly. 

As this shopkeeper explained, “If I were to hire an inhabitant from the banlieue, speaking like he’s from the banlieue and behaving like he’s from the banlieue, how would it reflect my business? I could expect to lose customers, couldn’t I? This is my livelihood, and I can’t afford to lose it.” So, it’s often hard for banlieue inhabitants to get work in normal, respectable businesses, and many remain stuck in their enclaves. Of course there are those who do successfully integrate, but the scenario put forward by the shopkeeper is unfortunately quite common. 

And while some, especially on the self-described tolerant left, would argue that tolerance and acceptance of these differences are the answer, it’s simply not the way the real world works. The shopkeeper has a point: He has an image to maintain, and decorum is important when running a business. The failure to integrate has occurred on all sides: on the side of the immigrants, on the side of the government for not encouraging cultural assimilation, and on the side of the locals for not wishing to commingle. You can’t change human nature overnight, and to assume that can happen is simply foolish. The words “racism” or “xenophobia” are quickly losing their power as they’ve been abused and watered down. People who, deep down, are far from racist are sick to the back teeth of hearing about it. More on that in a future post. 

Share

Potential Paths Forward

One irksome possibility in the US is that the Federal Government appears to intend to induct illegal immigrants into the military with the offer of citizenship as a reward for enlisting and serving. Considering military recruiting targets in the US are falling considerably short due to mental health problems, obesity, and academic shortfalls, you can be sure the Pentagon is looking to shore up its recruitment. This is especially critical as the US seems increasingly likely to get involved in a major international war, whether in the Middle East, Ukraine, or the West Pacific. Just recently, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently said that it’s only a matter of time until Ukraine joins the organization. Since Russia has made it clear that’s a bright red line, that means war is all the more likely — hence a dire need for soldiers. It sounds crazy, but it’s unfortunately true. 

This would represent a “Service Guarantees Citizenship” scenario like that seen in Starship Troopers, and the long-term ramifications of such a policy are hard to predict. 

Of course, any discussion of the state of the border crisis in the US would be remiss if it didn’t include a discussion of the standoff between states and the Federal Government. Texas Governor Abbott declared the border situation an invasion and some 25 states have backed him, including states lĵike Florida sending National Guard troops to help defend the border. 

The situation at Eagle Pass has cooled off since then, but this conflict between States and Washington represents a potential breaking point in the country. The question is quite reasonable: If the Federal Government fails to secure its borders, then it’s derelict of duty, and it’s up to the States to do it instead. This represents the greatest challenge to Federal power since the Civil War. Should this conflict flare up again, I’ll write a future post on it. 

But the border with Mexico is long, and Texas, while large, is only one state. While immigrant encounters have dropped significantly at Texas crossing points, they’ll simply increase in other border states like New Mexico, Arizona, and California. 

We can go further into messes like the clearly-misleading Border Security bill passed by the US Senate, but this post has gone on long enough already. The current state of illegal immigration in Western countries could easily fill books and still not catch all of the details. As I concluded from that old research paper I mentioned before: It’s a mess, no one has a good plan, and things will get worse before they get worse. 

Leave a comment

“I wish, I wish, I wish that something would happen.” 

-Radiohead, The Bends, 1995

For those Western folks who remember the 90’s well, it was a period of unparalleled peace, prosperity, and stability. Somehow, however, there was an angst notable in the period that stability was stifling and boring and, most importantly, meaningless. You can look to movies like Office Space, Fight Club, American Beauty, or many others to get a sense of just how unsatisfied the cultural zeitgeist was with what appeared to many to be a vapid consumerist society with no struggle and thus no meaning. Whether conscious or not, it seems that people yearn for struggle and conflict as a way to give their lives a purpose. Examining why is its own question, and may well make for an interesting discussion in the future. 

Fast forward about 30 years and, well, things sure are happening. They’re happening so fast I’ve had to go back and redo this piece multiple times, which I’ve now decided to make a series. The initial piece was originally intended to come out on the day of the Lunar New Year, February 10th, but there’s been so much to keep track of that following information has been drinking from a firehose. 

For a broad perspective: If I traveled back to the 90’s and described what was going on now, the people listening would have dubbed me Nostradumbass and laughed me out of the room, potentially to heave me ignobly into a padded cell. And yet here we are. A cabin in the woods sure sounds nice about now, doesn’t it?

