Simon Dixon about the mechanisms behind the “world of the naive” and my rant.

Simon Dixon about the mechanisms behind the ‘world of the naive’ and my rant. 

 

https://youtu.be/KkbpGzBL8fM?si=VEd1yWbKp4zV2cHl

 

I recently used a video featuring Simon Dixon and Doomberg. This 3-hour discussion with Simon Dixon is something I agree with about 90% of the time. I would add Halford Mackinder’s work and a few other points that slightly adjust my perspective, but the underlying mechanisms he explains align with my own view. Just like me, he argues that the West is behind all organized crime and claims that individual states no longer exist in the West — it’s just one unified bloc. Furthermore, his division of MICK, FICK, and TICK mirrors my own Cowboy and Yankee distinction.

1:22:17

So the Fed is owned by the banks. And so you have this structure. Okay. Um, but what is what is this structure? It’s global. It’s not nationalistic. It doesn’t say we want to win in any country. Wherever the profit is to be made, and this is when we entered into this era of globalization.

So if China has the cheaper factories, if China has the rare earth minerals, if we can make more money by China doing all that, then fine. If we have all the capital, we can securitize, financialize, so you know, um, we’ll just we’ll we’ll do that.

Um, and if the Gulf money has all the sovereign wealth, and Singapore does, and Norway does, then we’ll partner with them, and they get to negotiate in this structure. Now, China is the most sovereign country. It has the most negotiation power against the financial-industrial complex in the world. That’s why you have capital controls, because it is a fully sovereign government. Mhm.

Now, let me try and make a correction, because you might think I’m like Chinese propaganda, saying this system’s great, America’s—there is a bit of a strange tension here.

A sovereign country tends to subordinate its people, right? So if the government has full control, it has full control over its people, its businesses. And so they tend to be more authoritarian, Mhm, you know, by nature.

Now, a non-souverign, a subordinate country to MICK, FICK, and TICK, has a very covert, shallow leadership structure that people can’t understand. They think the government’s in—can you, I’m sorry, you’re throwing me off. What what is the MICK, FICK, and TICK?

Uh, so the MICK is the military-industrial complex. Oh, okay, gotcha. FICK is the financial-industrial complex. TICK is the technical-industrial complex.

I’m glad you keep just asking these questions, because I’ve lost the ability to distinguish between normal language and jargon. You’re in your own universe.

Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Um, so it really helps.

Um, and so yeah, MICK, FICK, TICK, US government, China government—MICK, FICK, TICK, okay, state-controlled. These are, you know, authoritarian, don’t really engage in politics. You’re not going to see people in China talking about left and right politics.

Uh, they know who’s in charge. You know, you live in Saudi Arabia, you know who’s in charge. You know, you live in America, you think the government’s in charge, you think you’re voting left and right, but they’re owned by the same FICK, MICK, TICK structure on both sides. Mhm.

And so their job is to make people always think that something else is happening, that it’s a democracy, that your vote matters. And what MICK, FICK, and TICK do is that they groom politicians where they work for lobbies.

And if they want to become more and more powerful, they’ve got to—and also the last kind of thing, which I think you would discuss a lot, is we always talk about this concept of the deep state. Mhm, you know, MI6, Mossad, CIA, Five Eyes. In general, where do they sit in the structure?

Well, they have a complete hidden, covert structure. In general, they came from being contractors to the military-industrial complex. They have a narrative called “we work for national security.” They don’t have to disclose any of their finances other than directly to the president.

Well, it’s interesting because the way you’ve laid this all out, if the president works for the financial, and the military, and the technological – well, the CIA works for the president.

So, yeah, but let’s look a little bit deeper into that. Where does the budget to pay the CIA come from? It comes from military budgets. So, what’s the four largest line items on the national debt? It’s um — where does all this CIA budget come from? Uh, military contractors.

So you got — no, the federal military budget.

Yeah. So you got the Pentagon, right? Exactly.

And they are able to fund the CIA, right?

That’s kind of like — but where does the government get that money from? Bondholders. Bondholders. They’re the FICK.

And then people leave the CIA and get giant government contracts to work for private military-industrial complex companies.

You got it. So, I couldn’t prove this, I don’t know the — but in my mind, I’m thinking probably 5% of what the CIA does is national security government. I think the vast majority of it is two other activities. Uh, one is private contracting.

