Kapustin Yar

Act 1



U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have an off-the-record conversation

Seoul, South Korea, March 26, 2012.  At the Nuclear Security Summit, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medved have an off-the-record conversation in which Obama says he will have more flexibility after the election, and “It’s important for him (Vladimir Putin) to give me space.”  Some people think it means room to maneuver politically.  But there is an interpretation that he meant literally outer space.

Government talk about space or space exploration has the implication of alien presence.  It is possible that Russia and America have a secret understanding about their shared roles in outer space.  On December 7, 2012 after an interview, Medvedev made remarks offstage that the President is given a folder that is entirely devoted to the visitors to our planet; the aliens and the human groups that are monitoring them.  After World War II, there was a number of UFO encounters that gave cause to joint cooperation between the U.S. and Russia.  The secret relationship is said to have begun because of the Soviet Union’s first documented UFO encounter, referred to as the Russian Roswell.


Kapustan Yar: A Russian fighter shoots down a cigar-shaped UFO

Southern Russia, June 19, 1948.  A UFO is detected making extraordinary maneuvers over a Soviet military installation known as Kapustin Yar.  A Russian fighter jet was sent to intercept it, and launched a missile at the cigar-shaped craft.  The UFO fired a directed energy weapon at the fighter before the fighter’s missile shot down the UFO.  The rumors are that at Kapustin Yar, they recovered bodies and the spacecraft itself, and it was kept there for study and reverse engineering at an underground facility.

The Kapustin Yar UFO incident occurred within a year of the Roswell UFO incident.  The Roswell incident happened near the only military unit in the world that had nuclear weapons, the Roswell 509th Bombing Unit.  Extraterrestrials may have had an interest in the nuclear technologies that were being developed on Earth.  Both the Kapustin Yar and Roswell incidents could have been contact attempts by extraterrestrials because of the development of nuclear weapons.  Such contact could have initiated an era of secret cooperation between the world’s two great superpowers.  At Roswell, the recovered aliens were dead, and unable to assist with reverse engineering.  At Kapustin Yar, they got the spacecraft and at least one survivor.  That may have given the Soviets the advantage in the Space Race.  Ancient astronaut theorists say the United States was able to quickly catch up because of what the U.S. and Russia were doing together in secret.

Act 2


July 17, 1975.  The U.S. – Soviet space docking, known as the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, ends the Space Race and starts a new era of cooperation.  Many believe that cooperation began decades earlier, after the Roswell and Kapustin Yar UFO incidents.  Apollo-Soyuz is believed to be a “soft disclosure” of U.S.Soviet cooperation.

Moscow, July 1965. A decade before Apollo-Soyuz, scientists studied 25 photos of the far side of the moon from unmanned Russian probe, Zond 3.  Anomalies are seen, including a giant glass dome, and a 20-mile high tower.  The 25 photos are classified in Russia, and sent to NASA, implying cooperation between Russia and United States.  Russia may have discovered structures on the moon, and helped guide the first American moon landing four years later.  Ancient Astronaut theorists believe the Russians journeyed even deeper into space to find evidence of extraterrestrials.


Marina Popovich saying that Phobos 2 was shot down

Baikonur Cosmodrome, July 1988. The Soviets launch two probes to photograph Phobos, a moon of Mars. When attempting a final landing on Phobos, the probe stops transmitting.  The last frame transmitted is of a beam or object disabling the probe, and a cigar-shaped craft.  Russian reports were that Phobos 2 had been shot down.

In 1998 NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor satellite photographed a 279 foot long monolith on Phobos.  Ancient Astronaut theorists connect the photo to the Russian findings and theorize that extraterrestrials are guarding Phobos.  Both Russia and the U.S. had become aware of working extraterrestrial technology.  Extraterrestrials could be guiding the U.S. and Soviet space programs to encourage cooperation, and defuse the nuclear arms race.  Another incident involved secret communications between a Russian scientist and his supposed alien ancestors.

Act 3



Konstantin Tsiolkovsky writes the “ideal rocket formula”

Kaluga, Russia, May 1903.  Obscure schoolteacher Konstantin Tsiolkovsky published a paper on rocket science titled “Exploration of Outer Space by Means of Rocket Devices“, containing the “ideal rocket equation” that calculates the amount of velocity needed to lift a body into outer space.  Tsiolkovsky’s work was used to launch Sputnik 50 years later, and was used by Von Braun and all rocket scientists to follow.  Tsiolkovsky  was self-educated, without access to universities or other research resources.