To make an exhaustive list of all the weird, wild stuff that’s been happening would take up too much space and would likely recap events that many readers are already aware of. You can pick your poison for whatever you find the most shocking: brutal wars in Ukraine and Israel backed by the US, a global realignment of economic and diplomatic structures, energy infrastructure under attack, tech dominance of social life, astounding levels of debt and inflation, the pandemic and the response to it, a former US president being politically targeted by the current administration, shipping being attacked in the Red Sea, the US lurching into civil strife, illegal immigration dominating Western political discourse including US states standing up to Washington, and so on. 

There’s funny things, too. Ben Shapiro becoming the #1 rapper, Stephen Hawking showing up on the Epstein client list, and secret tunnels discovered under the Chabad Lubavitch world headquarters in New York are all amusing in a way. 

Year of the Grey Rhino and Black Swan

In the Lunar calendar used in countries like China and Vietnam, the current year is now the Year of the Dragon. For many Westerners, this is not particularly important and represents little more than a mere curiosity. 

However, I’d like to repurpose the animal-zodiac concept for this year and propose a title for this particular year. This will be the year of the Black Swan and the Grey Rhino. If you’re reading this, you’ve quite possibly thought to yourself or had conversations indicating that 2024 will be a wild ride. It already has been, but it’s barely begun. This year clearly represents a turning point and will likely determine the direction of our civilization for the next decade at least, if not longer. 

To culturally appropriate the Taoist concept of balance exemplified in the Yin-Yang symbol, the swan and the rhino are about as opposite as it gets. The swan is nimble, graceful, and capable of flight, while the rhino is bulky, clumsy, and earthbound. Both are aggressive, but in quite different ways. I think there’s something to this dichotomy, but don’t want to stretch the analogy too far to get into woo-woo mysticism. 

In short, here’s what we can expect from 2024: There will be unanticipated events that will dramatically shape our world. Those are the black swans, and I’d be a fool to tell you where they’re going to hatch. I can, however, give an indication as to where the eggs are laid. 

The gray rhino, on the other hand, is far more obvious. It represents an enormous, charging problem that’s predictable. Despite their predictability and obviousness, gray rhinos are often ignored until it’s too late. You can be certain there are multiple gray rhinos charging at us this very moment. By “us,” I mean the human race, and especially the developed world. 

While this year is certainly one that has many on tenterhooks and has already provided astounding and alarming bits of entertainment, there’s room for optimism as well. The goal of this series is not any form of doom-peddling, but rather an analysis of the reasonable risks we face. 

The series will cover the following topics, each its own piece: 

• Illegal immigration

• Economy and debt

• Geopolitics and war

• Cultural divide, information silos, and big tech

• Elections

• Demographics

• Electronic and physical infrastructure

• The good news 

The piece on illegal immigration is first in line. As always, I’ll be curious to hear readers’ thoughts, and may have to adapt to quickly changing events. 

Leave a comment

Morale and Purpose

A brief note here to round out this series introduction. I got demoralized towards the end of 2023, which saw my writing production drop. It’s easy to get demoralized and feel helpless in the face of everything going on. It’s also equally tempting to tune out news and simply focus on your immediate surroundings.

But the situation is far from hopeless. As individuals, it may seem like we’re not particularly powerful. But a small group of well-informed and motivated people can make major changes to their local area and to the minds of those around them, which translates into large-scale change in general. A single raindrop doesn’t make a flood, but the flood wouldn’t happen without each individual drop.

You couldn’t blame an illiterate medieval serf for not having the resources or education to do much about their society. But as well-educated, literate, thoughtful people, we all have a responsibility to at least do something. For me, that something is this writing. So that even if we slide into a wild totalitarian future, have our currency lose yet more of its value, or get involved in more unjust wars, I can look my son in the eye and say at least I at least tried something.

There’s significant room for optimism. The endless propaganda, nudge units, and dying corporate media are signs that the fight for freedom is far from a lost cause. And really, freedom from coercion, oppression, and corruption is an excellent end goal. If I can do anything to make that more likely then I’ll call it a win.

If you find yourself demoralized, know that you’re not alone. Simply voicing the idea helps combat it. Making common cause with like-minded others can make for a major morale boost.

That’s all for now. More coming soon. Thanks for reading.