So when they do private contracting to Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon — you know, if you need to order a genocide, you need to order a war, um, then you have the ability to do that as some of these privileged military companies. You know, but who controls the military companies? Capital. Mhm.

So if you’re, you know, JPMorgan in the structure, and you’re BlackRock, then you’re like, “I can give capital to these military companies. Mhm. I can take board seats. I can subordinate the executives.” Mhm.

Their wealth and their incentives are all aligned around getting their share price up. What’s profitable? The optimum amount of forever wars. Um, some defense contracts that are less profitable, and then wars that go on for as long as possible. Um, and then some really aggressive action.

So they always need that, always need that, because military companies don’t give up on revenue. They need constant revenue, right? So if they’re ever negotiating peace in one region—let’s say the Middle East is about to move to peace — they need another war. They need to make up for their revenue somewhere else. So they need to escalate through the CIA, Putin invading Ukraine, covert operations.

There’s another trillion dollars to be made, in my estimates, from escalating the Russia-European war. America’s making all the money. Russia’s going to end up with all the land. You get to use all the Ukrainians as your radicalized fighting force. And until there’s no Ukrainians, eventually BlackRock will own the assets. The CIA can stop, and then they enter into a negotiation.

And there’s a very convenient thing that comes from the Russian war: the full subordination and destruction of Europe.

That means they get to rebuild, right?

They get to rebuild all that again, which is what they did after World War II when they did the rebuild contract, the Marshall Plan, got the World Bank loan. So Europe — BlackRock already gets contracts to rebuild Ukraine.

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, in its portfolio. Remember, BlackRock owns everything. [laughter] It owns everything. So it’s fully diversified. And remember, so one of the companies in its portfolio got the contract to do it.

Yeah. So I mean, if you want to make money through renewable energy, you’ve got all the renewable energy companies, you’ve got big oil, you’ve got big pharma, you’ve got the banks, you’ve got everything, you’ve got complete diversification. You’ve got Google, you’ve got Facebook, you’ve got everything. You’ve got Meta, you know, you’ve got Palantir, whatever happens.

And what does the financial-industrial complex do? They also have derivatives, right? So you could — derivatives means that you can, you know, this whole debt mechanism, there’s trillions, hundreds of trillions in the derivatives market, which means that effectively you issue these debt contracts against assets — how Elon effectively gets to borrow and use collateral, right?

So the derivatives mean that you have this network of hedge funds, and these hedge funds are the ones that are able to make money when markets go down, right?

So you can imagine, you’re managing your spreadsheet, you’re like, “Right, we got war here, we try and push this covert operation through there. If it doesn’t work, we go short the markets. We got all the assets and resources. If it works, then we get this.” And you can just model the whole thing out. You know, you’ve got these consulting companies that will provide all the research for you. They’ll tell you peace is a hundred times more profitable than war. You know, we can manage this whole portfolio of the world order.

Um, Russia and Ukraine, you know, so when I look at Europe right now, my analysis says that while it looks like chaos and World War II, this is actually the Middle East becoming West Asia again. So they’re all aligned with China. Um, Iran’s aligned with China, the Gulf countries are aligned with China. Um, you know, you’ve got—and you need a theatrical — I don’t want to use the word theater, because then people think fake.

This is all real. Like, the deaths are real. The killing’s real. But capital doesn’t care about that.

You know, if you think Gaza is bad, Gaza is a reflection of how our system has always worked. We just get to see it on camera. Mhm.

You know, this is how the system has always worked. It’s just you didn’t know it, you didn’t get to see it. You didn’t see it in the GCC, the Gulf countries, and Europe. You’re saying the Gulf countries and Europe are becoming more aligned with China?

Well, let’s look at this. So you talked about the petrodollar. Let’s go to petrodollars, and today those are the two last components. Okay.

So we set up the World Bank, we set up the IMF, we set up the Bank for International Settlements, we set up FICK, MICK, and TICK. Okay.

Um, when you were trying to make profits from war, what did the military-industrial complex do? Well, it used the strategic tension between communism and capitalism, which is a fake narrative, yes, ’cause they profit from both, [laughter] you know. Um, NATO.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Uh, so then you have like Operation Gladio, Operation Mockingbird, if you’re familiar with all these things. Control media narrative through Mockingbird.

Gladio is where the terrorism industry came from, which the first terrorists were really the Israelis after that 1917 Balfour Declaration. You know, when you had like Irgun and Lehi, which later became the IDF, you know, those were the ones where you would do false flag operations, you would blame it on someone else.

