Meanwhile, Somewhere In The Pentagon...

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The decision to launch nuclear weapons is political, not military.

As North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong Un declares that "The Entire US Territory Is Now Within Our ICBM Range", somewhere in the Pentagon, operational plans to neutralize North Korean nuclear and long-range missile capabilities are being refined.

There are undoubtedly two sets of operational plans: one deploying conventional weapons, and the second for deployment of nuclear weapons.

Nothing personal, Mr. Kim Jong Un, it"s just business. A core duty of planners in the Pentagon is to ask "What if" and draw up a range of scenarios and operational plans to carry out the civilian leadership"s policies and decisions.

One such scenario is "what if North Korea launches a ballistic missile that is tracking to strike U.S. territory?"

One response option in this scenario would be to wait and see if the North Korean missile hits the U.S. and if it is armed with a nuclear weapon, and if so, if the warhead detonates.

Another option is to respond immediately with a nuclear strike that neutralizes North Korea"s ability to launch any more nuclear-armed missiles.

The U.S. Armed Forces does not declare war or make the decision to launch a nuclear strike--that is the perogative and responsibility of the nation"s civilian elected leadership. The duty of the U.S. Armed Forces is to be prepared to execute the decisions and policies of the elected civilian leadership.

The ethical considerations of such a decision are not the Pentagon"s purview--those considerations rest with the elected civilian leadership. If North Korea is poised to kill 2 million Americans, South Koreans, Japanese, etc., then isn"t erasing North Korea"s capability to kill millions at the cost of 50,000 North Korean lives in a limited nuclear strike the more ethical choice?

Those considerations are not part of operational plans. The purpose of operational plans is to get the assigned job done. Limiting civilian casualties might well be part of the assigned mission. But it"s not the Pentagon planners" job to make those mission decisions.

There are no small nuclear explosions, but there are smaller explosions and variations that have profoundly different consequences. Ground-burst detonations carve out craters and send shock waves through the earth that crumple tunnels, bunkers, elevator shafts, etc. Ground-burst detonations generate vast quantities of radioactive particles. Since it"s well known that North Korea has buried its most precious nuclear resources deep underground, ground-burst detonations would be the only way to disrupt the access routes to bunkers deep underground.

Air-burst nuclear detonations generate field effects, i.e. electromagnetic pulses across the spectrum. These can be "tuned" to some degree. Thus a neutron-type weapon is designed to sicken and kill enemy soldiers while leaving buildings and equipment intact. This might be the weapon of choice to neutralize any attempt by the North Korean Army to launch a devastating artillery attack on South Korea in retaliation for the destruction of North Korea"s missile and nuclear capabilities.

Air-burst field effects often include massive disruption of electronic equipment. This might limit the operational plans for air-burst nuclear detonations near ther DMZ, as technologically advanced South Korea might well suffer significant economic losses from an air burst near the border with North Korea.

By the same token, an air-burst nuclear detonation over North Korean military communications headquarters might be considered essential to distrupt the North Koreans" command and control capabilities.

My point here is that operational plans to decapitate North Korean nuclear and ICBM capabilities exist and are constantly being revised and refined in light of new intelligence. It"s not the planners" job to make the geopolitical or ethical calculations that inform such a drastic decision. It"s the planners" job to make sure a strike ordered by the elected civilian leadership of the nation achieves its goal, i.e. eliminates North Korea"s nuclear and missile delivery capabilities completely.

It"s easy to say nuclear weapons should never be used, but what if conventional weapons can"t do the job, or create greater risks? Would you consider it a good ethical trade-off to wait for millions to die before killing thousands? That"s a political choice, and one that will always be second-guessed or disputed. But making such decisions is the purpose of elected civilian government.

The planners job is much more direct. If the elected civilian government orders the neutralization of North Korea"s ability to kill millions of civilians in South Korea, Japan or the U.S., then the job boils down to aligning existing resources and reckoning how many resources will be needed to get the job done in the most effective way available.

A conventional-weapons strike would likely require hundreds (and possibly thousands) of aircraft sorties, and all that such a monumental effort entails. It would also requires a significant amount of time to execute. A nuclear strike requires far fewer resources but has consequences far beyond those of conventional weapons.

There have been no nuclear weapons detonated with the express intention of destroying civilians since 1945. The stakes are high, and nobody wants to launch a nuclear attack unless it is in retaliation for a nuclear attack. But by then it"s too late to save the millions killed by the initial attack.