Subscribe now

In short, unless your name is something like Alexander the Great, Trajan, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Genghis Khan, or Timur the Lame, you’re going to have a bad time trying to fight Iran. It’s no accident that only military geniuses have succeeded while countless others have failed. Speaking of failing, I fail to see any military geniuses running amok at the moment. But let’s get back to now. A quick note: In historical terms, “Persia” and “Iran” will be used interchangeably in this post for the sake of convenience. 

Those paying attention to unfortunate news from the Middle East will have heard about the death of three soldiers from the US in a camp in Jordan a week ago. US forces followed up with some 85 separate strikes across Iraq and Syria, killing dozens but failing to do any real damage to Iranian forces or their proxies. Back-channel talks were likely to have ensured any Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) weren’t present at US airstrike points to help alleviate tensions. So, in addition to the unfortunates killed, including civilians, we’re mostly looking at blown up warehouses and cow sheds, rearranged piles of rubble, and patches of sandy mud turned into muddy sand at great cost as even B-1B bombers flew all the way from the US for the mission. 

More dangerous yet, a US Destroyer, the USS Gravely, came within moments of being struck by a Yemeni missile on February 2nd. More on that in a moment. 

What is clear is this: The US needs to find a way to extricate itself from any potential conflict with Iran and do it fast. There are several main reasons that fighting Iran in any capacity is a dumb idea and will fail. To wit: 

1. Directly striking Iranian territory, especially economic or infrastructure assets, will ensure a larger war that the US cannot sustain. 

2. A war in the Persian Gulf will have massive ripple effects on the global economy that will weaken already shaky foundations. 

3. No war against Iran has ever been attempted by air or sea, and for good reason. 

4. Should a war go to the ground, the only land tenable in Iran is in the flat lands around Ahvaz. The mountains in the interior of the country are impenetrable to forces supported only by maritime units. 

5. Victory conditions in any conflict against Iran are nebulous at best, and the current American stance is purely reactionary. 

6. Fighting Iran’s militia proxies in nearby countries will not make them go away, as the last 20+ years of US experience in the Middle East demonstrate. 

7. Toppling Iran’s government would in no way improve the security infrastructure in the region and would only lead to further conflict, as happened in Iraq and Libya. 

Now, for the moment, a direct war with Iran is not on the table. I can imagine criticisms already: “Sam, you silly goose, a major war and especially a land war between the US and Iran is simply out of the question.” 

There are many scenarios, however, in which the conflict goes direct and hot. The longer the Israeli conflict goes on, the more likely a US-Iranian conflict becomes. And the longer a US-Iran conflict drags on, the more likely it is to go to the ground, since bombing Iran into submission is a non-starter. 

So, while I agree that any conflict will not begin big and land-based, it could result in that down the line as mission creep expands. We’re driving down a slippery slope without brakes. Unfortunately, I don’t see an off-ramp anywhere close. Do you? If so, I’d love to hear what it is. 

Leave a comment

Stairway to Heaven, Escalator to Hell

The recent moves are just one escalation in an ongoing tit-for-tat scenario with no apparent exit. One may hope that cooler and wiser heads in both Washington and Tehran would realize that a war between the two countries would be disastrous for both — as well as the world in general. But with no real way to back down, where does all this go? We’re looking at a wag-the-dog scenario in which the US does not control Israel’s moves yet supports them, and Iran does not fully control its proxies moves but supports them. Neither party can be expected to relinquish support of their allies in the region. Neither Iran nor the US would benefit from a war, but the maelstrom seems set to pull both countries into broader conflict. 

Furthermore, with Israel showing no signs of stopping their war and indicating they intend to fight Hezbollah next, all with US support, the conflict will continue to rage on unabated. There was no way it would ever stay contained, either — especially not with US bases and other assets strung out like bait all over the region, just daring someone to strike. 

Well, they struck, and successfully. It’s not the first attempt — there have been well north of a hundred strikes on US bases in the area since October 7 — nor will it be the last. And strikes from anti-American forces around the region are intensifying. As mentioned above, the USS Gravely came within seconds of being struck by a Houthi missile while operating in the Red Sea. The missile penetrated rocket-based air defenses and was finally shot down by the ship’s close-in weapon system (CIWS), the last line of anti-air weapons a ship has. 

