Thanks man, I really appreciate it. It's totally unpredictable how an article will do ā some break through the algo and some very much feel like they get downplayed. Don't know why, and am trying to figure it out: things like word count (down to which specific hundred-word range works), hook, number of links, stats/graphs, etc. Have come up with nothing concrete yet. In any case, thanks for the kind words ā they mean a lot.
Good article m8! Iād like to posit a fundamental inversion of mainstream historical narratives, particularly regarding nuclear doctrine and 1984. The summary of this perspective is as follows:
The official narrative of the 20th century, especially concerning nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), is a sophisticated psychological operation rather than objective history. The āatomic bombingsā of Japan are viewed not as military necessities but as geopolitical demonstrations of power by the ones who took the miraculous pictures of the immediate aftermath.
The Cold War's nuclear standoff is interpreted as a managed realityāa perpetual state of fear designed to justify immense government overreach, suppress dissent, and maintain a global power structure. This "balance of terror" is seen as a tool for social control, relying on a population's conditioned fear of annihilation to ensure compliance.
In this context, 1984 is re-evaluated. Rather than being a mere warning from a dissident, it is understood as a potential blueprint crafted by an insider familiar with propaganda techniques. Orwell's background with the BBC's Eastern Service provided him firsthand knowledge of information warfare. The novel's mechanismsāNewspeak, Doublethink, perpetual war, and the manipulation of realityāare not predictions but a codified set of tools for societal control. The elite adopted these methods, using the book as a technical manual while publicly promoting it as a cautionary tale.
The nuclear threat serves as the perfect real-world implementation of Orwell's "perpetual war": an unknowable, existential enemy that justifies permanent emergency powers. Thus, the "nuclear hoax" and 1984are intrinsically linkedāthe former provides the pretext for the control system, while the latter provides its operational framework. The ultimate conclusion is that we live within a managed reality where the threats used to control us are often fabrications or exaggerations, and the purported warnings against tyranny have instead served as its instruction manuals.
"Imagine [....], a breakdown of international trade routes (currently guaranteed by the US Navy) and a greater focus on internal trade."
I am sick and tired of this trope, that the US Navy guarantees the international trade routes. That is one of the falshoods the US keeps repeating. The role of the US Navy is (as stated by a retired US Admiral in an article ipublished by War on the Rocks) to disrupt enemy trade on the seas: see the acts of piracy on the Venezuelan tanker, the confiscation of cargo going from China to Iran, all happening this month.
Disagree strongly, though we may be headed towards what you've described by doing things like hijacking that tanker. The whole global trade order is guaranteed by the implied presence of the US Navy, which deters piracy. Ever looked into shipping insurance costs? If you want to find out what global trade would look like *without* the US Navy, well...you'd better hope other countries up their game.
These are counterfactuals that cannot be proven. Like non existence of God cannot be proven. And US doesn't even have that many ships to go around. Presently China, for instance, has more ships. And from what I have been reading, some "anti-piracy" patrols are done by other countries as well, especially in the Horn of Africa.
I cannot find the link, it was several years ago and don't have access to War on the Rocks archive. But that paragraph burned into my memory because it sounded very true.
Now there is full blockade against Venezuela. US and allies also conduct patrols to block North Korea for instance. This is their main purpose, not piracy, which is only endemic in South East Asia among those miriad of Islands covered by tropical jungles.
Not sure where you're getting your info on piracy in southeast asia...that's where I live and there are very few stories about that here. Maybe down south in the Philippines but that's about it really, unless I'm missing something.
Regardless, you've picked a rather minor detail to quibble over here and if you disagree on that particular point that's fine. Up to you.
This "The whole global trade order is guaranteed by the implied presence of the US Navy, which deters piracy" is not a minor quibble. While I was indeed thinking of Phillipines, which I also think is very minor, with the Horn of Africa being a newer development due to state collapse and western intervention, depriving fishermen of livelihood (it is a parallel with Afghan farmers growing opium), the famous "Freedom of Navigation" passes that US claims to conduct in waters claimed by Russia or China are the proof in the pudding for my case. The US Navy is not to keep open the trade routes, but to block adversaries. Why do you thing the Chinese are building the belt and road across Eurasia and reaching into Africa? Wake up man, you are smarter than this.
Sam, I've said it before and I will again. I don't know why your articles don't get more reach.
Im not just saying this to flatter you. I read fairly extensively, and your grasp and analysis is as good or better than many.
