Looking at victory as a part of a larger situation

Choose your battles; often you are in a better position

If “power”, as conventionally understood, conduces to victory in war, then how is the victory of the “weak” over the “strong” explained? Key explanations include:

Strategic interaction;

Willingness of the weak to suffer more or bear higher costs;

External support of weak actors;

Internal group dynamics/fighting and

Inflated strong actor war aims.

Evolution of asymmetric rivals’ attitudes towards time: patience and surprise

Since 1950, however, weak actors have won a majority of all asymmetric conflicts

Tactical basis

The tactical success of asymmetric warfare is dependent on at least some of the following assumptions:

One side can have a technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy

Destruction of multiple electric lines, roads or water supply systems in highly populated areas could have devastating effects on economy and morale, while the weaker side may not have these structures at all.

Training and tactics as well as technology can prove decisive and allow a smaller force to overcome a much larger one. For example, for several centuries the Greek hoplite’s (heavy infantry) use of phalanx made them far stronger to their enemies. The Battle of Thermopylae, which also involved good use of terrain, is a well-known example.

If the weaker power is in a position of self-defense; i.e., under attack or occupation, it may be possible to use unconventional tactics, such as hit-and-run and selective battles in which the stronger power is weaker, as an effective means of harassment without violating the laws of war. Perhaps the classical historical examples of this doctrine may be found in the American Revolutionary War, movements in World War II, such as the French Resistance and Soviet and Yugoslav partisans. Against democratic aggressor nations, this strategy can be used to play on the electorate’s patience with the conflict (as in the Vietnam War, and others since) provoking protests, and consequent disputes among elected legislators.

If the weaker power is in an aggressive position, however, and/or turns to tactics prohibited by the laws of war (jus in bello), its success depends on the stronger power’s refraining from like tactics. For example, the law of land warfare prohibits the use of a flag of truce or clearly marked medical vehicles as cover for an attack or ambush, but an asymmetric combatant using this prohibited tactic to its advantage depends on the stronger power’s obedience to the corresponding law. Similarly, laws of warfare prohibit combatants from using civilian settlements, populations or facilities as military bases, but when an weaker power uses this tactic, it depends on the premise that the larger power will respect the law that the other is violating, and will not attack that civilian target, or if they do the propaganda advantage will outweigh the material loss. As seen in most conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries, this is highly unlikely as the propaganda advantage has always outweighed adherence to international law, especially by dominating sides of any conflict.

Looking at the victory as a part of a larger situation, the situation could either be no-win, or more of a win for the other side than the one that won the “victory”, or victory at such cost that the gains are outweighed by the cost and are no longer a source of joy.

For example, the “victorious” side may have accomplished their objective, but the objective may have been worthless, or they may lose a strategic advantage in manpower or positioning. (One example is Great Britain in WWII, where Britain was one of the victorious powers, but found itself so exhausted in the process as to no longer be able to maintain its great power status in a world now dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union.) A related concept is sometimes described as winning the battle but losing the war, where a lesser (sub-) objective is won but the true objective beyond it is not well pursued and is lost.

Speech about secret societies JFK

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”

He continues.

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

“No President should fear public scrutinity of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers — I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants” — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security.

“Man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”

JFK

Secret wars @wikileaksparty #UN #CIA agent discloses #truth about #US #Myanmar #Angola #Iraq #Congo…

Search it

https://search.wikileaks.org/

https://medium.com/the-sick-system-needs-blood-to-survive-and-expand/good-cop-and-bad-cop-nwo-mass-murders-fb62709a8dcf

Colonization and Covert Pressure

Violence is never “good” or necessary unless it is used to defend against killers and thieves. Indeed, that is the morality behind the “just war” principle as defined by international laws and treaties. Yet, this simple concept of right and wrong gets muddled by differing ideas about religion, patriotism, economics and many other divisions. The “just war” rule has crumbled under the ambitions of empires throughout history. The American-led Anglo Saxon empire is no different. This empire has been brutally conquering and colonizing territory since the fall of Rome.

However, it has only gained an American face in the last century. The United States quickly emerged as the world’s “superpower” primarily through its economic might. For some time, many believed the U.S. to be a shining example of economic freedom for other nations to emulate. Indeed, America was eager to promote “economic freedom” globally to open new markets for U.S.-based corporations. When foreign leaders refused to allow these corporate interests into their country, those leaders were replaced through a variety of covert actions. The form of government that would be installed did not matter to the CIA so long as the corporate interests were served. In most cases these nations simply surrendered to the seemingly unlimited power of the dollar and sorcery, thus camouflaging the traditional method of forceful empire building.