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky subscribed to a Russian philosophy known as cosmism, which promoted the idea that humanity has an ancient connection to extraterrestrial beings.  Russian cosmism, which began in the 19th century, holds that our origins are alien, that human civilization is an alien transplant, and that our home is in space.  Tsiolkovsky’s writings described extraterrestrial beings sending messages to mankind from the stars, and that he had personally received interplanetary communications.  In 1889, he had a sighting of a cloud in the shape of a perfect cross.  Tsiolkovsky believed in a universe teeming with life that was guiding humanity’s evolution, and that he was receiving telepathic messages from extraterrestrials.  Some of his models of an ideal spacecraft resembled descriptions of cigar-shaped UFOs.  These beliefs and writings suggest that Tsiolkovsky was being guided by extraterrestrials, and that they supplied the rocket equation.


Russian Cosmism: Mankind’s destiny is to join extraterrestrial beings in the cosmos

Russia’s embrace of cosmism might explain why the Soviet Union’s reaction to the Kapustin Yar UFO incident was different than America’s reaction to Roswell.  The United States approached the Space Race to achieve technological superiority, to put satellites into orbit , and enabled the development of spy satellites, communication satellites, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.  The Soviet Union seemed more interested in using space travel as a way of realizing an extraterrestrial destiny.  Maybe Russian successes with Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin made the Americans realize the Russians have a philosophical outlook which gives them an inherent advantage.  Maybe the Soviets launching Sputnik was an attempt to directly connect with extraterrestrial beings.  That could have motivated the United States to  partner with Russia.

Act 4



Mikhail Gorbachev announces his resignation

Moscow, Christmas Day, 1991.  Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev resigns and the USSR is dissolved after years of internal conflict and crime.  Despite the turmoil, the Russian space program and the Mir orbiting space station was a huge success, in contrast to the troubled U.S. Shuttle program.  When the Shuttle program ended in 2011, the United States resorted to sending its astronauts to the International Space Station as passengers aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft, effectively ceding the leadership role in space to Russia.  The partnership between the two rival space programs was a public admission of what had secretly been taking place for decades, proving that the U.S. and Russian space programs would continue working together toward the goal of extraterrestrial contact.

Russia was now largely controlled by deep-pocketed autocratic politicians like Vladimir Putin who were free of public scrutiny that would force disclosure.  The high level of secrecy in Russia would allow them to handle and secure the more sensitive information.

In contrast, in the years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s history of extraterrestrial encounters was fully exposed.  The so-called Blue File, 124 pages of UFO cases that went to the KGB was declassified.  The top secret Soviet UFO program known as the SETKA program existed for 13 years, from 1978 to 1991. Researchers are amazed by the few available documented cases from SETKA that have been studied.

Theorists believe the United States and the Soviet Union have been secretly sharing their information about decades of extraterrestrial contact.  More answers can be found in Russian research that is intended to change the human body to be able to travel the galaxy.

Act 5 Edit


Voronezh, Russia, September 27, 1989.  Children playing in a park witness a disc-shaped craft land.  30 other eyewitnesses corroborate their account.  Two beings came out of the craft, a very tall nine to 12 feet mechanical-looking one and a modest-sized one that looked like a robot.  Both were distinguished by very small heads. The taller being pointed an apparatus at a boy who was in shock and froze him.  He was then reactivated before the craft took off.  The number and sincerity of witnesses corroborate the account of the beings as artificial-looking and mechanical.

Extraterrestrial beings could have adopted synthetic bodies better suited for space travel.  Humanity might be forced to do the same in order to travel into deep space.  There is a growing movement in Russia to take the first steps of this transformation.


Some of the 2045 Initiative goals

Moscow, February 2012.  Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov and over 50 leading scientists start the 2045 Initiative to create technology that would ultimately upload the human brain into a computer by the year 2045. The 2045 Initiative goal is to digitize a human being, download it, transfer it to another source, and allow it to go into space.  The scientists want to make a human being immortal, that can explore the farthest reaches of the universe.