We all hope deterrence works. But deterrence very nearly failed a number of times in the Cold War between the USSR and the US. Given the possibility that deterrence might fail--over-ridden by a commander with launch authority, or a dozen other possibilities of miscalculation or impulse-- plans must be made for a first-strike designed to neutralize a nuclear missile capability.

The decision to launch nuclear weapons is political, not military - but achieving the goal is the duty of the military.

It"s nothing personal, folks--it"s just a peculiar business.

The Economics Of Warfare Have Changed

By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

Economists measure economic variables. That"s a problem.

They are but one piece of an incredibly complex puzzle:

• Behavioural psychology isn"t considered. Different realm... not their business.


• Warfare and the economics of it are measured poorly, if at all.

Consider for a moment the impact of technology on every aspect of life.

Now, consider its impact on warfare. Warfare, of course, impacts economics. Something worth remembering.

In medieval times, wealth was largely acquired by conquest. You rounded up a number of your kinsmen, grabbed the clubs, swords, and spears out of the cupboard, saddled up Smokey, kissed the wife goodbye, and rode into town, killing whoever got in your way and seizing the assets.

Brute force won. In fact, Smokey provided a lot of advantage. Certainly a man on a horse was worth more than one without. Gunpowder changed this. Manpower quickly became less important. A man with a gun was worth at least 10 swordsmen on horseback.

The first World War presented yet another technology, two actually: the tank and the plane.

Trench warfare was a mess. Generals being what they are - grounded in the past and thick - took a while to figure out that when the enemy is dug in and has machine guns, sending your men over the top into a blizzard of lead would mean they"d all die. Someone must have thought to themselves: what if, instead of charging at them with nothing more than sturdy boots and a metal potty on your head, we did the same thing in an armour plated type of car with a huge gun sticking out the front?

Enter the tank.

As for the plane. Dropping bombs on cities was far more effective than a man with a gun. Probably 100 times more effective and thus quite economical.

World War 2 saw the bombs grow ever more powerful, the planes faster and more agile.

And, of course, let"s not forget battleships, which came to dominate due to the need to control supply lines. And because they"d figured out that if you build them large enough, you can take off and land fighter planes on them, which literally meant that they were moving ocean-based refuelling stations.

You"d be forgiven for thinking that everything was going to keep getting bigger, more grandiose, more centralised, and more expensive because there was a technology developed in World War II, which was the seed stock for how it is that I can write to you from the other side of the world, and you in turn can receive it in minutes and at a cost approaching zero.

The Turing machine otherwise known as the Bombe was arguably the most significant element in the eventual success of allied troops in WWII. It allowed the gents at Bletchley Park to decipher far more rapidly Nazi messages and thus react in hours rather than weeks. Cracking Enigma, the Nazi"s encoding machine, was certainly one of the keys to the Allied success.

At its peak, Alan Turing"s machine was able to help crack 3,000 Nazi messages per day and by the end of the war, this totalled 2.5 million messages, many of which provided the Allies vital information about Nazi"s positions and strategy.

This, folks, was a massive step in what we call today, "the Information age". Turing"s machine was one of the earliest computers.

But what"s this got to do with the economics of war, Chris?

Look around you and you"ll realise that everything is becoming decentralised or distributed and deflationary as a result.

This is a result of the economics of business changing as a consequence of technological changes. Micro power grids replacing nationalised power grids, 3D printing allowing localised manufacture, ride sharing decentralising taxi cartels, peer-to-peer lending decentralising traditional bank lending, file sharing disrupting the entertainment industry, the Internet itself disrupting the newspaper industry, Facebook disrupting and decentralising content - I could go on.

What we"re seeing is power shifting into the hands of individuals or at least small groups as apposed to large groups.

This same dynamic is at work with respect to war.

All wars are won or lost due to either side"s ability to secure supply lines, logistics, transportation, provisions, military hardware, and communications. And the ability to pay for all of them. Just as any business which can"t finance its plans goes belly up so, too, does any army.

Now, imagine an army with the ability to decentralise all of these elements.

This army is actually technologically and economically backward. This doesn"t sound threatening until you realise that:

• This army can and does utilise the technology and economics of its enemy. No need to develop its own.


• Transportation is not only provided to them but provided by their enemy.


• This army benefits from acquiring its transport, provisions, and even military hardware from its enemy.


• This army uses the communication tools necessary to conduct attacks at fractional cost... tools produced more often than not by its enemy... now out in the public realm

Would this not be a pretty powerful army?