However, some nations, especially in the last two decades, remained adamant and have refused to alter their banking systems while also shunning Western companies. Despite the empire’s best efforts to diplomatically bribe or sanction them into submission, they ultimately required an iron military fist to force their compliance. Until recently, military action remained the last resort. But now, preemptive military action seems to have become the preferred, and perhaps necessary, method to conquer the last resource-rich nations out of their grasp.

The public cheered this strategy out of fear of being attacked by these rogue nations who never attacked or even threatened to attack them. In the fog of fear, killing and stealing became acceptable. In fact, detention without charges and even torture became acceptable in the former capital of freedom. America has determined that the means justifies the end — which is more power.

As with all empires, these “means” have become increasingly violent and destructive in the face of resistance. Yet, only a few more dominoes are left to knock over for America to complete a plan set in motion well before they were one of the colonies. That is unless, of course, other world powers break ranks and attempt to stop the conquerors, which could lead to a large scale conflict.

Regardless, when the dust settles and moral history is written, America and her Western cohorts will likely be viewed as the most brutal empire in history.

Here are reasons why this is already the case:

Preemptive Wars of Aggression: It could be said that all wars are preemptive in nature because so many entities benefit from war. Yet, even before America’s latest crusades, they covertly and surgically attacked countries that never threatened them. This allowed them to maintain the moral high road in the public’s eye while constructing the foundation of their empire. That was until the Bush Doctrine; the use of preemptive military action to confront possible threats was unofficially adopted to be the new foreign policy for combating terror. Since then, America has become the violent aggressors, having officially invaded two countries — Afghanistan and Iraq — without legitimate provocation. Violent aggressors have always been judged by history as evil. But it gets worse….

Torture: Torture has never been acceptable by those promoting a high moral standing in the global community. Nazis and Japanese soldiers were convicted and executed for engaging in the exact same torture techniques that America has redefined as ‘enhanced interrogation’. “I was just following orders,” was not a justifiable excuse for such inhumane behavior, much like it wasn’t a good enough defense for the low-ranking patsies who took the heat for the sinister Abu Ghraib torture scandal even though their actions were approved at the highest levels. Can state-sanctioned torture of prisoners held without charges ever be viewed as anything less than brutal?

No Justice: Say goodbye to the notion of being innocent until proven guilty, the right to face charges and your accuser, and the right to a free and fair trial. Habeas corpus, considered the only humane path to “which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention,” has been eliminated for those vaguely labeled ‘enemy combatants’ of the empire. As Guantanamo prisoners suffer under such pretenses, prominent lawmakers in the empire propose the exact same lack of rights for American citizens if they’re labeled an ‘enemy combatant’. Similar to the Spanish Inquisition, now you’re guilty until you’re tortured to admit your guilt. Can it get more evil? Why yes, it can. Read on.

Assassinating Citizens: That’s right. No judge, no jury, no conviction; just straight to execution. America has set another precedent in their tyrannical march toward empire when they openly assassinated an American citizen and government patsy, and his teenage son on the suspicion of terrorism. Paul Craig Roberts laments “Now the US government not only can seize a US citizen and confine him in prison for the rest of his life without ever presenting evidence and obtaining a conviction, but also can have him shot down in the street or blown up by a drone.” Isn’t this the reason America claims to be knocking off dictators around the world — the deliberate killing of their own citizens?

Using chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons: From the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, to Monsanto’s Agent Orange in Vietnam, to the depleted uranium used in Afghanistan and Iraq, America only condemns itself when speaking about the evils of WMDs. However, killers don’t appear to care how the killing is accomplished, so long as it achieves their goals. The real firecrackers will likely be brought out in a confrontation with Iran, or if China and Russia are lured into the conflict. It won’t really matter much what history says if the use of WMD escalates by either side, but the aggressors should rightly be blamed.

World’s Largest Drug Dealer: The American empire is the largest drug dealer in the world. Well, in addition to forcing legal drugs and genetically modified organisms on nations, usually under the cover of foreign aid, America also leads in the illegal drug trade. In fact, many researchers reveal that the war on drugs is only utilized to control and monopolize the illicit drug trade. The US government has been caught multiple times shipping in cocaine, colluding with certain cartels to control the industry, and now openly protects and transports opium from Afghanistan. In fact, Global Research points out that in 2001, “according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels.” This month, the U.N. announced that Afghanistan now provides 93% of the world’s opium production; up 61% compared to 2010 to a whopping 5800 tonnes.

