DAMOCLES RAZOR - An idea whose time has come. Many of us have struggled to figure out just out who really runs the world. Who is really behind all the chaos we see today. Through the fog of war we have entertained countless rumors, leading down rabbit hole after rabbit hole. Chased after ghosts. I was thinking about alexander the great today. How he cut the gordion knot. He solved an intractable problem by refusing to play by the rules put in front of him. A simple solution for a seemingly invincible problem. Today figuring out the who, what, when, where, and why, is so conflicted, so full of contradictory signals, that it seems all but impossible to know the truth. As intended. This is fifth generation warfare. But I bring to you, today, a simple political thought, that is in its conclusions, so startling, that I must share it. I present to you DAMOCLES RAZOR. Like hanlon's razor, it is meant to simplify the process of thought. To cut through the noise and lead to the most likely truth of all in any given situation. It was inspired by a simple thought exercise. Damocles, as the story goes, envied the king. And wished to have his wealth and comfort. The king, being clever, granted him this wish, with one condition. A sharp sword was hung over damocles' head, suspended by a single horse hair. To say this would be unnerving, is an understatement. It drives us to ask, what is better, to be ruled as a servant by a wise king who brings peace and stability to the kingdom, or to enjoy all his pleasures while death and danger hang over your head at every waking moment of your life? If we stop to ask "what is the question here?" instead of going with the default *lesson* ("heavy is a king's crown"), a *totally new* lesson emerges from the story. Essentially, the story of domacles, if looked at carefully--is really asking "cui bono?", who benefits? This is the essence of Damocles Razor. HOW IT WORKS. In the story of damocles, to understand what is *really* going on, we only have to ask two questions 1. who benefits at the surface level from some arrangement? we ask this for all parties. 2. is this typical for each party? In the first and second question, as it applied to damocles: BEFORE the sword is suspended, before he becomes king for a day, this arrangement suits both damocles, the servants, *and* the king. Though certainly those beneath the king, like all people, envy those who have more. Nevertheless they have lived their whole lives, mostly contented, or if not contented, willing enough to do their duties and tend to their station and lot in life. The king makes his subject king-for-a-day. This is not typical of the king, but he is a *wise* king, and wishes to teach a lesson, so this is within his profile. Knowing poor damocles character, we know this arrangement won't last. If he were king material, he would have long ago took the risk to become one or rise higher in station. Past predicts present. The present is the best indicator of the future. This applies here. And sure enough, damocles realizes this situation must sooner or later lead to his death. Staying in it would be the same as *seeking* his death. Damocles eventually begs to be freed from the responsibility. As is his character. Who we are, at the most basic levels, predicts the course of our life, and decisions at the most critical juncture. This is no different. From here we realize the power of this simple model of behavior. The ability to cut right to the bone of who is behind what, and why. DAMOCLES RAZOR APPLIED or "cui bono?" on steroids: Some will say britain rules the world. Others israel. Or the banks. or russia. or the cia. or international communism. or the papacy. or freemasons. or a managere of other figures. While it is not a simple answer, lets ask another question: Who is behind all the chaos today? I'll tell you, its not any of the above. Oh sure, they have a hand in it, but they are not THE source. But I will lead you to the truth, not by telling you it, but by laying out the facts. The worst of america's faults did not begin until 1965. Thats when our new character emerged and became rampant. After world war 2, american industry had largely been nationalized. Russia was a wreck, and rebuilding industrial might, precipitating the cold war. Neither had reason to go to war while they were rebuilding. Especially after cooperating to beat the axis. That is how we know it wasn't strictly 'the russians'. Israel had just been founded by britain, and britain had a significant hand in establishing zionism and the state of israel. But they didn't want this arrangement upset now that the war had ended. Britain has a history of subversion, even surpassing the soviets. And britain, russia, and the u.s. cooperated in world war 2, in establishing israel. The u.s. was war-fatigued so we weren't about to go to war again so soon. No wonder instead, our ally, russia went into afghanistan, to destabilize muslim opposition to israel. On the otherhand, the u.s. had a hand in destabilizing asia. And as a result, a certain political thinker along marxian lines, came to power after a civil war. Sun tzus *entire philosophy* boiled down to subterfuge taken to the level of realpolitik, no less than the the very heart, and *soul* of a nation, down to its core. This was their *bible* so to speak. While america fought the cold war with russia, we, on the advice of compromised advisors, ignored another rising world power. FAST FORWARD TO TODAY. I ask you to look at the bureaucracy of america. It is indolent, petulant, but above all risk-averse *for itself*. There is, here, no benefit, to them, to shit where they eat. And that has been apparently what they have been doing all along. Cui bono? Certainty not the american elite. Two other world powers? Perhaps. Soviets? Russians? No. They've been a defensive nation for years, at least ever since they failed the cuban missile crisis. Not in their character. This is the profile test of damocles razor. Them subverting america and risking a major