Operation Northwoods was the plan to fly the jetliner over Cuba and shoot it down.

Yeah. So, you know, this is really MI6, CIA, Mossad, Five Eyes, like classic. So whenever you see terrorism, here’s how it really works. Mhm.

Think of ISIS and al-Qaeda. Even in the Department of Government Efficiency, um, one of the AIs actually released that there was $695 million of funding via USAID to ISIS and al-Qaeda training camps. Um, so these people, their job is to create a radicalized group, an army, a militia group, and at the higher levels, they’re paid by intelligence assets, and they auction themselves off. That’s their business.

Their business is if the French are willing to pay, if the Gulf is willing to pay, if the Turks are willing to pay, if the Americans are willing to pay these militant groups in the Middle East. Yes.

Now, what their job is to do is make it look like it’s religion, um, and also recruit people through radicalizing and all that type of stuff. But really, at the higher level, it’s destabilizing countries so that you can access their resources, and then you can enter into a FICK negotiation around their resources.

So the terrorism industry is a factory. Wow. It’s a factory of negotiation with FICK. That’s wild.

Yeah.

I’ve never heard it explained this way before. And so if FICK controls the US military, think of the US military as a for-rent militia group like ISIS and al-Qaeda, right? When FICK wants Venezuelan oil, go get it. Trump, you get to make a ton of money out of it. Do some insider trading.

Now, what [clears throat] what is your view on the reason that we did that Venezuelan operation right before Iran?

So what I think FICK is doing, um, is using energy crises and manufactured crises in order to split the world into regions, uh, because the era of US hegemonic power is being hedged against. It’s not we’re ending it, because the British Empire to the American Empire was like — it was like a 10-20 year transition to go from the Bank of England being important to the Federal Reserve being the most important. So I think they’re splitting the world up into regions right now.

The Dutch was a natural handover to the British, the British was a natural handover to the Americans. It’s all the same kind of structure. But now we got China. China defended, you know, um, and so you got to deal with China. You can’t co-opt China, you know. They expelled all the banksters. They created their own central bank. They have their own nationalized banking system. They have capital controls. You can’t launch currency wars. They’ve got a manufacturing base. They’ve got a currency that they want to keep cheap, you know, so that their exports—the whole world needs their product. The MICK, FICK, and TICK cannot function without China.

“

Click to access Oglesby%2C%20Carl%20-%20The%20Yankee%20and%20Cowboy%20War.pdf

The profile of these types is best suggested in the persons and relationship of corporate banker/monopolist David Rockefeller and tycoon entrepreneur Howard Hughes. An inquiry into their long rivalry is the first step in our exposition of Watergate in Part Three. But the spirit of Yankeeness is given off by many things besides Chase Manhattan, and of Cowboyness by many things besides the Hughes empire. Yankeeness is the Ivy League; Cowboyness is the NFL. Yankee is the exclusive clubs of Manhattan, Boston, and Georgetown. Cowboy is the exclusive clubs of Dallas and New Orleans, Orange County East and West. Yankee is the Council on Foreign Relations, the secret Round Table, Eleanor Roosevelt, Bundles for Britain, and at a certain point, the Dulles brothers and the doctrine of massive retaliation. Cowboy is Johnson, Connally, Howard Hunt, and the Bay of Pigs team. Yankee is Kennedy; Cowboy is Nixon.

But I stress my purpose is not to name a concrete group of conspirators and assassins, though I do not doubt that the conspiracies I speak of are actual. My aim rather is to call attention to the persistence of Civil War splits in the current situation and to the historical ideological substance of the positions at play.

It must often be the case, as it was with me and the Yankee/Cowboy idea, that one’s fresh insight turns out to be already well mapped and settled. I first proposed the Yankee/Cowboy references in early 1968, but wrote nothing of any account on the theme until a series of articles about Watergate for the Boston Phoenix in 1973 and 1974. A reader of one of those pieces informed me of the similarity of my views with those of Professor Carroll Quigley, a historian at Georgetown.

Quigley is the author of a huge book about the contemporary world, Tragedy and Hope, to which I will return in chapter two. I begin my debt to Quigley here by borrowing the following observation from his summary. Noting that since 1950 a “revolutionary change” has been occurring in American politics, Quigley says this transformation involves

” … a disintegration of the middle class and a corresponding increase in significance by the petty bourgeoisie at the same time that the economic influence of the older Wall Street financial groups has been weakening and been challenged by new wealth springing up outside the eastern cities, notably in the Southwest and Far West.”