Should this trend continue, it’s only a matter of time until a US Navy ship is damaged or sunk, followed by all hell breaking loose. What happens when the Houthis or anyone else realizes they can fire three missiles at the same time and likely score a hit? 

Recall that multiple US wars — the Spanish-American, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam — have begun with US ships being attacked, or at least claims thereof, and the picture becomes darker. 

To sum up US frustrations in the region, there are few better examples than the following two clips juxtaposed. In one, President Biden says the United States is the most powerful country in the history of the world and of course can support two conflicts (in Ukraine and Israel). In the other, Biden notes that the air strikes on Yemen have not stopped attacks on ships, but will continue nonetheless. 

The big picture is where we can find some context. What’s it been like in the past to fight Iran? What strategies are available now and what has worked before? What can we expect from Iran? Let’s start with a geography and history primer to make sure we’re all on the same page. 

A Fortress of Mountains

A problem has troubled military minds for thousands of years: How on Earth do you defeat Iran when its geography makes it a fortress of mountains? Long before Persia was unified, its inhabitants vexed the kingdoms of Mesopotamia by raiding and retreating into the mountains. The land is rugged and easily defensible. The only successful defeats from the west have come when Persian power was centered in Mesopotamia itself and could thus be militarily defeated there. Think Alexander at Gaugamela, Trajan at Ctesiphon, Heraclius at Nineveh, or the Battle of al-Qadisiyah during the Muslim conquest of Persia. Simply put, it’s easier to fight on flat land. 

Of course, plenty have failed trying to fight Persia. RIP Crassus and Valerian, for example. 

To those who would argue that ancient warfare and modern warfare are entirely different, I’ll disagree on one key point: Defeating an enemy almost always requires taking and occupying their territory, fifth generation warfare be damned. If you want to defeat Iran from the west, you have to control Iraq first. Considering how that went for the US the last time, I’ll not recommend it be tried again. Trajan failed to hold Mesopotamia as did Heraclius, and thus Rome failed to take down Persia for good. The Rashidun Caliphate succeeded in conquering the region, but only after Sasanian Persia had bled itself white fighting a 26-year war against the aforementioned Heraclius and his predecessors. 

Note that I’m not going into detail into conquests from the east like Genghis Khan’s, which are largely irrelevant to today’s circumstances since the US can’t fight Iran in its north or east. 

Note further that Iran’s population is widely distributed throughout the country, though concentrated in its north and west. Bombing campaigns from US bases in Bahrain and Qatar, for example, would have to cross significant amounts of territory covered by more-than-adequate air defenses to get near population centers. Bombing Tehran, for example, like senators Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn have suggested, would very likely result in US casualties. What if airmen are killed or shot down and captured? 

The US could certainly strike along the coast and damage energy and port infrastructure, but that would lead to intolerable economic disruption worldwide. More on that in a bit.

I remain of the opinion that the US has no stomach for a war with large losses and would quickly face political backlash at home that would rival the Vietnam War-era protests. 

So, that currently leaves the US in the unenviable position of being relegated to fight Iranian proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen with no feasible way to win. The militant groups represent a hydra that simply regrow another head for each cut off. And an event like the sinking of a US ship could easily expand the conflict to a direct war.

Again — what would victory conditions look like in any US-Iran conflict, whether direct or proxy? Since “degrading” enemy forces is not a long-term winning strategy against a country of 90 million with an industrial base and modern armaments, what’s next? 

Subscribe now

No Long-Term Solutions

It seems the best the US can hope for right now is to keep things at a slow boil until Israel finally throws in the towel or declares victory and goes home. But with the Gaza Strip leveled and a conflict with Hezbollah looking to heat up, the conflict is far from over. Yemen’s Houthis are still targeting ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, including US warships. You can expect that to continue as long as the Gaza crisis continues. 

Even with Gaza alone, consider: The entire place is destroyed. There are still millions displaced. Should the war end tomorrow, where would they go? They can’t return home to rubble. How does this story end? 

The map above depicts damaged buildings in Gaza in red. You may note that practically every inhabited place has been blown up. Those who oppose Israel in the Middle East will not soon forget that. 

Indeed, US support for Israel has irreversibly damaged US influence in the region, worsening a trend that was already well underway. Erstwhile US allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and the UAE will find their stance towards the US at odds with their citizens’ inclinations in support of Gaza. While that doesn’t mean we can expect direct conflict between those countries and Israel, it does mean the US would lack critical support in any potential conflict with Iran. 

