There is a ceasefire now between Iran and United States, but most
analysts expect that this war will resume in a week, 2 weeks,
a month. But it will, it will resume
because it is impossible for United States and Iran to come
to a mutually beneficial and satisfying arrangement.
So today I want to look at how this war will evolve.
And my argument to you today is that this US, Iran war, it's
really the first war of the 21st century.
And so I want to explain to you how warfare has evolved these
past few 100 years. So the simplest way to fight a
war is you would destroy a state's capacity to fight by
killing as many soldiers as possible, right?
You would arrange to fight the enemy on a battlefield.
Whoever wins this battle would win the war.
And that was how traditionally wars, wars were fought for
hundreds and hundreds of years. When it was a century, something
happened, which is that the state and nation state, they
have the capacity to have a lot of people, millions of people.
And so the state could always replenish its forces on the
battlefield. And so now what you had to do
was you had to destroy the state's capacity to produce, to
manufacture, OK. And this is really.
And so the point is to kill as many civilians as possible
before you want to kill as many soldiers as possible.
When the 20th century war, mainly World War Two, you're
trying to kill as many civilians as possible.
But in the 21st century, it's different because we have
nuclear weapons now and there are too many people.
So it is impossible for you to kill everyone.
And if you use nuclear weapons, then others will use nuclear,
will use nuclear weapons on you. OK, so now in the 21st century,
our goal is to use the population against the state, to
turn the civilians against the government by sowing as much
discord and dissent as possible within society.
And you do that through economic sabotage for economic
strangulation. OK, so that's the argument I
will make to you today. The first thing I want to look
at is why is it that we have 8 billion people?
8 billion people are living on this planet.
And for most of us, we think this is a tremendous
achievement. But if you think about it, it's
not that nice because there aren't that many resources to
share. There's not much that much
space. In fact, if it were not for
fertilizers, we would only be able to support 1 to 2 billion
people. So how do we get to a stage?
We have 8 film people in this world and most of us are are not
very happy with the state of affairs, OK?
And scientists will tell you it's because of the Senate
revolution. It's because of this revolution
in technology and understanding that's allowed us to progress.
That's not true, OK? The real reason is because of
the nation state. In the nation state, it is a
revolution in politics that came to us because of the French
Revolution. All right, so the main architect
of the French Revolution, his name is Jean Jacques Rousseau.
He was, he was not French. He was, he was actually Swiss.
But he's important because he dealt the theory that
underpinned the French French Revolution called social
contract theory. Before, we didn't really think
about what the individual's relationship with the state was.
Basically, you were born in the community and you just did what
tradition and custom and family asked you to do.
But John Russo was the first to say, no.
We are Born Free because God gave us freedom.
So why do we choose to surrender our freedom in order to join a
community? OK.
And so his theory is that we join society to become more
free. So by ourselves, we together,
OK, all of us together, we create something called the
common will and think of this as democracy.
Democracy is basically the idea that to make a decision, we just
vote and then whatever comes, whichever is the majority wins.
So for example, we might debate whether we're going to
McDonald's or Pizza Hut, OK, There's three of us.
If 2 of you say let's go to Pizza Hut, we go to Pizza Hut
and that's this democracy for genre, we're.
So this is not a good system because we should strive to be
higher than we are. We should strive for total
freedom. And that's the idea of the
general will, OK? The common will is who we are.
The general will is who we could be if we came together as a
people, OK. And the best way to understand
the general will is through Kant's theory of the categorical
imperative, OK, which is for him the highest moral law.
So as human beings, what makes us truly human, what allows us
to achieve our ideal state, are three principles OK?
The first principle is a principle of universality.
So imagine that all your actions will be reflected throughout the
universe. So if you smile, everyone smiles
at once. You get angry, everyone gets
angry at once, and you ask yourself, what sort of society
do I want to live in? Do I want to live in a society
where everyone is smiling or angry?
Right. And then that's the way you
should behave, the law of universality.
Secondly, it's the idea of free will.
No one can compel you to smile. You must smile out of your own
free choice. Even though smiling makes you
feel happy like make you smile like goes against the good of
humanity. OK, the third is the idea of
human as an ends. OK, so I can never sacrifice
another human being in order to achieve a better society because
we are the ultimate end. OK, so these these together, the
category imperative is what gives us the theory of the
general will. So even though we all vote to
eat ice cream, we shouldn't eat ice cream because that's not how
we we achieve enlightenment. That's not how we achieve the
ideal state, right? We should think about can't
category imperative. Now what happens is this from
the general will, this is a sovereign.