These new sources of wealth have been based very largely on government action and government spending but have, nonetheless, adopted a petty-bourgeois outlook rather than the semiaristocratic outlook that pervades the Eastern Establishment. This new wealth, based on petroleum, natural gas, ruthless exploitation of national resources, the aviation industry, military bases in the South and West, and finally on space with all its attendant activities, has centered in Texas and southern California. Its existence, for the first time, made it possible for the petty-bourgeois outlook to make itself felt in the political nomination process instead of in the unrewarding effort to influence politics by voting for a Republican candidate nominated under Eastern Establishment influence. . . . By the 1964 election, the major political issue in the country was the financial struggle behind the scenes between the old wealth, civilized and cultured in its foundations, and the new wealth, virile and uninformed, arising from the flowing profits of government-depend ent corporations in the Southwest and West.³

The whole point of introducing the Cowboy/Yankee language, of course, is to bring precisely that old-money/new-money, Atlanticist-Frontierist tension into focus in the plane of current events.

1:00:29

So when people think about Israel, they get the whole AIPAC funding. They get this whole mechanism from the American side, but they never ask the question of who lobbies Israel. You know, is Netanyahu the boss? Exactly. Of course, he’s not the boss, right? Trump’s not the boss either. How is Netanyahu the boss? Like, who is pulling Netanyahu’s strings?

Yeah, exactly. He works for the military companies and tech companies — the techno-industrial complex and the military-industrial complex.

Israel is a “Cowboy state” based on energy resource extraction, war, and technology—driven by the techno-industrial complex and the military-industrial complex, as Simon Dixon puts it. This distinction and divide that Dixon describes is similar and applicable to the Cowboy vs. Yankee division of new money versus old money discussed by both Carl Oglesby and Carroll Quigley—a divide between the Atlanticists/Globalists and the Frontierists/Neocons & Zionists. While Cowboys are working for the techno-industrial and military-industrial complexes, Yankees are working for FICK (the financial-industrial complex) and monopoly industries. There is a very important and interesting passage in Yankee and the Cowboy War by Carl Oglesby regarding “Operation Underworld” and Meyer Lansky:

The precise origins of “Operation Underworld” are not public knowledge. Both McCoy and Messick focus on a Brooklyn Navy Yard office of U.S. Naval Intelligence. That does not mean the initiative was necessarily federal or the Navy’s—the idea could have been dropped there by any messenger. In any case, it came down to a straightforward proposition. Lansky first turns to the reluctant capo and says: “What if I can free your leader, Luciano?” Then he turns to the anxious Roosevelt and says: “What if I can secure your docks against sabotage?”

The offer Lansky made was specifically for Roosevelt to intervene in the Luciano matter, though the prosperity enjoyed by organized crime during World War II suggests the deal went much further and actually entailed federal protection for certain areas of Syndicate wartime activity, such as smuggling.

Luciano was moved immediately from the remote Dannemora Prison to the more comfortable and spacious Great Meadow Prison north of Albany. With his accessibility thus improved, he lived out the war years in a style befitting a prisoner who was also the jailer’s benefactor and a party to a larger arrangement with the state. Promptly on V-E Day, his lawyer filed the papers that opened the doors for his release and deportation to Sicily. Shortly thereafter, he would return to his Godfatherly duties in the exile capital Lansky had been preparing for him in Havana. Lansky delivered Luciano and won federal protection. The Syndicate was made.

Now, I have written many times about Meyer Lansky, who was Jewish and who, by the way, to the end of his life said he was Polish. He was an extremely smart piece of work; now he supported Israel and sent weapons to Israel. Whoever thinks Meyer Lansky was sending money and weapons to Israel because he was some devoted Jew is so naive. Meyer Lansky was a criminal, and just as he helped build Las Vegas for organized crime because they benefited from it as a money-laundering scheme, in the same way he supported Israel only because he benefited from it as an organized crime state that helped them in clandestine operations.

