Power Dynamics War Crimes

Who Wants War?

Just two weeks ago, Western leaders like Boris Johnson announced that Russia was poised to attack Ukraine. Considering the US still has military bases in many countries surrounding the Russian Federation and over 10 times the military budget, I doubted the Kremlin would risk triggering World War 3 to settle old scores with its Slavic neighbour. It had little to gain materially. Unlike most Western and Central European countries, Russia does not lack either space or resources. Whatever you may think of Vladimir Putin, his strategy has usually been flawless. Territorial disputes make little sense in an interconnected world where large corporations can simply buy influence. This begs the question: Why now?

The former Soviet Republic declared independence over 30 years ago. Most of its territory had been part of the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union after an interlude of independence following the short-lived Brest-Litovsk Treaty in 1918-19. Over the centuries parts of its western provinces have at different times been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Much of the south, from Odessa to the Crimea was once under Ottoman Rule before the Russian Empire conquered it in the 17th century. While the word Ukraine itself means borderlands, the Kievan Rus is often considered the birthplace of Russian civilisation as it evolved since the 9th century. In many ways the Ukrainians are more Slavic, and thus closer to the original Russians than modern Russians, who have assimilated with a much more diverse range of peoples as they expanded east. Successive empires have suppressed Ukrainian cultural identity. Before the 20th century, the North West sandwiched between Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Belarus and the Dnieper river was known loosely as Ruthenia. Under the Czars, distinctive Ukrainian culture and language retreated to the rural hinterlands. While the Bolsheviks succeeded in winning back the region in the 1917-23 Russian Civil War, resistance to forced collectivisation among Ukrainian smallholders exacerbated the mass famines of the mid 1930s  known as the Holodomor, with between 3 and 7 million excess deaths. This experience helps explain why many Ukrainian nationalists welcomed the 1941 Nazi occupation and some, notably the notorious Azov Battalion, sympathise with Aryan Nationalism to this day.

The point is Ukraine with its current borders, or at least those recognised before the recent Russian invasion, has only been independent as a single entity for the last three decades and its citizens are riven by conflicting loyalties and cultural identities, with some looking east and others west. Only eight years ago the US, UK and EU-sponsored operatives engineered the Euromaidan colour revolution to overthrow pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Back in 2014, young Ukrainians could be forgiven for looking to the freer and wealthier West rather than the more backward and poorer East. Closer ties with the EU and NATO were marketed as the best way to bring the American dream of an affluent middle class to the former Soviet Republic. Now Western governments are adopting Chinese-style bio-surveillance and clamping down on dissent. We now take it for granted that main media outlets will either ignore or besmirch politically incorrect protesters. The treatment of anti-vaccine-mandate protesters across Europe and North America shows how fast the once liberal West has moved to a totalitarian model that grants citizens time-limited rights based on compliant behaviour just like in the old Soviet Union.  People fled repressive regimes to enjoy greater freedom and prosperity rather than nanny-state security.

What’s really happening?

If we believe the Western media, Putin has not only invaded Ukraine allegedly reaching Kiev (Kyiv) by Saturday 26th February but may well threaten the Baltic States. The Mirror newspaper featured a map of Southern England with the extended fallout zone of a potential Russian nuclear strike on London encompassing over 25 million residents. Yet so far, we only have verified evidence of airstrikes against military targets with collateral damage. That’s the term the Americans used to explain civilian deaths after airstrikes in successive wars since the first Gulf War in 1991. Indeed, despite their withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, the USAF bombed Somalia last week, while Israel and Saudi Arabia continue their raids on Syria and Yemen respectively with US and UK-supplied weaponry. Many scenes of fleeing civilians appear staged with crisis actors and face-painted wounds. Journalists in flak jackets and helmets appear only metres away from local residents going casually about their everyday lives. On Friday we heard a Russian destroyer ship shot dead 13 Ukrainian soldiers defending the tiny Black Sea outpost of Snake Island ( Ostriv Zmiinyi). Russian reports later showed the same soldiers surrendering to Russian naval officers. Over the coming weeks, independent journalists will sort claims and counter-claims about atrocities in Ukraine, but I would not trust either Western or Russian sources. For balance, I’d much rather rely on English-medium Indian sources. India has strong economic ties with Russia, but also maintains friendly relations with the US and EU.