OK, this is the highest law. This is God basically.
And from the sovereign we achieve the state, the
government and the state makes us into citizens.
And then we have laws, culture, education.
OK, So for John de Rousseau, this is the social contract,
this is the ideal state. And the French Revolution
started because there were many intellectuals, revolutionaries
who wanted to achieve the social contract.
But as you can, as you can appreciate, there were many who
disagreed with this theory, especially monarchs, right?
Because the idea here is that the general will, the people are
the sovereign. But in a, in a monarchy, the
monarch is what's sovereign. So the sovereign must.
So it's a debate over who's sovereign.
And so at this time in history, most nations, most countries in
Europe were monarchies. So they saw the French
Revolution as a direct threat to them.
And that's why they invaded France many, many times.
But it's something really weird happened.
These professional armies who go into France and they're fighting
against the citizens, OK? People with no military expense,
we're not professional soldiers. What's happening was that they
were losing to these citizen armies.
And the question is, why was this happening?
And the reason why is that this theory is so powerful that it
makes people willing to fight to die for this.
OK, Right. So what was happening during the
French Revolution, these wars, was that you had the monarchies,
and these were professional armies.
And so these were basically mercenaries.
And the thing about mercenaries is they didn't want to die,
right? They're collecting a paycheck.
Their point is to intimidate. Their point is to scare.
It's not to die. But then you have the French
Revolution and they were citizens and they were willing
to fight and die, OK. And that's why France became
most powerful nation in Europe at this time, because they could
call on their citizens to fight and to die.
And it was almost unlimited amount of soldiers.
Whereas the other countries like Prussia, Russia, Austria, they
had professional soldiers who were afraid to die.
They all all they wanted was their paycheck.
So over time the French were overwhelming the Europeans and
this great the French Empire, right?
But once these these places were conquered, they had they dealt
their own theory as to how to defeat the French and they
recognized that we also need a theory of nationalism.
We also need a theory of the nation state.
But they didn't like the social contract theory, OK.
So they came up with a new theory based on nation, which
was basically language, culture and race.
And so these are these, this becomes Germany, OK, or we call
iron and blood. So now you have these theories
of nationalism come out into Europe, and now they're
invincible because they can call on their citizens to fight and
to die. This is why Europe became the
most powerful region of the world starting in the 19th
century, OK. But of course, the problem with
nationalism, the problem with populations that want to fight
and die, is that they keep on fighting wars, but it's not a
real. And So what happens is that to
solve this problem, all these nations focus on trying to grow
the population as fast as possible, as much as possible.
And this and this is what led to this massive population growth.
But with more population, what was happening was that these
wars were becoming deadlier and dead deadlier, culminating of
course in World War 2. And then by World War 2, Europe
had exhausted itself. Too many people had died, their
civilization was destroyed. And so this allowed America to
come into power. OK, America and America had a
different theory of the nation state.
So the French, their theory was the social contract.
The Germans, their theory is iron and blood.
OK, race. The Americans had a different
theory because America was a multicultural nation of
immigrants who are trying to colonize the Western Hemisphere,
North America, right? So for them, their theory is to
create a game. The nation state becomes a game.
The Constitution and government are the game masters and what
they will allow is for anyone to come to America and get rich as
long as they work hard and this will create the greatest nation
in the world. OK, so this becomes a game where
anyone can play. In fact, the more players that
you have, the wealthier merit becomes, right?
And then after World War Two, what happened was in America,
spread this game throughout the world as much as as much as it
could, right, to Europe and to Japan.
But there's still communist countries like China and Soviet
Union, which they want to participate in this game.
They had their own game. And So what happened was that
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, this game conquered the
world, right? You had globalization.
OK, the problem is this. Once this game keeps on going,
eventually what happens is that only a few players achieve all
the wealth, right? You have massive inequality and
everyone else become falls into debt, OK?
And that's the world that we live in today.