Now, imagine this army is invisible. You can"t spot the soldiers because they look like so many other normal people. Furthermore, this army has no discernible head to cut off. There is no HQ to attack. The soldiers are dispersed, almost impossible to detect, and have already infiltrated the enemy"s borders. Heck, they"ve been invited in.

Khuram Butt, Rachid Redouane, and Youssef Zaghba... the 3 terrorists who went on a rampage on London Bridge and Borough Market this week... were soldiers of this army.

How would you fight such an army?

Katy Perry thinks we should "hug it out". Teresa May wants to control social media. And London"s mayor Sadiq Khan thinks we need to just get used to it as it"s just "part and parcel of living in a big city".

That"s certainly true of cities such as Kandahar or Mosul, which unfortunately is increasingly what Europes cities are beginning to look like.

Clearly, none of these are solutions. An idiot can see that.

Washington just upped the US military budget so that they can buy more wiz bang jets and horrendously expensive clunky ships. Generals fighting the last war.

Pray tell, how they"re supposed to stop to some lunatic with visions of 40 virgins in his head and a bomb strapped to his guts in a crowded subway station? Europe"s leaders are even worse. Brussels is full of globalists and socialists who promote bad policies and then insist the whole continent pay for their mistakes.

The Western governments of the world are both clueless, ignorant and stupid. They"re also too afraid to call a spade a spade for fear of being demonised for being politically incorrect. But most importantly, they"re broke. This is a good thing because nation states which are a relic of the Industrial era are going to go away as well but that"s a conversation for another day.

Clearly they"re not going to solve these problems anyway, and, in fact, the economics of war have changed so radically that it ensures they"ll go away.

Remember, the most basic social contract a citizen has with his government is that of security and government cannot provide it.

The answers lie with private enterprise.

Private companies such as Stabilitas, who are using crowdsourcing, and AI are already doing more for individuals and businesses than governments are.

The truth is the economics of war have changed and that means that the technology that won the last war isn"t going to be the one that wins this one.

- Chris

"War is the ultimate realisation of modern technology." — Don Delillo

--------------------------------------

Liked this article? Don"t miss our future missives and podcasts, and

get access to free subscriber-only content here.

--------------------------------------

Paul Craig Roberts: 'Sauron' Rules In Washington

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

“The problem is that the world has listened to Americans for far too bloody long.” - Dr. Julian Osborne, from the 2000 film version of Nevil Shute’s 1957 book, On the Beach

A reader asked why neoconservatives push toward nuclear war when there can be no winners. If all die, what is the point?

The answer is that the neoconservatives believe that the US can win at minimum and perhaps zero damage.

Their insane plan is as follows: Washington will ring Russia and China with anti-ballistic missile bases in order to provide a shield against a retaliatory strike from Russia and China. Moreover, these US anti-ABM bases also can deploy nuclear attack missiles unknown to Russia and China, thus reducing the warning time to five minutes, leaving Washington’s victims little or no time in which to make a decision.

The neoconservatives think that Washington’s first strike will so badly damage the Russian and Chinese retaliatory capabilities that both governments will surrender rather than launch a response. The Russian and Chinese leaderships would conclude that their diminished forces leave little chance that many of their ICBMs will be able to get past Washington’s ABM shield, leaving the US largely intact. A feeble retaliation by Russia and China would simply invite a second wave US nuclear attack that would obliterate Russian and Chinese cities, killing millions and leaving both countries in ruins.

In short, the American warmongers are betting that the Russian and Chinese leaderships would submit rather than risk total destruction.

There is no question that neoconservatives are sufficiently evil to launch a preemptive nuclear attack, but possibly the plan aims to put Russia and China into a situation in which their leaders conclude that the deck is stacked against them and, therefore, they must accept Washington’s hegemony.

To feel secure in its hegemony, Washington would have to order Russia and China to disarm.

This plan is full of risks. Miscalculations are a feature of war. It is reckless and irresponsible to risk the life of the planet for nothing more than Washington’s hegemony.

The neoconservative plan puts Europe, the UK, Japan, S. Korea, and Australia at high risk were Russia and China to retaliate. Washington’s ABM shield cannot protect Europe from Russia’s nuclear cruise missiles or from the Russian Air Force, so Europe would cease to exist. China’s response would hit Japan, S. Korea, and Australia.