Although the Russian Federation remains the world’s largest country and has the world’s second largest nuclear arsenal, its military budget dwarfs that of the United States. When measured in US dollars, Russia ranks 8th. The United Kingdom, with less than half its population, spends more both in absolute terms and per capita.

Biggest Military Spenders

Countrybillion USD2022 PopUSD per capita
United States750.0334,805,269$2,240.11
Saudi Arabia67.635,844,909$1,885.90
United Kingdom55.168,497,907$804.40
South Korea44.051,329,899$857.20

It’s about resources, stupid…

Much of Central and Eastern Europe is heavily dependent on Russian gas to heat homes. Italy and Germany import around 50% of their gas from the Eastern Bear. Without expanding nuclear power, governments would have to invest billions of € more in renewables to meet current demand. Energy is about to get a lot dearer. Millions will have little choice but to wear extra layers in winter rather than risk paying exorbitant heating bills. But it gets worse. Russia is also a leading supplier of many minerals and precious metals essential for our high-tech lifestyles. It has half of the world’s diamond reserves, 18% of its coal and iron ore and 14% of gold and is the leading producer of aluminium, arsenic, cement, copper, magnesium metal and compounds such as nitrogen, palladium, silicon and vanadium. If the Europeans and North Americans don’t wish to do business, the Russians have hungry markets in China and India. However, thanks to its undervalued currency and distorted global financial markets heavily dependent on property speculation in a few key metropolises, the Russian economy still seems much smaller than that of the G7 countries. Once the US dollar crashes, bringing the Euro and Pound Sterling down with it, control of natural resources will matter more than electronic bank balances. The Western World’s economy is built on debt and in the last two years of the covid scare, quantitative easing has devalued the main currencies. Russia’s trump card is that is not indebted to foreign banks and can easily survive the collapse of the global banking system, just it survived the Bolshevik Revolution, forced collectivisation, the Nazi invasion and the fall of the Soviet Union. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan or Serbia, Russia has a functioning nuclear deterrent.

Could Putin’s belligerence accelerate the Great Reset?

While the main European and North American governments take a firm stand against Russian aggression, Israel, India, China and, most notably, the World Economic Forum remain much more neutral. Putin is listed on the WEF website as a former Global Young Leader. Only last October, Vladimir Putin delivered a speech declaring his full support for the coming fourth industrial revolution. After some initial scepticism, the Russian government has also rolled out its own version of the bio-security state. Some may mistakenly believe Russia will stand up to the banksters and biotech mafia, but such beasts are now global in nature and as deeply embedded in China and India as they are in the West. The tech giants rely heavily on the Chinese manufacturing base and by 2030 the Chinese economy will have overtaken the USA’s in absolute terms. Of note, at the UN Security Council, China, India and the United Arab Emirates abstained when asked to pass a resolution calling the immediate cessation of Russian military actions against its Slavic neighbour.

The engineered crisis has succeeded in justifying larger military budgets, heightened security, more surveillance of dissident groups and greater censorship of all media outlets either directly connected with the Kremlin or suspected of accepting the Russian narrative. Just as Russian police arrest peace protesters in St Petersburg and Moscow, any Westerners who fail to offer their unconditional support for the Ukrainian resistance and potential Western military actions are now considered traitors. This is a win-win situation for autocrats in Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.

Many suggest that a demilitarised neutral Ukraine, acting as a bridge between Central Europe and the East with full respect for the diverse ethnic backgrounds and loyalties of its citizens, may have averted this showdown. However, I fear neither the West nor the Kremlin wanted peace and prosperity to prevail. The spectre of nuclear Armageddon may be an even more effective means of behavioural modification than the virus scare. With the biosecurity state now firmly in place, Western governments can detain dissidents without trial. Millions will not be drafted to fight in Ukraine as the real war is over economic and ideological control. The global elites need the spectre of never-ending territorial conflicts to justify the next more austere phase of the Great Reset. Meanwhile, it will be business as usual with China.

All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Notes on Mass Formation and Psychological Vulnerability


Of late, alternative media channels have been abuzz with talk of conformism. How else can we explain why hundreds of millions of people around the world have let an engineered culture of fear control their behaviour, social interactions and perception of non-compliant neighbours. The fear has been so great, that many seemed oblivious to the massive transfer of power to the Biotech Industrial Complex.