This ties in with Russian cosmismTsiolkovsky said that he was in contact with extraterrestrial light beings.  We could be catching up with his vision, and by creating avatar humans, we are recreating the extraterrestrials who originally connected with him. The prospect of digitizing a human being for space travel is much more accepted in Russia than in the United States.  Experimenting on a human to transplant a brain into a robot is would take significant time to gain acceptance in the U.S..  The Russian government might do such experiments more readily than the United States.  Russian cosmism and transhumanism means they’re trying to do things that Russians already believe in.  A U.S.-Russian partnership would have benefits for space travel.  Humanity, led by the United States and Russia, could be poised to explore deep space, and also create a military space force.

Act 6



President Donald Trump calls on the Pentagon to create a Space Force

The White House, June 18, 2018.  President Donald Trump calls on the Pentagon to develop a Space Force as the sixth branch of the military.  The announcement is followed by plans for President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to have a private, closed-door meeting the following month.  Cooperation is the only way to achieve mutual defense of the planet Earth if both nations were aware of a potentially hostile extraterrestrial presence.  There may have been long line of secret communications between the world leaders prior to this latest private meeting between Trump and Putin .

The creation of the space force may show that there’s been an escalation, since  a force of any kind is created to deal with a threat.  Our civilization is beginning to send probes and maybe soon people throughout the solar system, even into deep space.  It’s possible the space force could be set up to deal with a threat within the solar system.

Ancient astronaut theorists believe the U.S.Russia relationship in space is the result of an agenda by an extraterrestrial intelligence that believes that the two nations have complementary strengths, and that space exploration is mankind’s need to fulfill its destiny.  The Space Race has bound Russia and America together as nations racing alongside each other.  The Space Race was actually secret cooperation, which is later coming to fruition for the defense of Earth.  Ancient astronaut theorists believe the human journey into space will be aided by alien visitors who see our planet as eager, cooperative explorers.