I wrote before that when you look into the JFK assassination, you see Israel and Mossad fingerprints — not because they ordered a hit, but simply because they fulfilled their role for the CIA. Using CIA assets in killing JFK was problematic because among those CIA assets could be real patriots who would balk at the plan; that’s why the CIA used Israel and Mossad assets. I wrote before that, in my opinion, JFK signed his death warrant when he fired Allen Dulles, and then Allen Dulles used his man, James Jesus Angleton, who was the chief of counterintelligence and had a so-called “Israeli account.” So the fingerprints of organized crime, Israel, and Mossad don’t mean they ordered the killing of JFK; while they were powerful, there were still more powerful people, and without their approval, they would not do it.

Yes, JFK made an enemy of Israel by wanting to register AIPAC under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act), as well as his opposition to Israel’s nuclear weapons and pressure to inspect Dimona, but Israel would not kill the American president without people above the president approving it, so the CIA approved it. The order most likely came from Allen Dulles and his CIA people, and they simply used organized crime, Israel, and Mossad since it was a clandestine operation, and using domestic CIA assets against the American president was risky because there could be some true patriots in the CIA who would foil the plan.

By the way, the same thing applies to 9/11: while we have Israel and Mossad fingerprints, the whole operation was organized by the CIA. Just like in the case of killing JFK, there could be patriots in the CIA who could foil the plan, which is why Saudi Arabian and Israeli assets were used on orders from the top of the American Deep State and the CIA. Israel is an overgrown cancer of the Deep State — first of the British, then of the U.S. Israel doesn’t control stuff; it simply does stuff. When the CIA wants to do something horrible, especially against American citizens, they simply use their foreign assets like Israeli and Saudi assets.

For all those people thinking that Israel was behind 9/11 or the JFK assassination, do you really think they could do it without the approval of the real people in power in the U.S. — the Deep State? Are you really that naive to think the American Deep State and the CIA didn’t know about the JFK assassination and 9/11? If I were going to commit crimes and I had someone I could use to do those crimes, do you really think I would not use that person instead of doing it myself?

Israel is not in charge. Israel is simply a tool they use. Don’t get me wrong: Israel as a state is so horrible it’s hard to describe, so I am not saying they are not guilty; the only thing I am saying is that they are not in charge. If I order a professional assassin to kill someone, that doesn’t make the assassin not guilty; it only means the decision was not made by the assassin, but by me. Israel is a dirty fixer for the CIA. Israel controls most of our “McJihad,” but if you think they could do it if the CIA didn’t want them to, then you are naive. The CIA has ordered them to do so and they do what they are told, but that does not mean they are not guilty.

I previously wrote that Israel is not a normal state; it was created by MI6 and later the CIA. Just as the CIA (which encompasses organized crime) created its own city in the form of Las Vegas to launder money from illegal activities, it also created its own state in the form of Israel. Of course, Israel began as a state established by MI6 and the British, but since MI6 was merged with organized crime in much the same way as the CIA, both organizations wanted a state that would help facilitate their criminal activities. Thus, Israel is not only an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” for our empire in the Middle East, but also a state created to facilitate covert action and illicit operations. Frontierists always need war and a new frontier to expand, which is why Cowboys consistently push for war — whether in Ukraine, Iran, or anywhere else.

Meanwhile, Atlanticists prefer to use the IMF, World Bank, WHO, and similar bodies as means of control. To put it simply, Cowboys use war to exert control, whereas Yankees use global policy, events, and international organizations. Events like the “green agenda,” the 2008 financial crisis, “COVID,” and the upcoming “datacrash” (which I plan to write about) are what the Yankees/Globalists do. On the other hand, Cowboys simply want war and expansion, and they dislike international organizations like the IMF, World Bank, and WHO because those institutions are controlled by Yankees.

As Simon Dixon and I argue, nation-states do not truly exist; there is only “the West,” which is controlled by international capital. But within the international capital that controls and represents our West, there is a fundamental split — the Cowboy and Yankee divide I am addressing. While both factions aim for total control and world domination, they envision different paths to get there. Despite their internal conflict, they share the ultimate objective of global supremacy, which is why they collaborate even while competing.

To simplify this, I have previously used the example of Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Although The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo are two distinct competitors fighting over market share, they also collaborate to expand the overall market. In the same way, Cowboys and Yankees fight over how to achieve global dominance while simultaneously collaborating to ensure that dominance is secured. For instance, while I view the Ukraine project as a Cowboy initiative, both Republicans and Democrats support it. Similarly, I view COVID as a Yankee project, yet both Democrats and Republicans supported it as well. The fight between Yankees and Cowboys is over the methods to achieve world dominance, not whether world dominance should be achieved in the first place.