I wonder if you're getting algo blocked, or redirected?
I should also note that I was inconsistent in posting during multiple periods, and I'm sure that doesn't make the algo happy
Thanks man, I really appreciate it. It's totally unpredictable how an article will do ā some break through the algo and some very much feel like they get downplayed. Don't know why, and am trying to figure it out: things like word count (down to which specific hundred-word range works), hook, number of links, stats/graphs, etc. Have come up with nothing concrete yet. In any case, thanks for the kind words ā they mean a lot.
Good article m8! Iād like to posit a fundamental inversion of mainstream historical narratives, particularly regarding nuclear doctrine and 1984. The summary of this perspective is as follows:
The official narrative of the 20th century, especially concerning nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), is a sophisticated psychological operation rather than objective history. The āatomic bombingsā of Japan are viewed not as military necessities but as geopolitical demonstrations of power by the ones who took the miraculous pictures of the immediate aftermath.
The Cold War's nuclear standoff is interpreted as a managed realityāa perpetual state of fear designed to justify immense government overreach, suppress dissent, and maintain a global power structure. This "balance of terror" is seen as a tool for social control, relying on a population's conditioned fear of annihilation to ensure compliance.
In this context, 1984 is re-evaluated. Rather than being a mere warning from a dissident, it is understood as a potential blueprint crafted by an insider familiar with propaganda techniques. Orwell's background with the BBC's Eastern Service provided him firsthand knowledge of information warfare. The novel's mechanismsāNewspeak, Doublethink, perpetual war, and the manipulation of realityāare not predictions but a codified set of tools for societal control. The elite adopted these methods, using the book as a technical manual while publicly promoting it as a cautionary tale.
The nuclear threat serves as the perfect real-world implementation of Orwell's "perpetual war": an unknowable, existential enemy that justifies permanent emergency powers. Thus, the "nuclear hoax" and 1984are intrinsically linkedāthe former provides the pretext for the control system, while the latter provides its operational framework. The ultimate conclusion is that we live within a managed reality where the threats used to control us are often fabrications or exaggerations, and the purported warnings against tyranny have instead served as its instruction manuals.
"Imagine [....], a breakdown of international trade routes (currently guaranteed by the US Navy) and a greater focus on internal trade."
I am sick and tired of this trope, that the US Navy guarantees the international trade routes. That is one of the falshoods the US keeps repeating. The role of the US Navy is (as stated by a retired US Admiral in an article ipublished by War on the Rocks) to disrupt enemy trade on the seas: see the acts of piracy on the Venezuelan tanker, the confiscation of cargo going from China to Iran, all happening this month.
BTW share that link if you can find it, I'd love to read it
Disagree strongly, though we may be headed towards what you've described by doing things like hijacking that tanker. The whole global trade order is guaranteed by the implied presence of the US Navy, which deters piracy. Ever looked into shipping insurance costs? If you want to find out what global trade would look like *without* the US Navy, well...you'd better hope other countries up their game.
These are counterfactuals that cannot be proven. Like non existence of God cannot be proven. And US doesn't even have that many ships to go around. Presently China, for instance, has more ships. And from what I have been reading, some "anti-piracy" patrols are done by other countries as well, especially in the Horn of Africa.
I cannot find the link, it was several years ago and don't have access to War on the Rocks archive. But that paragraph burned into my memory because it sounded very true.
Now there is full blockade against Venezuela. US and allies also conduct patrols to block North Korea for instance. This is their main purpose, not piracy, which is only endemic in South East Asia among those miriad of Islands covered by tropical jungles.
Not sure where you're getting your info on piracy in southeast asia...that's where I live and there are very few stories about that here. Maybe down south in the Philippines but that's about it really, unless I'm missing something.
Regardless, you've picked a rather minor detail to quibble over here and if you disagree on that particular point that's fine. Up to you.
This "The whole global trade order is guaranteed by the implied presence of the US Navy, which deters piracy" is not a minor quibble. While I was indeed thinking of Phillipines, which I also think is very minor, with the Horn of Africa being a newer development due to state collapse and western intervention, depriving fishermen of livelihood (it is a parallel with Afghan farmers growing opium), the famous "Freedom of Navigation" passes that US claims to conduct in waters claimed by Russia or China are the proof in the pudding for my case. The US Navy is not to keep open the trade routes, but to block adversaries. Why do you thing the Chinese are building the belt and road across Eurasia and reaching into Africa? Wake up man, you are smarter than this.