Skip to main content

There Is A New Sheriff In Town

After the disaster of the US involvement in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc all did not bode well for the region.  The US called "oops" on each occasion but the clip from years ago by decorated general Wesley Clarke, among many others, tells a different tale. A tale of a coordinated and specific assault to dominate the strategically important oil region.  But they made a crucial mistake, one that is destined to be their undoing.

Quite simply they under-estimated Vladimir Putin.  They underestimated him and it has cost them dearly. Not only have their above-mentioned plans in Syria (Assad must go) been singularly undone, but their allies Saudi Arabia have been decimated in Yemen, their Afghan effort is in tatters, their NATO ally Turkey (after a failed US coup in the country) is now firmly in Russia's pocked and their Ukraine coup was a disaster while Putin's Crimea prospers like never before.

But how?  How did the best funded and most feared intelligence community fail so dismally?  To be honest I don't know.  All I know is that I have been tracking Putin's glowing CV for some time, and it is spectacular to say the least.  Spectacular in a time where the West is waging all sorts of sabotage against the emerging superpower that the Russian Federation has become.

The US looks to "Blame Putin" for everything from the DNC leaks to Donald Trump, but what they are really saying is that despite the gamesmanship, Putin is doing everything right and somehow still beating the US who do everything wrong just to gain advantage.   He has proven you can do the right thing and win, and this is a very important message to be sending in this new modern time.  In a cynical age this gives great energy to an emerging revolutionary class, one looking to unseat the empire of chaos from their throne of blood and steal their crown of thorns.  I, for one, am a fan.

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute  for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalists an…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…