Mass formation is best understood in the context of crowd psychology or collective delusion and should not be confused with neurological disorders that may be triggered by psychosocial stressors. Professor Mattias Desmet, whose research has recently popularised the phenomenon, has corrected many Anglophone observers who insist on adding the qualifier psychosis. Mass group formation might clarify the concept. In her 1958 book on The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt referred mainly to mass movements that require ideological conformity but not necessarily formal membership. In recent decades we have witnessed two outwardly conflicting trends. On the one hand, we have become more atomised with the demise of traditional families and close-knit communities and their substitution with looser networks of acquaintances and special interest buddies. On the other, we have been lured into various branches of a global super-culture via a ubiquitous mediascape that has conquered our minds and suppressed our power of independent thought.

The dilemma of technologically advanced societies is the degree of trust we have to place in machines and remote entites, whose inner workings we cannot conceivably understand without relying on someone’s else expertise. When faced with conflicting evidence and analyses on scientific controversies, we can either devote much time and resources to detailed independent research or we can take shortcuts by ascertaining whose interests well-known experts represent or simply judge people by their track record, which may also involve a fair amount of work to sort the wheat from the chaff. As soon as once-respected scientists rock the boat and begin to expose medical malpractice, deception or corruption, the mainstream media will either ignore or smear them. Outright lies are seldom the target of concerted censorship, although hate speech laws may first single out the exponents of unpopular opinions that the public at large loathes. Ironically, the same legislation that criminalises the downplaying of past crimes against humanity may perversely serve to silence those who seek to expose new crimes against humanity. Once we let a handful of corporate fact checkers determine the truth and set the boundaries of permissible dissent, we have replaced the façade of liberal democracy with epistocracy or rule by anointed experts.

The trick all along has been to paint the advocates of centralised authoritarian control as progressive philanthropists concerned with protecting the most vulnerable in our society and their adversaries as selfish reactionaries unwilling to accept change.

In the hope of reconciliation, we grant supreme power to a bunch of technocrats whose authority we may longer challenge. We are thus trained to view objective reality through the prism of prescribed truths. When official doctrine conflicts with the empirical data we need to solve a practical problem, we may have to accept convoluted logic to explain apparent contradictions. This leads to cognitive dissonance at multiple levels. I fear many seemingly intelligent people have lost the ability to think critically as they parrot warped groupthink.

Such people often like to ridicule so-called conspiracy theorists or science deniers, whom they view as mentally ill and to whom they claim some sort of moral superiority. Yet they instinctively dismiss anything that runs counter to the official narrative as the wild conjecture of a demented fringe minority. I regularly hear semi-intellectual group-thinkers recycle talking points from the trendy corporate media.

They may claim to be experts on the antivax movement because they read a Guardian, Huffington Post, NY Times or Washington Post article on ties between Dr Robert W Malone and the spectre of the far right. A brief analysis of Politfact’s page on the microbiologist and vaccine developer might enlighten us. Their target audience is obviously the questioning professional classes, the kind of people who may question the narrative but also crave social acceptance and professional approval. The top three reasons why Politfact claims we should distrust Dr Malone is that Twitter banned him, he was not the only person involved in the invention of mRNA gene therapies and lastly he has allegedly spread false and misleading information that appeals to that evil subspecies of humanity now known as antivaxxers. In short, do not trust Dr Malone because our corporate backers do not like what he says. Yet the same article struggles to identify any significant factual inaccuracies in Dr Malone’s public pronouncements, preferring to infer guilt by association with Trump supporters on alternative social media platforms.

The virus scare started with Event 201 in October 2019 at John Hopkins University. Administrators and media executives agreed how they would flood the airwaves to spread fear of a novel virus and suppress opposition to the proposed solution, a novel gene therapy injection they would market as vaccines, so they could smear opponents as luddite antivaxxers. Paradoxically, the same university published a study that showed all lockdown measures combined, including antisocial distancing and mask mandates, only reduced covid-19-attributed mortality by 0.2%. Throughout the simulated pandemic, a dubious association has been instilled in the public mind between tragic reports of preventable excess deaths and the Draconian measures imposed at enormous socio-economic expense. People have subconsciously assimilated the notion that non-compliance with these new diktats will kill the vulnerable. Compliance with the Science™️ has become the self-righteous stance. Challenging the official science has become a heresy.