Another option that may be tempting for the US is to strike Iranian oil and gas facilities on the coast. The fattest target is the tiny island of Khark, circled in red below, where much Iranian energy is stored and shipped. Oil refineries like the one in Abadan are likely to be considered targets as well. 

But, while Khark or Abadan may make for a fat, appealing target, attacking it would have severe ramifications worldwide. First, it would all but ensure a broader war in the Persian Gulf and retaliation from Iranian forces against US troops, ships, and more. Disruption in the Persian Gulf would lead to a cascade of economic disasters worldwide, including an energy price shock not seen since 1973 — or since the Nordstream Pipeline bombing, if you’re German. In short, it would be a mess. 

The ~20 million barrels of oil per day flowing through the Strait of Hormuz would be imperiled, and then God only knows what happens. The Red Sea being shuttered to much maritime traffic is troublesome enough. A look at oil fields, pipelines, and energy trade routes in the Middle East can help put this in perspective. The map below is a few years old but still pretty close to accurate. 

Share

Iran Is No Weakling

Of course, one cannot overlook Iran’s own military capabilities. Should the fight go direct, Iran would represent the strongest adversary the US has faced in decades — arguably since WW2, or at least Korea. Iran’s precision-guided missile force is no joke, with plenty of ability to demolish targets in Israel and American bases as well as American ships throughout the region. Even without nuclear warheads, the payloads of Iranian missiles present a serious and theater-wide threat. Then there’s their land and air forces which, while no match for their US counterparts, would have the benefit of short supply lines, the high ground, and home field advantage. They’d also have local numerical superiority since the US cannot reroute its entire military force to the region. 

Add into that the very strong possibility that Iranian-aligned sleeper cells are waiting in the US and Europe for their “go” sign and it’s clear there are many ways Iran could do serious damage against the US and its allies. Simply put, if Iran or its proxies had not put operatives in Western countries during the recent period of open borders, they would be woefully derelict of duty. Even unarmed, a few dozen guys with basic hand tools and cell phones can do drastic damage to communications and disrupt economic activity. Any idiot can call in a bomb threat or break a fiber optic cable, for example. Add firearms to the mix and things get way worse. Remember the 2014 Silicon Valley electric substation attack? If not, it’s worth reading about again. Imagine that — times 100. 

There but for the Grace of God Go We

Following the bombing of a Marine barracks in 1983, President Reagan withdrew US troops from Lebanon. While he endured criticism at the time, in the long run it was a wise decision. After all, what was gained by stationing US troops in harm’s way? Wouldn’t a similar move on a larger scale now seem equally wise? 

US troops in the Middle East largely serve as a tripwire for Israel. One could argue they’ve been put there cynically to absorb attacks and make a path towards escalation. The deaths of the 3 US service members are sad indeed — and they were entirely avoidable. 

The US should have withdrawn from the region long ago. Instead, generations of US soldiers have been stationed in the Middle East, costing the country trillions of dollars, thousands of deaths, and its reputation as a force for good in the world. The chaos of the last 20+ years has also led to millions dead — and that in a region famous for long memories and grudges. 

Unfortunately, Israeli influence in the US is powerful enough to keep the US embroiled in the region. The Israel-Palestine conflict is the root and stem of the current problem. It is nowhere near over, and Washington is not encouraging it to end either. Rather, it seems set to expand to Hezbollah and Lebanon. 

I would love it if people somehow got the message that we were on an incredibly dangerous path, could come together in peace instead of acrimony, and lay down a workable plan for stability. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. Too much blood has already been spilled and too many foreign policy mistakes have been made. It almost appears as if the US is suffering from Gambler’s Fallacy in the region. “Just one more war and we’ve got ‘em this time.” 

Then again, there’s always the underlying Rosetta Stone of US foreign policy which is to control the four key access points to the Heartland of Halford Mackinder’s theory. Those are Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine. But that’s its own idea, and I’ll discuss that more in another post. 

To briefly recap before signing off: The US and Iran are closer than ever towards a direct conflict. Such a conflict would be ugly as sin, and would drag on for ages…unless it went nuclear. Nobody involved in the fight would come out of it better off. But like so many other times in history, once things get out of control they take on a life of their own. 

Does anyone have a more rosy assessment? Let me know in the comments if you do.

Leave a comment