This is why, in the videos I recently posted featuring Mike Benz, his discussion of the NED and soft power focuses on the Democrats (Yankees) — they are the ones who utilize international organizations. Cowboys do not rely on international organizations; they simply want war. This approach is evident in the current conflict in Iran, where little to no narrative or spin was even attempted. Mike Benz even noted that the right wing lacks soft power compared to the left wing. Cowboys can carry out operations like 9/11 or blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, but they are incapable of orchestrating color revolutions the way Yankees can.

My primary point of disagreement with Simon Dixon is his assertion regarding negotiations with China. In my view, this is incorrect because our “Western Capitalist Empire of Evil” demands total global dominance. They do not care as much about wealth as they do about power. Even if a conflict with China would make them poorer and cause massive financial losses, they would still pursue it to achieve “full-spectrum dominance,” as outlined by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Therefore, a multipolar world will never exist, and there will be no peace as long as they haven’t achieved full-spectrum dominance.

All of this divide between Cowboys and Yankees is a little simplified because you could say Yankees used to be aligned with Merkel and Europe at some point with the WEF and the whole crew. The whole globalist crew didn’t want this war in Ukraine because they wanted to unite Europe and Russia, and they preferred things like COVID — a global event, not war. But once the war in Ukraine started and Globalists/Yankees lost, Neocons & Zionists/Cowboys were in charge ever since. Once Europe was subjugated and Russia was weakened, they moved on Syria, and after that, Iran was next.

People think it was stupid to start a war in Iran during the war in Ukraine and that the West was too weak, but people don’t think about the fact that the West will never get a better chance than now. They need to use the fact that one of the allies of Iran, Russia, was distracted in Ukraine — for example, do you think Putin would let Syria collapse if not for the war in Ukraine? The West knows that Ukraine will lose and it’s just a matter of time, and they need to use that time which Ukraine gives them to first take Syria, then Iran. Again, if I knew a war in Iran would probably fail, do you really think people in the Pentagon didn’t know it? My analysis assumes that if some nobody like me with limitless access to information understands something, then I can rest assured people in power know it.

The hubris of people listening to some generals and people from the Pentagon on TV talking a bullshit narrative and thinking that they are so much smarter than those people on TV! Again, Hanlon’s razor is like some cancer and weapon used against the people, combined with hubris. I already wrote that you should look at the world through reverse Hanlon’s razor: so it’s not stupidity, it’s malice. If your analysis leads you to conclude that people in power are stupid, then you can be sure that you are wrong. All my analysis is based on the fact that I am smart, but I am not smarter than them, and I, unlike them, have limited information. So if they are smarter or at least as smart as me, and they possess a lot better information, that means I cannot make better decisions than them. If that is the case, when my analysis leads me to conclude that they are stupid, that means I am missing some crucial piece of information and I need to analyze it again. To use the great Michael Parenti again:

So, they’ve learned to play on the survival fears of the American people, to convince the people that there’s a world out there that’s encircling us all the time and about to get us. And this is why — unlike every other country in the world — we need to have these hundreds of military bases all over the world. We need to have these nuclear aircraft carrier fleets floating around in every ocean, making port in almost every region of the world to protect us from these imagined and conjured enemies. It’s a very consistent U.S. policy. Do not join those critics who say U.S. policy is stupid, it’s so foolish, it gets all mixed up: “Why do we keep getting into these silly messes?” It’s stupid — you’re stupid if you think the people who own and run this country are stupid. They do this, and they’re very consistent. And the consistency is they always attack anyone who wants to use the land, the labor, the natural resources, the capital of his country for self-development.

When you look at most analysis online, all you hear is “stupid,” while people in power use that supposed “stupidity” as some kind of shield, leveraging people’s hubris and Hanlon’s razor. After all, there could be no conspiracy, and it’s all one big display of stupidity. For example, by stupidity and weakness, America could not defeat ISIS, and the fact that at the same time ISIS extracted oil from Iraq and was selling it illegally to our corporations, increasing profits, was just luck! Stupidity, after all — it could not be malice or some conspiracy, right?

ISIS Makes Three Times as Much from Oil Smuggling as Previously Thought: Officials

“The more time on target, the better the estimate,” a senior U.S. official told NBC News.