America create this game. It was very successful in
creating tremendous wealth. And they're trying to have as
many players as possible. That's why you you have the
population boom, but now only a few people have all the wealth
and everyone else is in debt. In other words, these people are
useless and therefore we need to reset the game.
And the way that we set the game of course is to destroy the game
in the 1st place. Therefore I have World War three
but everything down and start the game over again.
OK and that's why we are in the situation we are in today.
OK so now what? So now what?
What I'm going to do is go over some of the major ideas that
allowed for this system to come into being.
OK, so first I want to look look at the Social Contract by Jean
Jacques Rousseau. So Ivory, could you do a favor
and read the first passage? Okay, so let me progress in
context. This is from his book called The
Social Contract. And Jock Rousseau is arguing
slavery. And before it was understood
that slavery is a good system because the master is nice to
the slave as long as the master is nice to the slave.
It's that you be happy. And General Russo says, no, that
cannot be true. In no, under no circumstance can
a slave ever be happy. OK.
And he explains why. So, Ivor, can you be, please?
To renounce your liberty is to renounce your status as a man,
your rights as a human being and even your duties as a human
being. There can be any way of
compensating someone who gives up everything.
Such a renunciation is incompatible with a man's
nature. To remove all freedom from his
will is to remove all morality from his actions.
Finally, an agreement to have absolute authority on one side
and unlimited obedience on the other.
What an empty and contradictory agreement that would have to be.
Isn't it clear that if we are entitled to take anything and
everything from a person, we can't be under any obligation to
him? And isn't that fact alone, the
fact that there is no equivalence, nothing to be
exchanged between the two sides enough to nullify the agreement?
What right can my slave have against me?
Everything that he has is mine, his right is mine, and it
doesn't make sense to speak my right against myself.
OK, so the argument is this. Our freedom is given to us by
God. Our freedom is what connects us
to God. So our freedom cannot be
surrendered. If we surrender our freedom, if
someone takes our freedom away from us, that is surrounding our
humanity, that is bringing our connection to God.
Therefore it is better to die than be a slave.
And that was their thinking during the French Revolution,
right? Yeah.
All these citizens, they've actually no experience with
firearms, but they were running into cannon fire against
professional soldiers because they were like, give me liberty
or give me death because, well, my liberty, I am nothing.
OK, So it's a really important concept.
And then you can read this below.
I'm continually astonished that such a simple sign of good
government isn't recognized. Or perhaps men do recognize it
but aren't honest enough to say so.
What is the purpose of any political association, the
preservation and prosperity of its members?
And what is the surest sign of their preservation and
prosperity, their number and their population growth?
That's the sign you're looking for.
Other things being equal, the unquestionably best government
is the one under which the population increases most
without external help from naturalizing foreigners or
establishing colonies. The government under which the
population shrinks is the worst. Over to you.
Calculators count, measure, compare.
OK, this really important idea. OK, so first is liberty is the
most important value. And the second idea is a good
government, a good society should focus on population
growth, on having as many people as possible, because that's the
best sign that you're you're frightening as a society.
OK, so because of these two ideas, OK, population growth and
then liberty, the French will become the greatest empire in
Europe at this time. So this is France in the in the
dark green and they will colonize and conquer everything
in the green and you can see how vast it is right?
So this shows you the power of the nation state based on 2
ideas. The first idea is liberty is all
that matters. Second idea is go to population
as fast as possible, OK, So of course what happens, as I
mentioned, is that the Germans who are being conquered by the
French, they get upset and their intellectuals come up with a new
theory of nationalism. This is Johann Fekte, who is
considered the father of German nationalism.
And this argument is that it is language that binds us as
humans. OK, so for Rousseau, it's
liberty that we should strive for.
It's liberty that gives us value as human beings.
But for Johann Ficte, it's no It's language.
It's language that binds us to the past.
It's language that binds us together.
It's language that's worth fighting for.
It's race, nation, blood. And this becomes.
The philosophy of the German state at this time in history,
Germany was divided into many hundreds of different kingdoms.
It is Bismarck on and on. Bismarck of pressure will unify
the German people into one Germany.
OK, often called the Second Reich.
And so can you read? I read this.
This is a speech or his famous iron and blood speech.
The position of pressure in Germany will not be determined
by its liberalism, but by its power.
Pressure must concentrate its strength and hold it for the
favorable moment, which has already come and gone.