The Russian hope and that of all sane people is that Washington’s vassals will understand that it is they that are at risk, a risk from which they have nothing to gain and everything to lose, repudiate their vassalage to Washington and remove the US bases. It must be clear to European politicians that they are being dragged into conflict with Russia. This week the NATO commander told the US Congress that he needed funding for a larger military presence in Europe in order to counter “a resurgent Russia”. 

Let us examine what is meant by “a resurgent Russia.” It means a Russia that is strong and confident enough to defend its interests and those of its allies. In other words, Russia was able to block Obama’s planned invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran and to enable the Syrian armed forces to defeat the ISIS force sent by Obama and Hillary to overthrow Assad.

Russia is “resurgent” because Russia is able to block US unilateral actions against some other countries.

This capability flies in the face of the neoconservative Wolfowitz doctrine, which says that the principal goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any country that can serve as a check on Washington’s unilateral action.

While the neocons were absorbed in their “cakewalk” wars that have now lasted 16 years, Russia and China emerged as checks on the unilateralism that Washington had enjoyed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. What Washington is trying to do is to recapture its ability to act worldwide without any constraint from any other country. This requires Russia and China to stand down.

Are Russia and China going to stand down? It is possible, but I would not bet the life of the planet on it. Both governments have a moral conscience that is totally missing in Washington. Neither government is intimidated by the Western propaganda. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said yesterday that we hear endless hysterical charges against Russia, but the charges are always vacant of any evidence.

Conceivably, Russia and China could sacrifice their sovereignty for the sake of life on earth. But this same moral conscience will propel them to oppose the evil that is Washington in order not to succumb to evil themselves. Therefore, I think that the evil that rules in Washington is leading the United States and its vassal states to total destruction.

Having convinced the Russian and Chinese leaderships that Washington intends to nuke their countries in a surprise attack (see for example), the question is how do Russia and China respond? Do they sit there and await an attack, or do they preempt Washington’s attack with an attack of their own?

What would you do? Would you preserve your life by submitting to evil, or would you destroy the evil?

Writing truthfully results in my name being put on lists (financed by who?) as a “Russian dupe/agent.” Actually, I am an agent of all people who disapprove of Washington’s willingness to use nuclear war in order to establish Washington’s hegemony over the world, but let us understand what it means to be a “Russian agent.”

It means to respect international law, which Washington does not. It means to respect life, which Washington does not. It means to respect the national interests of other countries, which Washington does not. It means to respond to provocations with diplomacy and requests for cooperation, which Washington does not. But Russia does. Clearly, a “Russian agent” is a moral person who wants to preserve life and the national identity and dignity of other peoples.

It is Washington that wants to snuff out human morality and become the master of the planet. As I have previously written, Washington without any question is Sauron. The only important question is whether there is sufficient good left in the world to resist and overcome Washington’s evil.

Russia Warns Norway Over Missile Defense Plans

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Russia has warned Norway over consequences of joining NATO ballistic missile defense (BMD) plans. According to Russian ambassador to Oslo, Moscow will retaliate. Norway"s possible accession to NATO"s missile shield «will be a new factor that will be considered in our strategic planning as the emergence of an additional problem in the Arctic region», Teimuraz Ramishvili told the Norwegian state media network NRK.

In 2017, Norway may become a part of BMD. The Norwegian government has appointed an expert group to consider a possible Norwegian contribution to the missile shield. A detailed report on the issue is currently being prepared by experts from the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment and the US Missile Defense Agency to be submitted the year.

Norway has no interceptors on its soil but there are other ways to contribute into the anti-missile plans. Denmark does not host missiles but it committed itself to the bloc’s BMD in 2014, working to equip its frigates with advanced radar systems capable of detecting and tracking ballistic missiles. The missile defense program continues to be implemented despite the fact that after the nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, there is no rationale for it.

?slo is a participant in the US-led Maritime Theater Missile Defense Forum. The Norwegian contribution to the missile defense system has not yet been decided on. Even without interceptors, Norway could contribute by integrating into the BMD system its Globus II/III radar in the Vardøya Island located near the Russian border just a few kilometers from the home base of strategic submarines and 5 Aegis-equipped Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. The Vardøya radar can distinguish real warheads from dummies.

Another radar located in Svalbard (the Arctic) can also be used by US military for missile defense purposes. Senior US officials and politicians have visited the site during the last few years, including former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, former State Secretary John Kerry and Republican Senator John McCain. The radar is installed in violation of the 1925 treaty which states that Svalbard has a demilitarized status. The visitors invented different reasons, like viewing the effects of climate change (John Kerry) or highlighting the plight of polar bears (John McCain) to justify the need to inspect the site.