You may recognise this from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four

By George Orwell, some words are changed.

Economy

In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated,

with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities

of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate

policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near

the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity

increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies

the distinction between one group and another. By

the standards of the early 21st century, even a member

of the Inner state lives an austere, laborious kind of life.

The economy of many countries

was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital

equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population

were prevented from working and kept half alive by

State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and

since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary,

it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how

to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing

the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but

they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way

of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

War

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of

human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a

way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere,

or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might

otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and

hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons

of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still

a convenient way of expending labour power without producing

anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress,

for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build

several hundred cargo-ships. As for the problem of

over-production, which has been latent in our society since

the development of machine technique, it is solved by the

device of continuous warfare. The threat of terror, they create.

The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city,

where the possession of a lump of flesh makes the difference

between wealth and poverty. And at the same time

the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger,

makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem

the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction,

but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way.

The splitting of the intelligence which the state requires

of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere

of war, is now almost universal, but the higher

up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is

precisely in the Inner state that war hysteria and hatred of

the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator,

it is often necessary for a member of the Inner state to

know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and

he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is

either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite

other than the declared ones.

Family

For how could the fear, the hatred, and the lunatic credulity

which the state needed in its members be kept at the right

pitch, except by bottling down some powerful instinct and

using it as a driving force? The sex impulse was dangerous to

the state, and the state had turned it to account. They had

played a similar trick with the instinct of parenthood. The

family could not actually be abolished, and, indeed, people

were encouraged to be fond of their children, in almost the

old-fashioned way. The women, on the other hand, were

systematically turned against their men and taught to

spy on them and report their deviations. The family had

become in effect an extension of the Thought Police. It was

a device by means of which everyone could be surrounded

night and day by informers who knew him intimately.

It was not merely that the sex instinct created

a world of its own which was outside the

state’s control and which therefore had to be destroyed if

possible. What was more important was that sexual privation

induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could

be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way

she put it was:

‘When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards

you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything.

They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be

bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and

down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour.

If you’re happy inside yourself, why should you get excited

about the President, the elections and the campaigns

and all the rest of their bloody rot?’

That was very true, he thought. There was a direct intimate

connexion between chastity and political orthodoxy.

In other words it is necessary that we should have the mentality

appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether

the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory

is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well

or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.

Public opinion

The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate

public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the

process further. With the development of television, and

the technical advance which made it possible to receive and

transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private

life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen

important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for

twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in

the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels

of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not

only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete

uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for

the first time.

But the problems of perpetuating a hierarchical society

go deeper than this. There are only four ways in which

a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered

from outside, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses

are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented

Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own selfconfidence

and willingness to govern. These causes do not

operate singly, and as a rule all four of them are present in

some degree.

A state member is expected to have no private emotions

and no respites from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a

continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal

traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before

the power and wisdom of the state. The discontents produced

by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned

outwards and dissipated by such devices as the campaigns of hate,

and the speculations which might possibly induce a

sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his

early acquired inner discipline.

Drone War Crimes

Unprovoked wars without authorization, accountability, or independent oversight only seem to be escalating; and with little resistance. The US Congress no longer votes to “declare war”. They simply give the Commander in Chief broad “authorization” to use force against specific nations. However, even that is not broad enough in the rapid pursuit of empire. Now, drone warriors directed by the CIA and Pentagon have targeted at least three countries with “unauthorized” military strikes; Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Even worse, they waged a full-scale war for regime change and resource plundering in Libya without any authority inside or ouside the United States. Under the NATO flag, which is 75% funded by the U.S., they flew over 9200 strike sorties in Libya to illegally topple a government. Drunk with success, the bloodthirsty empire marches on to their next preemptive targets, Syria and Iran. Quick morality check: unprovoked killing and stealing as a first resort is still wrong.