Several times since the treaties of Vienna.
Our frontiers have been ill designed for a healthy body
politic. Not through speeches and
majority decisions will the great questions of the day be
decided. That was the great mistake of
1848 and 1849. But by iron and blood, OK.
All right. So the thing here is that,
listen, we're a germination, OK? And as a nation state, as a
people, we must protect our freedom by going to war, OK?
It's only by for war that we can survive and thrive as a people.
But how do you fight wars? Well, you fight wars, and it's
really important by making sure your population is seen care of.
OK. So can you read Ivory?
The real grievance of the worker is the insecurity of his
existence. He's not sure that he will
always have work. He's not sure that if he will
always be healthy, and he foresees that he will one day be
old and unfit to work if he falls into poverty, if even if
only through a prolonged illness.
He is then completely helpless, left to his own devices, and
society does not currently recognize any real obligation
toward him beyond their usual help for the poor, even if he
has been working all the time, ever so faithfully and
diligently. The usual help for the poor,
however, leaves a lot to be desired, especially in large
cities where it is very much worse than in the country.
So Bismarck will turn Germany into the most powerful national
world by recognizing that it's not just soldiers who contribute
to the war effort, it's also your people as well.
Because it's your people who make the machines of war, that
the machine guns, the artillery, the ammunitions, and therefore
you have to make sure they are healthy.
You don't want to send sick soldiers to the battlefield,
right? You don't want sick, sick
workers as well. That's why he passed a lot of
progressive worker reforms, including health insurance,
accidental insurance, old age pension, workers protection,
children protection. OK.
It is because he recognizes that a nation state is first and
foremost about making warriors. And if you want to win, you have
to make sure you have as many people as possible.
And everyone has contribute to the war effort.
And to do that, you need to make sure that everyone is taken care
of, including your soldiers, including your workers.
OK. And it was Mussolini who
basically understood that the real purpose of a nation state
is to fight wars. In fact, it is wars that give
people meaning their lives. If you have a war, if you create
a nation state around war, you create a mythology around the
beauty of war, then people will happily fight and die.
OK, can you read a speech? We have created our myth.
The myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary for it to be
a reality. It is a reality in the sense
that it is. It is a stimulus, is hope, is
faith, is courage. Our myth is the nation.
Our myth is the greatness of the nation, and to this myth, this
greatness which we want to translate into a total reality,
we subordinate everything else. OK, so this is the highlight or
the peak of the nation state. And so during World War 2, they
had to fight a war to destroy the entire society because the
soldiers were not emotionally army like they were in the past
before the soldiers were coming from the population themselves.
So in World War 2, the Allies won not because they were
democratic or moral superior or or had a better strategy.
It was because they could destroy the productive capacity
of their enemies, but their enemies could not destroy the
productive capacity of their nation states.
Does that make sense? So America, their factories were
fine. Soviet Union, their factories
were removed into Siberia, far away from German, from the
Germans. The Germans and the Japanese
could be fire bombed. OK, so look at this.
So from 19401945 the British and Americans fire bombed Germany.
OK, this is Dresden. Dresden.
You can see the entire city of Dresden was destroyed by the
fire bombing. So in war to what they what they
recognized is there's no point in killing soldiers on the
battlefield because they'll just send in more soldiers with more
weapons. So we need to destroy the
civilian population. That's how you win the war, OK.
And that's how and that's how they defeated Germany.
Japan was much worse. Look at this.
At least half of Japan was destroyed by the American
firebombing of Japan. That's why Japan lost the war.
Otherwise they would have kept on going.
All right. And these are huge cities.
So Nagoya is a city the size of Los Angeles. 40% of it was
destroyed. OK Tokyo is New York City, 40%
of it was destroyed as well. Yokohama, 60% of it was
destroyed, OK. This is Tokyo.
You can see the extent of the damage.
Then this you say idea was so powerful that in order to win a
war you need to destroy the civilian population.
OK, so as you can see, because of the rise of the nation state,
we have to kill more and more people in order to fight wars.
So this is War 2 and at least 20 to 31 people were killed.
OK. And depending on your on how you
calculate, probably a lot more than that died.
But what's interesting is that even though War 2 was a
calamity, even though 10s of 1,000,000 have died, there was a
population growth. It didn't, it never stopped.