Installation of BMD sites might potentially undermine the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces as a means of deterrence.

Norway is executing a drastic change in its military policy towards a far more aggressive posture. Even though the country is small, it has the sixth biggest military budget per capita, after the United States, Israel, Singapore and some ‘monarchies’ in the Persian Gulf. The country spends 7.3 billion dollars on the military, more than Sweden (5.7 billion), a country with twice the population. Its geographic position makes it a key element of NATO military planning. The nation’s leading political parties want an increased focus on ‘strategic assets’ like F-35, capable of striking deep into Russian territory, submarines and surveillance capabilities. 

Norway hosts 330 US Marines in the central areas of the country, formally on a ‘rotating’ basis. The rotation does not change the fact that the forces are permanently present in Norway. They are deployed at the Vaernes military base, about 1,500 km (900 miles) from the Russian territory, but the training program involves traveling closer to the border. Norway and Russia share a small land border far in the north.

The Marines can be easily reinforced. The US forward storage areas have been upgraded to store cutting edge weapons and equipment for about 16,000 Marines. Building up stockpiles is a key part of US strategy to enhance its capabilities in Europe. There are plans to warehouse tanks, artillery and other fighting vehicles at other locations around the Old Continent.

The only purpose for the deployment is preparation for an attack against Russia. The Marines are first strike troops. The provocative move is taking place at the time the Russia-NATO relationship hit a new low as the bloc’s forces deploy in Eastern Europe and tensions run high in the Black Sea and elsewhere. According to Heather Conley, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies" Europe Program, Northern Europe is now being viewed as a «theatre of operations».

There are other plans to increase US military presence in Norway. According to a report of Washington-based Center for Strategic and international Studies (CSIS), «The former Royal Norwegian Navy base at Olavsvern is ideal for supporting submarine operations in the extreme North Atlantic and Arctic Seas». The think tank believes it may be possible for Norway to nationalize and reopen a portion of the facility to support the rotational presence of US, UK, French, and Norwegian submarines. Olavsvern was NATO’s closest naval base to Russia’s submarine bases along the coast of the Kola Peninsula west of Murmansk.

It was reported last year that a study group from the US Navy visited both Andøya and Evenes airports in northern Norway to see if any of the two airports could be suitable to serve as a base for American P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft.

The deployment of NATO forces to Norway is clearly a provocative act directed at Moscow. Norway shares a 121 mile border with Russia, while the Russian Northern Fleet is based in the Murmansk region, approximately 100 miles from the border.

Norway has pledged not to host foreign forces on its territory. It had stashed stockpiles of weapons in preparation for a possible conflict, but until recently, foreign troops were allowed into the country only temporarily for training purposes. Oslo had adhered to this principle even at the height of the Cold War.

Shifting away from the «no foreign forces on national soil» policy is fraught with consequences. Turning the national territory into a spearhead for an offensive against Russia inevitably makes Norway a target for a retaliatory strike. Russia did not start it. Actually, very few NATO members take part in the BMD plans. The decision to join would be seen as an outright provocation staged by a neighboring state. By doing so, Norway will deteriorate the relations and greatly reduce its own security which can only be achieved through developing of partnership and strengthening of centuries of good neighborly relations.

Say Hello To China's ICBMs

Authored by Pepe Escobar via SputnikNews.com,

China"s alleged deployment of a DF-41 strategic ballistic missile brigade to Heilongjiang province, bordering Russia, triggered a fascinating spectacle; how to spin – or not to spin - what necessarily represents a milestone in Russia-China"s strategic partnership.

The Global Times stressed Hong Kong and Taiwan media interpreted pictures of the DF-41 were taken in Heilongjiang, admitting there was no official confirmation from Beijing while hoping the "strategic edge" would soon be confirmed.

Russian media was way more explicit, with military analyst Konstantin Sivkov stressing that the DF-41, as positioned, would not be able to target Russia"s Far East and most of Eastern Siberia; and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noting that "if the reports prove correct, the military build-up in China is not perceived as a threat to our country."

Of course not. The Russia-China strategic partnership, which, as I argued, needs to be broken according to Trump"s shadow foreign policy adviser Henry Kissinger"s strategy, is a very serious business. If there were indeed a deployment, Russian intelligence would have been fully aware. Peskov"s response also pre-empted the notion this might represent a Chinese response to potential US-Russia negotiations over nuclear disarmament.