Currency war is a brutal war

World Reserve Currency War: Although using Weapons of Mass Debt is a non-violent form of expanding the empire, it’s perhaps the most brutal and effective form of control. Requiring foreign nations to purchase oil and other imported commodities with US dollars wields immense power. Because all nations must acquire dollars to purchase critical resources, they quickly become indebted to the US Federal Reserve, their affiliate central banks, and the IMF. Before long, the entire world is colonized by debt. It seems that only the nations that don’t need or refuse credit from Western banking institutions are the ones in danger of facing the wrath of the imperial war machine. Incidentally, most oil-rich nations in the Middle East have outlawed usury (lending money with interest), making them impossible to conquer diplomatically through debt. Controlling the world reserve currency means controlling the tap of life itself, which is a dangerous weapon in the hands of an aggressive empire. Debt is the ultimate WMD the empire uses to enslave the world, which leaves dissidents with two clear choices: slavery or death.

Although this empire is infinitely more powerful than Rome was, it will likely suffer the same fate. For every negative action the empire commits, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. And the goodness of humanity will always defeat tyranny when it goes too far. However, an empire with so much to lose will go down swinging and slinging every weapon in its arsenal, thus putting the final stamp on their status as most brutal empire in history.

PSYOP for perpetual war and misery

Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

Between 2010 and 2014, PSYOP was renamed Military Information Support Operations (military deception) (MISO), then briefly renamed PSYOP in Aug 2014, only to return to MISO shortly thereafter in 2015. The missing information is that they use military freemasonry, mind control as in MKULTRA.

The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to U.S. objectives. They are a part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic activities used by the U.S. They can be utilized during both peacetime and conflict. There are three main types: strategic, operational, and tactical. Strategic PSYOP include informational activities conducted by the U.S. government agencies outside of the military arena, though many utilize Department of Defense (DOD) assets.

Operational PSYOP are conducted across the range of military operations, including during peacetime, in a defined operational area to promote the effectiveness of the joint force commander’s (JFC) campaigns and strategies. Tactical PSYOP are conducted in the area of military operations.

PSYOP can encourage popular discontent with the opposition’s leadership and by combining persuasion with a credible threat, degrade an adversary’s ability to conduct or sustain military operations. They can also disrupt, confuse, and distract the adversary’s or targeted individual decision-making process, undermining command and control. PSYOP can also encourage aggressive actions by creating disaffection within their ranks, ultimately leading to war or a conflict of some kind.

How the CIA and military rig elections

Information Operations is a category of direct and indirect covert operations of the United States Military. “IO are described as the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making by spreading lies” Information Operations (IO) are actions taken to disturb information systems by one’s own information systems or using rumors deliberately spread widely to influence opinions or elections.
 
Operations security
 
 OPSEC as an IO Core Capability. OPSEC denies the adversary the information needed to correctly assess friendly capabilities and intentions. In particular, OPSEC complements MILDEC (Military deception) by denying an adversary information required to both assess a real plan and to disprove a deception plan. The process of identifying essential elements of friendly information and taking measures to mask them from disclosure to adversaries is only one part of a defense-in-depth approach to hide friendly information.
 
Military deception (MILDEC)
 
 MILDEC is described as being those actions executed to deliberately mislead adversary decision makers thereby causing the adversary to take specific actions (or inactions) that will contribute to the accomplishment of the armed forces’ mission. MILDEC and OPSEC are complementary activities. MILDEC seeks to encourage incorrect analysis, causing the adversary to arrive at specific false deductions, while OPSEC seeks to deny real information to an adversary, and prevent correct deduction of friendly plans. To be effective, a MILDEC operation must be susceptible to adversary collection systems and “seen” as credible.

EDITOR’S NOTE:

When we came into possession of this information, then we confirmed it with other sources.

We chose to (re)publish it because we want the public to know there are “interests” with influence in government, who are actively seeking war. There’s a lot of money to be made in a big war for banks, and a lot of scores to settle around the world. Most of all, there’s a lot of DEBT to be done-away-with as a result of a catastrophic war.

These realities have apparently coalesced into a disastrous plan to intentionally start wars. We believe it is important for the people to know — in advance — what is about to take place is not a random act . . . it is planned. It is malevolent. It is wrong.

We also chose to publish this information because we resent our forces being used as canon fodder for someone else’s agenda. We don’t have a military to start wars or to sacrifice on an altar of debt relief. Our troops ought not be betrayed to their deaths like this by people looking to cash-in on war, or be rid of debt.

Perhaps war will be averted. It is our hope to avert wars.

If we can’t avert a war, when we know the truth, we at least can bring the perpetrators to justice.

#Truth Anti-Masonic Party @ AMP1828