Today’s social conformists – the kind of people who tend to go along with the woke agenda that today’s faux-liberal intelligentsia favours – like to think of themselves as open, tolerant, multicultural and democratic as well opposing any hint of racism, misogyny or homophobia. Yet they now support policies that have the exact opposite effects to their professed utopian goals. How can you extol the virtues of open borders between countries while welcoming strict biomedical controls on the free association of people in private homes, commercial and public buildings? How can you claim any liberal credentials if you’re happy for the authorities to regulate every aspect of people’s private lives? How can you vaunt your tolerance when you cannot put up with different viewpoints? How can you celebrate multiculturism when you decry all divergent ways of life and belief systems out of sync with your vision of a synthetic rainbow coalition of shiny happy people? Lastly how can you support democracy if you do not trust commoners to decide on matters you believe they do not understand without the guidance of corporate experts?

Any viable society needs the acquiescence of its members. The real question, though, is whether we achieve social harmony through bottom-up participatory democracy that responds to the will of the little people or through top-down social engineering. The managerial classes need people to comply with expected behavioural norms out of a sense of civic duty. When only a small minority break arbitrary rules or only do so well away from public scrutiny, the police and civilians can easily deal with isolated transgressors. To maintain their respect, law enforcement agencies need the public to internalise the logic behind the curtailment of personal liberties for the common good. We may privately doubt the efficacy or purpose of many regulations, but we go along with them to avoid conflict and keep a low profile. If we have a good reason or a burning desire to break a rule, we will usually only do so with the implied consent of others in our social environment. We may take many liberties in unmonitored private spaces with like-minded friends that would be unacceptable elsewhere. Such transgressions tend to involve either indulgences that may bring pleasure to some but perturb others or the open expression of subversive beliefs that may offend only those ideologically committed to the status quo. History is replete with examples of loosely enforced laws that transgressors can get easily evade. Cannabis remains a proscribed drug in the UK for recreational purposes, but the police and law courts have long turned a blind eye to its consumption and semi-clandestine cultivation. An estimated three million Britons, including many celebrities and politicians, regularly smoke marijuana, despite decades of research linking cannabis abuse with psychosis in vulnerable young people. Yet within the space of two short years, we have sleepwalked from a more laidback approach to law-enforcement that respects privacy, bodily autonomy, family life and community traditions to a regime that criminalises natural human beings who do not comply with new-fangled regulations based on a re-interpretation of scientific evidence. If our governments really cared about health, they would mandate fresh food and exercise and tackle social exclusion. Instead, in 2020 they did almost exact opposite urging people to avoid social proximity and stay at home where they are more likely to binge on snacks and booze.

Today’s rulers no longer need the income generated directly by a large working class. They’d much rather rely on a smaller army of privileged engineers and surveillance officers, while keeping the great unwashed on universal basic income with rewards for good behaviour and occasional monitoring or care duties. Old-fashioned capitalists may have been happy for potential customers not in their direct employ to fend for themselves. The impoverished would gravitate towards new money-making opportunities out of sheer necessity in a frenzied rat race with winners and losers. Primitive capitalism would see many former peasants and smallholders meet early deaths as they failed to adapt and ended up destitute without a welfare state to fall back on. By contrast, post-modern corporations have effectively merged with governments to control every aspect of our society. Tech giants are not merely concerned with their bottom line, but with changing our way of life. They find it much easier to manipulate vulnerable people with limited self-help skills than independently minded self-starters. We have become the product they sell and if we do not conform to one of their manageable pigeonholed roles, they will cast us aside from mainstream society and may ultimately deem us expendable. Untamed free thought poses the biggest threat to our managerial classes. French anthropologist and author of The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, Gustave Le Bon, explained how crowd psychology progresses through three main phases, submergence with the loss of individual identity, contagion with the triumph of emotions over reason and suggestion with the development of a shared unconscious. The neoliberal era has given way to a new age of high-tech totalitarianism.