September 20th 2020
The current geostrategic scenario is so clear that neither the dizzying succession of events unthinkable only a year ago, nor the calculated informational confusion introduced by locals and outsiders, by our own and by others, should obscure the decisive question that is deciding the sign of this third phase of the confrontation between collectivists and liberacists that did not end with the end of the IIWW or the Cold War.
Everything orbits around the profitability of defence investments. Profitability of investments in means and operations.
It is much more profitable to invest in the media, vectors of opinion (academic figures, experts or media constructs such as Greta Thunberg), “neutral” institutions such as the UN, the WHO, universities, NGOs… or ideological events and mantras (BLM, migration waves, sustainability, solidarity, immigrationism…) than in conventional means of power such as aircraft carriers, classic information systems (spies) or conventional military operations.
Why? Because the enemy has changed his strategy and in the Western world this change has not yet been assumed and/or there is no capacity to adapt to the new situation.
And what is the key to this new strategy that is absolutely and invariably repeated in all the confrontations? To propose a weichkrieg (soft war) by which the enemy (we, the free world) is driven to defenselessness, to not use all the means no longer proportional to the aggression suffered but the total ones to neutralize that aggression and eliminate the possibility of its repetition.
How do we carry out this scenario of confrontation to which they constantly try to drag us? By taking advantage of our greatest weakness: dependence on political power and decision making by public opinion and partisan struggle.
How do they exploit this weakness? Through social engineering.
What do the collectivists invest in? In social engineering means and operations.
What is this social engineering looking for? To convince us not to defend ourselves with all the forces at our disposal. That we limit our power until it is balanced or, better yet, left below its level
“We are not like them. We are better. We cannot respond to their level. Our values and principles are above…” What? Our interests? Our freedom and prosperity?
And it works for them. It’s that stupid, but it works for them. We forget that our values, principles and interests are one and the same: freedom and prosperity. If we lose it, we lose everything.
- Vectors of opinion.
- “Neutral” institutions
- Ideological mantras.
With those weapons they stop the legitimate use of our power of self-defense from going beyond the limits they have set in their social engineering programs so that we cannot defeat them.
“When we attack you, you can use the force up to here, without exceeding our attack strength. I can use all my strength but you cannot use all yours”.
And we admit that it is they who unilaterally impose (through the control mechanisms of our public opinion) what is the “proportionate” use of force. But to use force only in the same proportion as that of the enemy means giving up our advantage. Why?
Both in collective and individual self-defense, the proportional use of force determined by one of the parties, in this case the weakest, is equivalent to not using force and, moreover, implies establishing an equality of legitimacy (and legality) between aggressor and attacked and, in our case, between freedom and totalitarianism, prosperity and misery.
“Why do you defend yourself, if we are the same?”
Great, isn’t it?
Confidence in individual power is eliminated so that it is not exercised, convincing us that individual power does not serve to change the whole of society or the totality of reality. “Therefore (follow the reasoning) as you cannot change everything don’t change anything, not even what you can change”. A simple, crude but devastatingly effective mind control.
“Furthermore (the brainwashing continues), as the vast majority will not join you, your individual action will be useless”. It is the mantra of the flock, of the herd, so that you acquire the mentality of a gregarious herbivore that only feels strong and secure as long as it is kept within a mass directed by… those who do feel secure about the strength of their individuality: the shepherds or the hunters.
But since not everyone will fall into this trap, it is necessary to repress in a forceful and immediate way those who do exercise all their individual strength to defend their freedom and prosperity. And this is what the shepherd dogs are in charge of, with the approval and collaboration of the rest of the population converted into human herds by means of social engineering.
The strength of the free world lies in the exercise of individual freedom within a regulatory framework that makes dissent compatible with loyalty. The supreme good is to defend freedom and prosperity with all the strength at our disposal.
Whenever we speak of defeat we must be clear about what it means: losing our freedom and prosperity.
To exercise individual and public power in the free world without the restriction that the enemies want us to impose on ourselves because, if we do not, it will be impossible for them to defeat us. But to use that power without restrictions and to the extent of conspiring and eliminating the threat of those who want to steal our freedom and prosperity, we must invest in profitable means, which, in the current geostrategic scenario, are those through which public opinion can be manipulated or kept free and faithfully informed. The stock market value of CNN is practically the same as that of a Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier, some 15 billion dollars. In the current geostrategic circumstances, the effectiveness of a large media in case of conflict is, however, much higher than that of an aircraft carrier. By controlling that means of communication, an entire fleet of aircraft carriers can be neutralized.