OK, so when So for most of history of human history,
population growth was steady, but then starting around the
year 1600, it boomed. OK.
And again, scientists will tell you this coincided with the rise
of science and technology, but we've always had science and
technology. What made this different was the
rise of the nation state and the recognition that to fight wars,
you need more people who want to kill themselves for the nation.
And to get them to do that, you have to treat them well as well.
OK. And that's what.
And so the nation state wanted science, technology to grow the
population. That's where we had medicine and
sanitation, OK. These innovations happen because
the nation state will these things to happen all.
Right. Now, as I mentioned, after War 2
and after all the travesty and destruction of World War 2, the
world got together and said, OK, America, you're not, you're in
charge now. And let's build a world in which
we don't have to fight and kill each other anymore.
And so America create this game, right, called capitalism,
consumer capitalism, in which we we live in today.
And this system is unique in human history.
And for most of this history, what's extremely successful, it
grew the population from about 2 billion to about 8 billion
today. It made a lot of people more
wealthy. Think of the tremendous wealth
that China has generated in the past 30-40 years because of its
participation and consumer capitalism.
But unfortunately, we've now reached a point where the system
is off balance. It's it's unstable, it's
unsustainable. So now we're going back to war,
but unfortunately, because there's too many people, this
means that when we go back to war, at least 50% of humanity
will die off in World War Three. OK, so this is a war in Ukraine,
and already millions of people are dying in this war.
When you look at the war in Ukraine, it's essentially a 19th
century war, OK? It's almost like World War One.
I know World War One happened in the 20th century, but it's
really a 19th century war where you are trying to kill as many
soldiers as possible. OK.
And that's what's happening in Ukraine.
The what I will show you is that Iran will be the 1st 21st
century war. So America in round one, try to
use shock and awe. Shock and awe is basically you
decapitate the leadership, OK? You destroy the military and you
destroy production, right? That's the idea of shock and
all. I come in, I kill your
leadership, I kill your military, I kill your war
factories. And you do it as soon as
possible. But this is not working against
Iran because they've prepared this.
They've prepared this war for 20 years.
So it's decentralized. OK, so you've killed the
leaders, but they don't care because they have new leaders
come into place. The military is hidden, OK,
They're hidden in mountains, and the factory is also hidden in
mountains as well. So even though the Americans
have really destroyed much of Iran's war fighting capacity,
Iran is still in this fight. So what's going to happen is
that over the next few months, America is going to shift its
strategy into a 21st century war strategy.
OK, Which way? Which will have 3 components.
The first component is economic triangulation.
I will destroy your economy, your entire economy.
Second is ethnic tension. I will try to create as much
conflict as possible between the different peoples in Iran.
OK. And the third thing is destroy
civilian infrastructure. Basically, I want to destroy
people's capacity to access water, electricity and food, the
basic necessities of life. Why do I want to do that?
Because if people cannot access these things, they get angry,
right? Then if they get angry, I can
channel this anger against the government because it's easier
for them to attack the government than it's to attack
the US military, which which is the ones destroying all this
infrastructure. So this is what a 21st century
war strategy looks like. And this is what the Americans
will deploy in Iran over the next few months.
Now, why haven't they done this before?
Well, because these are war crimes, OK, there are lots of
treaties, the Geneva Convention, that prohibit you from fighting
these wars. But as the Americans become much
more desperate as they continue to lose this war, they'll be
like, screw this. I'm going to win this war no
matter what it takes. OK.
So let me show you how how this war will be fought.
So before, right now, they're trying to target weapons.
They're trying to target military bases.
That doesn't get you anywhere, OK, You, you need to better use
your weapon systems because there's you just don't have
enough munitions to destroy the entire Iranian military, OK?
So, so you have to be strategic now.
And so you target things that have huge impact on the civilian
population as well as the economy, right?
So the the most most basic thing is water.
OK, Look, guys, these are all dams and reservoirs around you
ran OK, I don't destroy all of them, but but I strategically
destroy some of them. This is a create a lot of
pressure on the on the civilian population.
They'll be very angry. They might protest against the
government. OK.
Also transportation networks, right?
These are roads and railways. This is important because Tehran
is a city of 10 million people, and they do not grow their own
food. They require food to come from
the countryside, from elsewhere. So if I attack the roads leading
to Tehran, if I attack strategic hubs, then it's very hard for
food to move from place to place.