Still, all of the above did not prevent the Chinese Foreign Ministry to issue an attempt at a non-denial denial, describing the alleged deployment as "speculation and crude guesses".

Go West, young missile

The timing of the alleged deployment, with Team Trump doubling down on anti-Chinese rhetoric on their war of positioning geared to extract further trade concessions, may indeed betray a very graphic Beijing message.

The DF-41, a three-stage solid-propellant missile, with a range of up to 15,000 km and capable of delivering up to 10 MIRVed nuclear warheads, is one of the most sophisticated – and secret — ICBMS on earth. Virtually everything about it is classified. Positioning in Heilongjiang, near the city of Daqing, close to the Russian border, implies a huge "dead zone" around it. So call it a mix of nuclear deterrence and a "message" to the ultimate target — the West Coast of the United States.

This propels the matter to an even more serious sphere than a possible upcoming crisis in the South China Sea, where the Pentagon, under the pretext of "freedom of navigation", is obsessed in maintaining "access", Trump or no Trump.

If there ever were an attempted American blockade in the South China Sea, it would be easy to take out the Chinese-developed islands/islets/rocks/shoals. But far from easy to grapple with the Chinese response; submarines with "carrier killer" missiles able to take out anything the US Navy may come up with.

Islands/islets/rocks/shoals in the South China Sea have no inherent strategic significance for the US. What their upgrading – the Beltway would say "militarization" — does represent is China"s progressive attempt to eventually deny access to the US Navy.

Enter the "messenger" DF-41. The technical reasons why Russia does not see the DF-41 as a threat are simple – and may unveil the rationale behind the alleged deployment.

Beijing has been able to deploy its predecessor, the DF-31 – which is able to target Russia — for more than a decade now. And a simple analysis of distance and trajectory reveals that Heilongjiang province is the optimum location for the DF-41 to target the whole of the continental US.

It"s virtually guaranteed that an official Chinese confirmation of the DF-41 deployment will accelerate a nuclear arms race, involving all players from Russia, China and the US to India and Pakistan and even North Korea.

But more than this, it will be yet another lethal blow to the Beltway"s master strategy – first deployed by Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski – of trying to prevent the emergence of any peer competitor, or worse, an alliance of peer competitors such as Russia-China.

Just at the start of the Trump era, the new reality could not be more striking. Not long ago, it was "say hello to Russia-China". Now it"s "say hello to China"s ICBMs."

How To Defeat The Globalist System

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

In my last two articles, "How Globalists Predict Your Behavior" and "How To Predict The Behavior Of Globalists", I explained the base fundamentals behind a concept with which most people are unfamiliar. They are so unfamiliar with it, in fact, that I didn’t bother to name it. In this article I hope to explain it, but I highly recommend people read the previous articles in this series before moving forward.

What I outlined, essentially, was a beginners course on 4^th Generation Warfare. This methodology is difficult to summarize, but here I will list what I believe are some of its core tenets.

Fourth Gen warfare is based on a primary lesson within Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War. Sun Tzu argues in the classical military tome that the greatest strategists win wars by NOT fighting, or at least, by not fighting their opponents openly and directly. That is to say, they win by convincing their opponents that fighting back is futile and that surrender is preferable, or, they convince their opponents to destroy themselves through internal conflict and psychological sabotage. Sun Tzu felt this method was far superior to engaging in direct combat in a real world battle space.

While this might sound bizarre to some, it is becoming more and more apparent (in my view) that 4^th Gen warfare is now the go-to weapon for globalists. Defeating the system established by the globalists, a system prevalent for decades, is an impossible task unless 4^th Gen warfare is understood.

A classic example of a tried and true form of 4^th Gen attack is to initiate a civil war within a target population, and in most cases, control the leadership on both sides of that conflict. Another method is to conjure an enemy, an outside threat which may be legitimate or entirely fabricated, and use that enemy to push a target population to unify under a particular banner that benefits the globalist cabal in the long run. Fourth Gen requires patience above all else.

In fact, I would say 4^th Gen is the weaponization of patience.

A 4^th Gen attack is not carried out over days, or months, but years. To find a comparable experience is difficult, but I would suggest people who have the tenacity set out to learn how military snipers operate. Can you train for years mastering long distance marksmanship, crawl for hours from an insertion point to an observation point, then sit in a hole in the ground (if you are lucky enough to have a hole in the ground) for days waiting to take just one shot, perhaps the only important shot you will ever take in combat, at a vital target, and do it with certainty that you will not miss?