Even simpler. If you can get the population of democratic countries to accept, without a word of protest, totalitarian measures that limit, when they do not eliminate, freedoms and rights that have been conquered over hundreds of years, then you have the possibility, by buying the political apex just as the media and manipulation are bought, of controlling those societies at a “distance” in such a way that they maintain the illusion of independence and you do not even need to physically invade that territory to have it at your disposal, and all of this without the need to win any war.
That, creating the totalitarian conditions that allow a society to be controlled (its wealth and its strength) simply by investing a ridiculous amount in “buying” its leaders, is what is happening behind the immense incompetence of Western leaders in the management of the falsely serious pandemic that the Chinese dictatorship has spread throughout the world. Curiously, there is a border effect whereby the virus is terribly lethal in Spain and, just a few hundred meters away, in Portugal it behaves more or less like a common flu. On one side of the border a dictatorship grows in agraz and, on the other side, they react and return to freedom and prosperity.
The establishment of a viral dictatorship in the Western free world is the main strategic achievement that, unexpectedly, the Chinese dictatorship has achieved. Something that can make events precipitate in a dizzying way if in the battle of November 3rd Xi Jinping’s team wins.
But Operation Pandemic, launched against the free Western world by the Chinese people’s army to neutralize the successful Operation Tariff launched by the first business president of the United States, would not have had the dazzling success it is having if those of us who want to be free and prosperous had invested in socially engineered aircraft carriers. The same ones who succeeded in preventing the U.S. from using all its power to defeat international socialist collectivism in Vietnam. Because it was there, in Vietnam, that the tactic of having the enemy, in this case none other than the world’s leading power, limit the use of its power to a point where it could be defeated by far inferior forces was successfully tried.
Who defeated the US in Vietnam? The marches of unarmed civilians mobilized by the enemy through the control of the social engineering aircraft carriers (media, vectors of opinion, “neutral” institutions and ideological mantras). Exactly the same tactic that allowed Morocco to appropriate a territory, Western Sahara, without having to fire a single shot to take it from a militarily and economically superior nation on paper. Because, without will, force is just a piece of paper. And that is what happened with the Green March, a mobilization of “unarmed civilians” that invaded a territory neutralizing the force of the enemy.
The Green March established the basic principle of all migratory invasions:
“I do not use force (to invade you or to impose my ideas). You do not use force to avoid it”. Proportion of minimums. Stupidity of maximums.
After witnessing the extraordinary success in Vietnam and Western Sahara, the collectivist strategy has not changed one iota: investing in aircraft carriers and social engineering operations so that free societies impose limitations on themselves in defending their freedom and prosperity. Using defenseless civilians to occupy physical and social territories, such as migratory invasions or antifas and BLMs, and turning the enemy’s voluntary defenselessness into the ultimate element in achieving what would otherwise be an impossible victory.
We can learn the lesson and react before it’s too late or lose our freedom and prosperity. We can continue to invest in aircraft carriers or invest in the social engineering mechanisms from which we are persuaded not to use aircraft carriers, coastguards, police, laws, technology, science, or economics, and use those weapons to plug the hole in the wall, our inherent weakness: the power of public opinion to control political decisions. To prevent the collectivists, weaker than us, from having the exclusive right to these powerful weapons, which make us extremely vulnerable. We can invest in media defense or allow our freedom to turn our strength into weakness.
Today, the most profitable investment in defense is not the aircraft carriers, but the modulators of the will to use them to their ultimate effect: total victory.
Everything else, give in to the temptation programmed by the social engineering of the external or internal enemy, fall into the trap of their mantras so that we do not defend ourselves: “racists”, “unsupportive”, “deniers”, “fascists”… or “give up and don’t defend yourselves”, “you can’t put doors in the field”, “it is criminal to stop by force an invasion of unarmed civilians”… all this leads to a communist Vietnam, to a Sahara turned into a Moroccan province, to a Europe of ghettos and “no go zones” or to someone having to kneel down in front of another because he doesn’t have the same color skin.
And there we are. White, black and yellow free people, standing, but letting ourselves be defeated, despite being better and stronger, by the ghostly army in which the enemies of freedom and prosperity have invested for years, while we spent millions on armies that would never be used until the power of the enemy was overcome.
This is what the cultural battle is all about: Investing, in addition to aircraft carriers, in means of protecting our public opinion so that no one can convince us that it is neither convenient nor fair to use all our strength to defeat those who want to rob us of our freedom and prosperity. It is that simple, that difficult and that necessary. Otherwise there is no need for aircraft carriers.