J Wylie Cullick; June 8, 2024
Sometimes I write about warfare, engineering, technology etc, from a strictly operational perspective. This is appropriate for the strictly operational paradigm is the language of the State post decision, in implementation of order. If we adopt a polar ontology that opposes esthetic/moral considerations on the one hand, and operational (purely functional/materialistic) on the other, we observe that militaries institutionally historically have not been entitled to concern themselves with the former. For reasons of sovereignty of the executive realm from the interloping mechanics of war -- it also simplifies greatly the deliberations.
So if I write about this or that artifact, MiG-35, A-10, whatever, it's not a commentary on, or rooting for, any given actor, because the modality of thinking I'm in is simply considering, as is appropriate, the purely technical, operational problem, from that perspective. These papers have a very narrow technical focus; not even a major part of the spectrum warfare is considered.
In this paper, I want to explore the moral / esthetic aspect of things. Ethics and paradox and so on.
Warfare is ubiquitous. For our primary paradox: Apocrypha of the near East: "It's brother against brother until it's time to fight the cousins, then it's cousin against cousin until it's time to neighboring clan; then it's clan against clan until it's time to fight the neighboring nation." The paradox is that, in order to win war, one must first make peace. Another way, in order to have the strength to fight, one cannot be at war with oneself. To put it in personal terms, the author (Cullick) for years was gangstalked, subjected to high-levels of high-grade psyop destruction, slander etc. I experienced warfare, you could say, of a particular tuned intensity. One result was my lowered ability to contribute to the health (and power) of any collective I thought I might be part of. It's not just me of course, and some get destroyed long before ever even reaching adulthood, if the statistic of 300k missing children a year feeding the cabal-controlled trafficking economy. Looking at that kind of thing (along with the poisoning of food, water, culture, etc) from a continental perspective, with biological analogy, it would appear that a certain parasitic tissue colonies in a nation or supra-national structure, will digest its own most promising tissue for metabolic gain. In other words, the body has no unified control over even its own territory, and different tissue collectives will wage war against each other internally. "War" here is a rough analogy, we are talking ecosystemic dynamics here. A population of wolves is 'at war' with a population of rabbits in this sense. The local mafias may see the tribute as their right by might or whatever, not necessarily perceiving that they are part of a process of weakening of the whole. For the nation to maximize its power potential, it needs to maximize the power potential of all of its own people. This is at odds with the power-preserving imperatives of a given ruling clique. In our society, 'cabal' poisons culture, academia, food, water etc precisely to weaken its domestic rivals. Again, the paradox is that war makes weaker. 'Cabal' can defeat domestic rivals, at the cost of the weakening of the collective over which they purport to rule. A brother may dominate a brother in a family, likely at the cost of weakening the family as a whole. This process plays out at every scale level. You want to be powerful enough to win wars, you make peace. It's popular now to consider the renaissance of Russia in historical terms, and to marvel at the power, majesty, technical mastery etc of these new 21st century Russians. What I marvel at is the quantity and quality of peace that would have to be generated internally in Russia for that to have ever worked. Instead of marveling at the vitality and intelligence leading to such national power, I marvel at the amount of empathy, careful understanding, careful negotiations etc, that would have to take place constantly across society, to iron out inneficiencies of conflict, perverse incentives etc. High-strategy is care for people. Careful. Delicate. Powerful machinery, fine tolerances, a metaphor for people. Take care of them. Make peace between them.
Again the paradox: strength and power come from empathy and love.
All of the social frictions, the natural rivalries, have to be resolved or they will poison the body politic, lowering production, lowering ready-state value. For Russia to become powerful, the most essential component was peace, truth, goodness, beauty. The heart of operational efficiency lies in an integrated moral / esthetic solution to the moment. Emergency and exigency. How to bring peace to warring factions, come together, and make good stuff happen.
Ronald Reagan famously alluded to this paradox when discussing the hypothetical space-alien threat indicating co-operation between Soviets and Americans. At every level of scale, we see the same dynamic play out.
Supposing there to be some inherent design principle and goal of human evolution (not Darwinian, just 'change'), and goals.
Is there a design function goal to human evolution on Earth?
Is the universe a training ground for souls? Are the lessons learned in this life (the 'parodoxi') precisely the point?
Our considerations above have verisimilitude because of their resonance with all of the great spiritual teachings of old. We feel like we've heard this stuff before. Strong warrior makes peace trope etc.
Here is something I ponder on occasion:
During my darkest days say 2005-2010, it was so hopeless. I'd made enemies of whatever was 'cabal', mafia/intel/cryptoids. The selfsame 'cabal' that ran the global empire at the 'end of history'. I was coming to terms with their evil (in those days one could read the blog Rigorous Intuition), and their apparent invincibility. It seemed like being swallowed by a whale, to be slowly digested by some kind of nightmare thousand year reign. Neocons. Twenty years later these scary monsters now seem revealed as pathetic clowns. Nightmare transmutes to comedy, or tragicomedy.
Can one see the hand of gods (or the One) in this?
Depending on your metaphysics, the 'hand of god/G-d/gods' could be immanent to and manifested through natural means.
Kind of a self-correcting mechanism. Something so evil and ugly in 2005 America. Not the America the beautiful, but a horror version. Evil being but a reflection of a chasm of stupidity at the soul level, the hand of G-d worked to raise up the enemies of the neocons, of cabal. And we see this playing out now around the world.
That's a kind of conjecture. You could call it belief, or maybe call it operating assumption. Or maybe just something that seems possible and worth considering.
I myself am me, American. I would like to see us get out from under the evil and re-institute some republic of free and sovereign men. Neocons to hell. 'Cabal' to hell. Etc.
As far as the rest of the world goes, and the all in all goes, I look at it kind of like a big family. Or maybe a small neighborhood. You need good fences, and also routes of communication. Ways of resolving conflicts, managing conflict.
[]...someday maybe write this]
Abstract: More esoteric teleological considerations. Design and goal-state of man. Contra-transhumanism. Can/should warfare be abolished? The problem of decadence (the problem of zero-gravity). Warfare as gravity. Sports as sublimated warfare. Yoga/shaolin/rugby.
Warfare has to be managed out of existence due to its destructiveness. However, paradoxically, we need warfare and friction to avoid the trap of degeneration and decadence.
If the world were perfect, there would be nothing to learn, no struggle, just steady state. We're thrown back into the issue of purpose in the design. What are we here for? Where is all of this history leading to?
The moral/esthetic dimension considers the all-in-all, whereas the operational abstracts to remove all but the most logically fixable referants.
The development of sporting culture, and sports culture, will enable the preservation of man from decadence, whilst allowing for the removal and elimination of destructive warfare from human society.
'Multi-polarity' is affirmation of difference. We want difference and variety, so no 'one ring to rule them all'.
What does the future hold? Will we make it off planet? Should we?
I don't know.
I do think the trans-humanists are wrong on so many levels. Crazy how Rudolf Steiner had their number even in 1907.
(---Enough for today on this, will push to gists, maybe someone gets something out of it...)
These are some initial draft notes I wrote in one sitting, June 8, 2024.
Not complete, lots to rewrite, but the basic idea can be gleaned so I publish to Gists. You can get the gist.