The amount of planning, intense precision and foresight that goes into a sniper operation is much like the kind of effort and calm needed to complete a 4^th Gen psy-ops mission. This kind of warfare is dominated by the “think tanks”, and anyone hoping to counter such tactics look into the history of one particular think tank — RAND Corporation, and their premier psy-ops tool — rational choice theory.

Whenever I hear someone argue that a conspiracy of globalists could not exist because “such plans would be too elaborate and require too much power to carry out in real life,” I have to laugh and bring up RAND, which has had almost limitless funding from globalist foundations like the Ford Foundation and was built specifically to develop not only next gen weapons, but 4^th Gen psychological warfare schemes. RAND"s influence is everywhere, from politics, to the social sciences, to military applications and even in Hollywood. After studying their efforts for many years now I can say that these people are indeed smart. Some of them may not be aware of the greater consequences as they war game ideas for dominating the public, and some of them are undoubtedly morally bankrupt, but they are still smart, and should not be underestimated.

Another reference point I would suggest to researchers would be a document called From Psyop To Mindwar: The Psychology Of Victory written by Michael Aquino and Paul Vallely for the Pentagon. In it, they make it clear that the methods of 4^th Generation warfare are not limited to foreign enemies. In fact, they are recommended for use by governments against their own populations. Again, the thrust of the methodology was to manipulate a target population into subduing itself, so that force was not necessary. Aquino and Vallely note that this would be a better outcome for everyone involved, because it would help to avoid the bloodshed of insurgency and counterinsurgency.

I am skeptical that these people care at all about bloodshed or collateral damage, but I do think they would very much like the process of totalitarian centralization to be less tedious. The elites hope to streamline tyranny by convincing the public that globalization must be embraced for “the greater good of the greater number.” But, in order to accomplish this vast change in society and the collective unconscious, they need crisis and calamity. They see themselves as creators, but for them, creation is about destruction. In other words, the old world must be destroyed so that they can use the leftover building blocks to make something new.

If we do not embrace their solution of global centralization rising from the ashes, they believe they have a response for that problem too. Read my article "When Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It"; more specifically, the section on Max Boot from the Council On Foreign Relations. Boot is the CFR’s resident “insurgency expert,” and while I question his ability to apply academic models to real word conflicts as if theory is akin to practice in war, it is enough to know the mindset of these elitists.

Boot’s work focuses on a particular model of quarantining insurgencies from the non-combative population, based on the methods the British used against communist guerrillas in Malaysia. In fact, Max seems to revel in the British efforts to catalog Malaysian citizens and relocate them into large cities that amounted to concentration camps. This made recruitment difficult for the insurgents and stopped them from hiding among civilian centers. It also focused food production into highly managed areas and gave the British leverage over the population. With this separation, it was much easier for the authorities to “educate” the locals on the threats of the insurgency and gain their support.

So, the question is, if this array of tactics is going to be aimed at liberty proponents and free peoples within the U.S. in particular, with an increasing potential for things to become far worse in the near term, how do we fight back?

Firstly, I need to point out a disturbing trend within the liberty movement, which is the propensity for activists to show far more interest talking about the problem than talking about solutions. Over the years I have noticed a consistent lower readership on articles having to do with specific solutions and strategies; not just my own articles, but many other analysts as well. It is much more popular to write on the reality of looming crisis rather than to write about what individuals can do to blunt the edge of the event. I would not be surprised if this article receives only half of the readership my other articles receive.

The first step in fighting back in a 4^th Gen war is to acknowledge that there is no easy way out. There is no way to change the corrupt system from within. There is no way to use politics and government to our advantage. Despite all the hopes activists have, Trump is not going to save you, or America. The Republican controlled House and Senate is not going to save us. There is nothing they could do even if they wanted to.

I will write in more detail on this in my next article, but actions such as shutting down the Fed alone are half measures that will actually exacerbate a crisis in the short term, rather than defuse one. A debt jubilee (another commonly mentioned false solution) is meaningless when the value of your world reserve currency on the global market is still destroyed in the process and your treasury bonds are no longer desirable.  Pushing corporations to create a few thousand manufacturing jobs here and there is a drop in the bucket when considering the 95 million people no longer counted in the U.S. labor force on top of the millions still officially considered unemployed. There is no stopping the ongoing economic collapse from running its course.  We will be required to take our medicine eventually, and this will happen sooner rather than later.