OK, I don't destroy, destroy the entire food supply.
I can't do that. I don't have weapons.
But I'm pretty strategic about it.
I'm putting strain on Tehran's capacity to feed its own
population power plants, OK, These are all power plants
around Iran, and it's really easy to destroy these power
plants, right? So does that make sense?
So the idea is war. The rules of engagement require
me to only attack soldiers and only attack weapons.
But eventually I'm going to run out of munitions.
And I keep on doing that. And it's not going to destroy
Iran's capacity to fight. They won't surrender.
So now I need to be more strategic with how I use my
munitions, well, how I use my bombs.
And so I want to create as much damage as possible.
And the best way to do that is by targeting key infrastructure,
power plants, desalination plans, roads, railway networks.
OK? I can't destroy all of them, but
I didn't create as much havoc as possible over time, so the
civilian population gets very angry.
So my best weapon in this war are no longer my planes and my
aircraft carriers. My best weapon is the Iranian
people themselves. And that's what the 21st century
war looks like. It's very slow.
It's very methodical. It's pretty evil, OK?
All right, all right. The other thing is economic
strangulation. All right, So what am I trying
to do here? OK, So Iran, there are two ways
for them to generate income for to finance this war.
The 1st is to sell oil, OK? And this is Carg Island, which
is their main depot, OK, Oil depot.
And 9% of Iranian oil goes from Carg Island elsewhere, primarily
to China. 90% of Iranian oil exports goes to China, okay, So
what Americans have done is they've imposed A blockade
stopping oil exports, okay? That's one way you can stop the
Iran's economy. The other thing is that right
now Iran controls the strip of Hormuz and they collect tolls on
that. OK, so I basically need to
destroy Iran's control over the strip of Hormuz.
The way I do that is I use ground forces.
OK, So what I can do is seize Qassem Island, seize Current
Island, seize the coastline and force the Iranians to respond to
my attacks. Right, I can.
Also position forces here and here, Why?
Because these areas, OK, in the northwest of Iran are home to
minorities as well as the southeast.
And when I put my soldiers here, this is going to encourage local
population to rise up against the Iranian state.
And now what's going to happen is that the Iran, well, Iran
will now the same forces to respond to all these ethnic
insurgencies around Iran. OK, so before Iran could just
focus it's resources on controlling certain moves.
Like screw that, I'm going to expand the battlefield so that
Iran is forced to deal with multiple threats at the same
time. I'm going to collapse their
economy. All right, OK.
So this is what a 21st century war looks like.
It's slow. You focus on triangulation as
opposed to a knockout punch. All right, So what is one way to
understand what's happening is that the Americans have been
doing this for a long time, but more subtly.
All right. So in 2012, the Iranian
president named Ahmad Tejad. He accused the Americans of
conducting weather warfare against Iran, mainly by creating
droughts in Iran. And how do you do that?
Well, it's cloud seeding, right? It's cloud seeding.
So the idea of cloud seeing is that you shoot up a chemical,
silver iodide, into clouds, forcing it to rain, OK.
When you do that, well, the clouds dissipate the rain
elsewhere and they don't go to Iran.
OK. So in 2019 there's a real fear
that Iran would suffer from long term drought and regions like
Dubai, which there is claim to be the source of this weather
warfare, they experienced droughts, Sorry, sorry, floods.
OK. All right.
So again, I don't know how science works and this is all
rumors, but it doesn't make sense where the Americans would
use weather warfare against Iran, forcing rain to come down
in Dubai to deny rain to the Iranians.
OK, there's a conspiracy theory that these war governments are
conducting weather warfare using something called HARP.
OK, Now, HARP was originally designed in order to study the
atmosphere, but some conspiracy theorists claim that HARP can be
used to create extreme weathers, including hurricanes, cyclones,
flooding, droughts. I don't know.
OK, I, I'm, I'm just pointing this out there.
What we do know is in 1962, Lyndon Johnson, who became
president of the United States, he had a very famous quote at a
speech and he basically said he controls the weather, will
control the world. OK.
The future of warfare is not about weapons.