Who do you think they sold this oil to, and do you really think they sold it for market price? We — our Western corporations — bought this oil illegally under market price. Just imagine an increase in profits when you buy oil, let’s say, for 20-50% off market price. ISIS was the CIA, so the CIA facilitated those transactions between ISIS and our Western corporations and probably took cuts to finance their black budget. This is how this fucking works, and that’s why when Trump asked the Pentagon how long defeating ISIS would take, they said 5 years — longer than his candidacy — while when he flew to Iraq, generals on the ground told him defeating ISIS would take a few weeks, and when he ordered generals in Iraq to defeat ISIS, they did it in 5 weeks. The Pentagon didn’t want ISIS to be defeated; this war was supposed to be continued while profits were made from oil, and the existence of ISIS served as a physical manifestation of a “clash of civilizations” supporting the narrative.

Funny how as soon as ISIS ended and the “caliphate” — a physical manifestation of the narrative of a “clash of civilizations” — was defeated, we immediately got the COVID narrative.

• “The territorial ‘caliphate’ of ISIS was officially declared defeated on March 23, 2019.”
• “The COVID-19 pandemic officially began in December 2019.”

None of this is stupidity; all of it is malice. But as long as you think that you are smarter than people in power, you won’t see the real world. People think that I think of myself as someone super smart and superior because I criticize people who have authority while I am a nobody. The thing is, I am not smarter than them, but I am not blinded by the hubris of thinking I am smarter than the people who own and control this world. I know how little information I possess, and unlike others, I understand people in power are smarter or at least as smart as me, so I never assume there are things I understand that they don’t.

We used ISIS in Iraq to steal oil, and we turned Afghanistan into the biggest opium producer for our drug trade, while both places enforced a “clash of civilizations” narrative. So both places supported the narrative we were pushing while at the same time we turned them into money-making machines for the CIA and their black budget. But of course, we fought ISIS and al-Qaeda so long because we are so stupid, and we don’t know better, and we are so weak, right? Because there couldn’t possibly be any conspiracy, and YOU, whoever reads this, are so freaking smart and so much smarter than the people in the Deep State, the CIA, and the whole Blob ruling our world, right? You are so freaking awesome and smart, and now you can beat your chest about how smart you are while playing right into their hands and hiding their actions under the disguise of stupidity—because they are stupid while you are so smart, right?

In my last post, I used this quote by Arthur Schopenhauer:

So the problem is not so much to see what nobody has yet seen, as to think what nobody has yet thought concerning that which everybody sees.

I am not smarter than other people, and I don’t possess more information than everyone because I do know a lot, but there are more knowledgeable people than me. The question is not what I see, but how I see it. I see it through the prism of knowledge that people in power are smarter or as smart as me, and they possess more information, so whatever I understand, they also do. So unlike in other geopolitical analyses, you won’t see me calling people in power stupid and underestimating them.

I often write that close to my analysis are John Helmer and Brian Beletic, who both see it in a similar way. They also discourage people from thinking that people in power are stupid.

SIDENOTE

I wrote before that the reason why Putin is our enemy is because Gazprom is not private; as long as BP and Shell don’t own Gazprom, Putin and Russia will be our enemy. It’s not about democracy or dictatorship—it’s simply about sovereignty and not being controlled by international capital, which controls the West. As long as the profits from Russia’s resources do not flow into the core of our “Western Capitalist Empire of Evil,” Russia will remain our enemy. Just like everyone else, and just as the earlier quote from Michael Parenti says:

They do this, and they’re very consistent. And the consistency is they always attack anyone who wants to use the land, the labor, the natural resources, the capital of his country for self-development.

 

Thank you to everyone who stuck with me until the end of this post. And, as always…

 

“Knowledge will make you free.”

— Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

 

— Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free; you need to pay attention.”

— Grzegorz Ochman

 

Please pay attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

 

“The media have been tireless in their efforts to suppress the truth about the gangster state.”

– Michael Parenti

 

“To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.”

– Michael Parenti

 

“The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.”

– Michael Parenti

 

“Radical views that are outside the mainstream generally (but not always) are more reliable than the dominant view because they are more regularly challenged and tested against evidence. They do not get to float freely down the mainstream; they must swim against the current. They cannot rest on the orthodox power to foreclose dissent, and they are not supported by the unanimity of bias that passes for objectivity.”

– Michael Parenti