Here is what can be done, though, to mitigate the damage and fight back against the establishment…

Separation From The System

People are always looking for grand and cinematic solutions to fighting the globalists, but the real solutions are far less romantic. Defeating the “new world order” requires individuals to take smaller actions in their day-to-day lives. Becoming more self sufficient, the ability to provide one’s own necessities, the ability to defend one’s self and family, the move away from grid dependence, homeschooling your children, a healthy skepticism of web tied technologies and the “internet of things,” etc.

This does not mean you have to go build a cabin in the woods and start typing up a manifesto, but it does mean that you will have to sacrifice certain modern comforts and amenities and manage your life in a way that might feel strange at first. To put it simply, it means you will have to learn to start doing most things for yourself and perhaps learn to live with less “things” and less mainstream stimulation.

I know many people that have undertaken this effort while still living what you might call “normal lives.” The bottom line is, if you are dependent on the system, you will never be able to fight the system.

Separation From Invasive Technologies

Remove active surveillance from your life. Stop carrying a cell phone around with you everywhere you go, or at least pull the battery until you need it. Cover or remove computer cameras. Deactivate microphones when not in use. Refuse to purchase appliances with built-in web connectivity. Refuse to participate in smart grid programs. Remove GPS modules from your vehicles. Stop posting photos constantly to Facebook and sharing your entire life on social media. Give the enemy less information to work with.

Build Real Community

Stop trying to build hollow friendships with people on the other side of the country through a cold medium like the internet and start building relationships with the people that live right in your own neighborhood or town. The one thing the elites fear more than anything else is people organizing groups that are outside of their influence. The more community groups there are, big and small, the more effort, money and resources are required to keep tabs on them all. With localized groups populated by members that know each other and have lived in one place for a long time, infiltration is a strenuous prospect and co-option is nearly impossible.

Establish Alternative Communications

Make sure your group or community has at least one ham radio expert. Resistance to tyranny requires independent communications. Without this ability you will have no access to information in the event of a crisis and thus, you will have nothing. Ham radio can be used to spread information across the country and can even reach out to other parts of the world. In the event of a breakdown in civility, ham can be used to send digital mail and files, and these files can be encrypted.

The founding fathers had the midnight ride, we have ham radio.

Refuse To Participate In Resource Management

In the event of a greater collapse, resource management will be the name of the game. For the elites to gain a stranglehold on a population, they need to isolate the insurgency (freedom loving people) from the regular (subdued) citizenry, and then they need to confiscate as many resources as possible to supply “loyalists” while starving out undesirables.

I believe a successful rebellion would require rural communities to maintain complete control over their resources and refuse to allow government to dictate how these resources are dispersed. Ultimately, in order to break an establishment stranglehold over the population through Max Boot’s method of “friendly” concentration camps, the tactic would have to be reversed. Resources may need to be cut off to these places entirely. This would remove the leverage governments would have in terms of necessities, leaving no reason for anyone to want to stay in these sorts of green zones again.

Vigilante Justice

I am not condoning OR criticizing this kind of development, but I am pointing out that it is inevitable. If top globalists continue to engage in the use of economics as a nuclear option against the public, along with their many other crimes, then individuals with the right skill-sets will likely seek them out with the intention of ventilating them. I think the danger of lone-wolf vigilantes acting without group contact and without warning is terrifying to the globalists.

They are used to being able to co-opt enemy groups or exploit informants to infiltrate and relay information. With a lone wolf, there is no trail to follow and individuals are decidedly harder to predict in their behavior and plans than groups are. I would not be surprised to see prominent globalists living in the U.S. suddenly leave the country en masse just as social unrest becomes heightened.  And, I would not be surprised to see some globalists killed anyway by fed up citizens who suddenly snap and take matters into their own hands.

Our Window Of Time Is Short

Keep in mind that the millennial generation is about 10 years away from becoming the dominant cultural force in this country, and those precious snowflakes are like another species. The majority of them long for collectivism, and they work diligently to stifle dissent in colleges and public schools. The great danger is that in ten to fifteen years many of the people within conservative movements might be too old to effectively fight back, and while we deal with economic disaster it will be millennials steeped in cultural Marxism that are elevated as part of the globalist solution.

Whatever we end up doing, I believe we have about 10 years before hitting the point of no return (with ample crisis and struggle from now until then). After this, we will either have the globalists in prison or in the ground, or, we will have a massive economic reset and a new world order. The choice is up to us, even though some people don’t want to accept it.