It's about weather. So it's not about how many how
many weapons you make. It's about how why you can
control the weather because you think about it, if you can
create a drought in a country, that country will be destroyed,
OK. And they put out resources into
developing weather warfare. And we know that from 1967 to
1972, the Americans present cooperation.
Popeye OK, So this during the Vietnam War and what the
Americans did was they see the clouds so that the monsoon
season would be a lot longer in Vietnam.
Why do that? Because then it's harder for the
Vietnamese to resupply themselves.
OK. It makes it it makes it harder
for them to fight because the Vietnamese are living in
tunnels, right? Whereas Americans are attacking
from the ear. All right, So this is pretty
well known. Operation Popeye is something
that the Americans did do in Vietnam, and they do have
weather manipulation technology. The question is, the debate is
how effective this technology is and how powerful is it and how
scalable is it? OK.
And that's the debate. We're already seeing elements of
21st century warfare being implemented around the world.
OK, So look at Cuba. There is now a oil embargo on
Cuba. And so they're blackouts.
All right? So again, the intention is not
to kill civilians. The intention is not to fight a
war. The intention is to strangle a
nation. So eventually the population
wants to overthrow the government.
And already what we're seeing is these past few months, lots of
accidents around the world that's destroying the world's
oil supply. OK.
But there's only, but there's one regional world that doesn't
really care about the loss of refineries, the loss of oil
supply, and that's North America, because North America
is extremely wealthy. And so when, if the rest of the
world is facing energy scarcity and food scarcity, it's, it's
going to beg North America, United States, Canada, Mexico
for resources. And this allows the Americans to
better control the world. OK, Again, this is what 21st
century warfare looks like. All right, The last, another
thing that I will point out is that the the Americans are very
good at over foreign governments.
OK, That's been called the colour revolution playbook.
Colour revolution playbook. And So what the Americans do is
they basically invite young people from different nations to
come to America to learn about democracy, to learn how how to
organize protest movement, how to overthrow the government in
order to promote democracy. The Americans will also finance
NGOs in different countries in order to create young movements
in the world. The Americans will also control
social media in order to galvanized the population and
foment unrest. OK, we saw this play out most
recently in 20 story last year Nepal when young people overfrew
the government. Now guys, OK, here's the thing.
In Nepal, most people don't speak English.
They don't read English. So why are these young people
holding up signs? OK boomer, time's up.
OK, that's in English. Who's it for?
Also, OK, boomer. It's an American phrase.
OK? It's an American phrase, not a
Nepalese phrase. So in other words, they're doing
this not to have impact locally in Nepal.
They're doing this based on paying them to do this.
You understand, it's being funded by Washington and
Washington's like, OK, well, I'll pay you this much, this
amount of money if you give me a slogan.
Do you hold a slogan so I can show my boss that this protest
is working? Also, guys, here's another side.
We pay you flax enough. OK, another English sign.
So again, why are they doing this when the local publishing,
local population don't even speak English?
They're doing it for Washington. They're not doing it for their
own country. They're doing it for their
masters in Washington, right? Does that make sense?
Right. And this is very common in the
world today where these protests are being orchestrated by
Washington for Washington as opposed to being organic.
This was in 2000 and ten, 2012 you have these Arab Spring
protests happened all around the Middle East.
OK, Did they stabilize 6 elements in the Middle East?
And we know that social media, basically Twitter and Facebook,
were instrumental in organizing people and promoting unrest in
these places. All right.
So these are all called color revolutions or color revolution
playbook. So not only does America have
the capacity to strangle a nation's economy and force the
population to beg for mercy, Washington and the Americans
also have strategies on how to overflow the government using
local population. OK, Basically by controlling
social media, by organizing young people, paying them to
protest and bribing security services to not intervene, OK.
It's a very successful playbook. They've tried many times and
it's worked many times before. All right.
So America can use this playbook against every country that
opposes it. OK, so the main reason again is
because America controls the world's troll points including
Sri Malaka, Panama Canal, Gibraltar.
These are the major troll points.
Even though the Iranians controller sort of moves, the
Americans can have aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean and
blockade the Iranians. OK, this is important because a
lot of people believe that what America really wants to do is
destroy China. And unfortunately, right now, a
lot of the Chinese economy depends on exports, meaning
trade. If you can't export, your
economy can suffer a great deal. When your economy suffers a
great deal, you lose GDP, your unemployment.