conflagration (and all the current sanctions, which no doubt they would have anticipated) makes no sense based on their past behavior. But *some* world power did. Was it the israelis? No, because america provides them with the missiles to defend themselves against other powers in the region. Some will point to this and say "but actually ALL the muslim nations are really controlled by jews!" This is supposition, which while (probably) true for at least saudi arabia, is in no way true for *both* iran and pakistan, among others. To say one entire group controls the world, is not much different from calling them omnipotent--calling them god. Thats not a rational thought. Thats a religion. A religion of self-defeat. Although I have no doubt the israelis very much want many people the world over, to believe it is true. They can keep dreaming. Onward then. Who then is responsible for the madness, the clown world policies, engulfing america and the west? Britain? France? France helped finance the revolutionary war. Britain supposedly provoked the civil war, but really this was a war *between* french and british interests. France has a history of instability, it's in its character to destabilize and take over regions. However france has largely reneged on its colonies. Where it hasn't, it has remained relatively quiet in its affairs. It is today, comparably, a gentle giant. Britain however, wherever it went, DIDN'T destabilize. When america was faced with instability from native indians, britain sent soldiers and conscripted men to fight them. When india was in turmoil, they sent troops to quell the riots and negotiate. Likewise in their asian colonies. Where they sent opium to subvert a nation, it was not so much to destabilize, as weaken and pacify a riot-some nation. Who then the world over has been known for their intrigue this past century? It is the same as their *entire history*. A history of assassinations, shifting alliances, countless factions, intrigues, wars, subterfuges, and endless cunning. Who has this *profile*? In a moment I will tell you. But let us first ask, who benefits from chaos in america? It is true, our trade partners are GREATLY reliant on the american dollar (especially so with russia up until recently, owing to the fact their number one exports were oil and gas, both denominated in u.s. dollars and thus critically dependent on the stability of the petrodollar). All the eurozone countries wouldn't benefit, because of how fundamentally tied the euro is to the dollar. At best they were *competitors* given the dollar index and the euro's weighting in it. The domestic elite of america, while grifters who go with the crowd, rely on the safety of the dollar for their insider trading. These are people who take *no* risks. They are 100% in it for the money and benefits, even above and beyond using risk to increase their riches and rewards. These re not risk takers. These are unsatiated and oblivious pigs at a decadent trough. The chaos in america, does not benefit them. Not in the long term. And that is what their character profile says, the profile of the american DC elite. They are careerists, in it for the long haul, the revolving door between DC and wallstreet, through and through. The short-term decline of america? Maybe. But the destruction of the dollar for stocks and assets that wont be worth anything if america continues on its current trajectory? We could depart from this analysis by saying "but america couldn't continue on its current trajectory, which is precisely why the elites changed direction!" But in fact all attempts to break the dollar internationally, up to this point, had to take america coming even to the brink *domestically* to even get to a point where that could be a possibility. The international and national regime was *stable* even if unsustainable on the very long term. This thinking does not serve us, leading down endless rabbit holes, and diverting the power of damocles razor. So while this domestic upset benefit the u.s., it would massively hurt our trading partners. Or converse, supposing the u.s. and its trading partners all decided together, for the great reset of the petrodollar, then it still would destroy DCs power domestically. It would be political and economic suicide. In short, the razor says "what is the MOST SIMPLE explanation is *only ever* the correct one when it fits the CHARACTER of *all* actors involved, and *best* explains who benefits." By this explanation for example, we can surmise the election of Trump was the saudis and the israelis parting way with the u.s. military industrial complex, secure an alliance while the cover of u.s. protection was still available, while the u.s. was failing. This would explain at a broad scale why he could manage to negotiate a treaty between saudi arabia and israel: they already tacitly wanted. And some reports indicate there has been a lot of talk among many muslim nations and factions of israel who all view such an alliance as favorable to every members benefit in the region--at least privately, as the public backlash against any official who suggested such, would be enormous. The u.s. could stand by to enforce this arrangement, and officials would save face saying "we dont like the new israeli alliances with nations in our region, but if we try to stop it the u.s. will intervene!" Instantly the power of damocles razor is now obvious. From this tiny unwound thread of explanation, a whole host of other seemingly obvious conclusions pour forth, without any trite low-cunning pablum conclusions. That Trump was in office and couldn't achieve a wall for america, but could for israel, is obvious on its face. He wasn't in office for that. That he couldn't drain the swamp was obvious too. He wasn't there to drain the swamp. He was a lifeboat for fading support of israel in america. But enough of that. [the question we have all been asking](https://pastebin.com/xCV7zg8p) * * * for full text, all on one post, go [here](https://pastebin.com/U5abiXaz)