And it's possible that your protests happening in China
because of the clap to the economy.
OK, so that is what a 21st century war looks like.
OK. You don't send troops.
You don't destroy. What you do is you strangle a
people to death and force the people to rise up against the
nation, nation state, OK. And so the the concluding
message is this ultimately to fight a 21st century warfare,
OK. It's really about population
management. What I mean by that is your
enemy is trying to provoke your population into unrest to
destroy you. So you have to respond by
managing your population better, OK?
And that can often mean culling your population.
Culling your population just means killing them, OK?
Killing them can mean you deny them food, you create famine,
OK, You it can mean you spread diseases.
It could mean you actually do go and shoot them.
OK. And this forces you to use
artificial intelligence, AI surveillance state, because the
best way to control your population, the magic population
is with an AI surveillance state.
All right, so that's the future. We're looking at what a 21st
century war looks like. And there's no and there's no
way around it. It is just the inability of
history. We have too many people.
We want to fight wars. And so a lot of people will have
to die in these wars. Does that make sense?
All right, any questions, guys? Any questions?
Yeah, Yeah, Sorry. Can you give the microphone to
Colin? I just have one small question
about the 20th century war. Like if a country has been
attacked by the strategy, how can it respond?
Like how can Iran responds to American strategy right now?
OK, That's a good question. OK, look, the reality is that
when the Americans do this, OK, when when they do three things,
right, they destroy your economy, when they strangle,
sorry, when they destroy your infrastructure, and when they
divide and conquer according to game theory, there's only one
response, OK? There's only one proper response
to this and this idea of eschatology, OK?
And the idea here is this. You need to create fanaticism
among your people, right? Because your people are
suffering, they don't have enough to eat.
They don't have enough to eat. They don't have any hope in the
future. So what you say to them is it's
all part of God's plan. We're meant to suffer because
when we suffer, God will make us invincible for our suffering.
We'll find the courage to commit martyrdom.
OK. When we do martyrdom, we go to
heaven. All right, the problem with this
is that most people don't want to do this, OK?
They're like, no, I don't want to kill myself.
I don't want to die for God. I just want to live a normal
life, OK? But unfortunately what history
tells us is that you really don't need that many people to
commit to eschatology to win a war.
Maybe at most 10 to 20%. If if 10 to 20% of your
population commit to this eschatology, then you will
survive. OK?
We have an example of this with an example of this is the US.
Sorry, the Iran Iraq War, which which is what happened in the
1980s, OK, an 8 year war between Iran and Iraq, right?
And guys, it was a crazy war. These Iraqis were supported by
both the Americans and the Soviet Union.
They had tanks, they had helicopters, they had a
professional army. The Iranians in 1980s didn't
have an army. They didn't have tanks.
Didn't have, they didn't have helicopters.
So what they said to Indian people is the greatest glory is
to be a martyr. The greatest glory is to die for
your nation and for God. So they, all these young people
went into the battle with just a rifle.
OK, guy, like, like, like, imagine this.
OK, you have this young guy, 16 years old.
He's running into battle against a tank in a helicopter, and he's
screaming at them. I will kill you.
And most of them got blown up, but some of them got through and
they threw a grenade into the tank.
OK, Now you think you, you, you think all this.
You're like, Oh my God, that's crazy.
But. First of all, it galvanized the
Iranian population into resisting and event and
eventually they turned the tide of the war so that they were
actually winning the war. And it was only because the
Americans started to use chemical weapons against them
that the Iranians had to were forced back.
OK, but if, if let alone, the Iranians would defeat the
Iraqis. So think about that, how it
governs the population into resistance.
The other thing is that it scared the hell out of the
Iraqis. OK?
You are, you have a tank, right? The guys come at you with a
rifle and a grenade. He's not afraid of you.
His fearless, his fearlessness makes you afraid.
OK, So even though, yes, in twenty 21st century warfare, OK,
it seems invincible, but eschatology is the counter to
this approach. And that's why we should see
over the next few years a huge surge in eschatology and
religious extremism throughout the world, because it's it's
really the only counter to this type of warfare.
Does does that make sense? OK, great question.
Any more questions, guys? OK, great.
So there's no class on Thursday and next Tuesday, but we'll come
back next Thursday and we'll continue this.
OK. All right.
Thank you.