Contributors Edit

On Civility: Democrats Seek To Normalize Insanity

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Ever since the Kavanaugh hearings, Democrats have scrambled to characterize their vicious, underhanded tactics as “just politics.” And as usual, the pundits are punting. Everyone from CNN to Fox News decries the “lack of civility” in current political discourse, as though this were a bipartisan problem that both sides shared equal blame for. Democrats even blame President Trump for being crude, one radio talker even called him “cruel.” Thus, their anger and insane behavior is “justified.”
None of this Democrat narrative is true. In fact, it is the opposite. Democrats and the extreme Left (but I repeat myself), are simply doing what they always do when called out: doubling down on their behavior and trying to pass it off as legitimate.
Somehow, “crude” and “cruel” never applied to Bill Clinton’s rape, sexual abuse, and likely pedophilia. And while accusations against Kavanaugh, debunked by Blasey-Ford’s own “witnesses,” justifies angry mobs “tearing this sh*t down,” we get crickets from Democrats regarding much more credible sexual abuse allegations from two former girlfriends of DNC Deputy Chairman and current Minnesota Attorney General candidate Keith Ellison. This included a 2005 911 call, and most recently, allegations stemming from a 2016 incident. No confusion about when these events happened.
According to the luminaries of the Left, there is now a new Word-That-Cannot-Be-Spoken — the “M” word. On CNN a few days ago, moderator Brooke Baldwin interrupted Daily Beast columnist Matt Lewis when he characterized the protesters who chased Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) out of a restaurant as “a mob.”
Baldwin: “Oh, you’re not going to use the ‘mob’ word here!”
Lewis: “It’s totally a mob.”
Baldwin: “Matt, Matt — a mob… Stop. Stop. A mob is what we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia, two Augusts ago.”
Lewis: “What about the people who were at the Supreme Court banging on the walls? What do you call that, civil protest?”
Mary Katherine Ham: “And if they were tea partiers we would call this a mob. C’mon. Let’s be serious.”
But Baldwin had set down the marker. The “M” word, like the “C” word, (for communist, which frankly is what most Democrats have become), is now verboten in polite DC company.
And Democrats are taking every opportunity to draw parallels between the kind of Tea Party protests we saw in 2010 with what the left is doing now.
But there is no comparison. Leftwing protests are routinely obscenity-laden, disrespectful, pompous, entitled, threatening, often unsanctioned and violent. Furthermore, they are usually highly-organized astroturf protests with paid protesters financed by extreme Left groups, unions and Democrat mega-donors like George Soros.
Tea Party and other similar groups never engage in the kind of ugly, obscene behavior that is a signature of almost all leftwing protests, and have never engaged in unprovoked violence. Their protests are orderly and meticulously follow the law – obtaining permits, staying within their allotted areas, and very diligently cleaning up after themselves.
Even the Charlottesville protests, where  Democrats falsely characterized Richard Spencer’s group as demonstrative of mainline conservatives rather than the fringe group it is, became violent only when leftwing protestors showed up without a permit, violated the boundaries of the parade route sanctioned by the city, and were unopposed by police when they attacked Spencer’s group. This is no defense of Spencer, but without the leftists, the protest would have gone on without incident. President Trump was vilified for simply observing that both sides engaged in violence.
But it was the Left who provoked it.
The eight years of the Obama administration should be characterized as one long “opposite day,” where everything he said was the opposite of the truth, and almost everything he did opposed what he promised. His “most transparent administration in history” exceeded even Clinton’s promised “most transparent administration in history” in its duplicity, secrecy, and obstruction.
Obama set his Justice Department and the IRS against the American people in a full-throated effort to silence us while ramming his extremist agenda down our collective throats. When he refused to turn over records on the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, responsible for at least one Border Patrol agent’s death and hundreds of Mexican deaths, Attorney General Eric Holder was the first AG ever declared in contempt of Congress. Lois Lerner’s IRS transcended all history in its abuse of law-abiding citizens.
The Obama administration was 1984 on steroids.
Vicious, over-the-top defamation, lawfare, and violence are central tactics in the Left’s political bag of tricks and have been for decades. The first time we saw Kavanaugh’s “search and destroy” tactic employed in confirmation hearings was with Justice Robert Bork, probably one of the most qualified jurists ever nominated to the Supreme Court. That was followed by the equally repulsive treatment of Justice Clarence Thomas.
You must also remember that this was, according to Democrats, a supposed age of “civility,” when, with the exception of a very few years, Democrats held a vice grip on both houses of Congress for over 60 years. At that time, GOP members of Congress were ignored, overlooked and disrespected by Democrats, while the GOP responded with “civility.” This is the kind of “civility” Hillary Clinton recently referred to when she said, “if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”
Now we have to contend with daily assaults from the absolutely unglued Left; from top to bottom. Google executive Ken Norton tweeted, “Abolish the Senate.”
The Senate and Electoral College are both institutions of racism according to the latest leftist mantra. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress tweets, “The Constitution of the United States has failed.
The New York Times wonders aloud if Donald Trump is “a threat to democracy.” It is actually the Left that is a threat. Our nation is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. As the founders knew, democracy ultimately leads to mob rule. But the Left isn’t really talking about democracy, they are talking about socialism. Either way, they are the threat!
Democrats have a different word for “mob rule” too. They call it “direct democracy,” and hold up Egypt’s so-called “Arab Spring” as a perfect example of direct democracy in action. But the “Arab Spring” did not result in a democratically elected government. Egypt is a nation of 92 million people, of which a small proportion took part in the protests.
And what kind of “democratic protest” was it? Why don’t you ask CBS reporter Lara Logan, who was stripped, repeatedly raped, beaten and nearly scalped by dozens of “democratic protesters.” Crickets from the Left about that unsavory aspect of mob rule, excuse me, direct democracy. Instead, Lara Logan is marginalized for having the temerity to get herself gang raped by these budding “democrats.”
Today we live in an alternative universe, like something out of the Twilight Zone or its cheaper knockoff, The Outer Limits. Do you remember? The announcer says:
“There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission… We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical… sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear…”
Civility can only reign when Democrats hold the levers of power. Getting just rewards for the losers they are guarantees nothing but constant “resistance” in the form of insane incivility. During the Kavanaugh hearings, Senator Lindsay Graham shouted directly at the Democrat senators “Boy, y’all want power. I hope you never get it.”
Truer words were never spoken. In their lust for power, Democrats have shown they will stoop to anything to have their way. President Trump recently said that if Democrats take power they will turn our nation into Venezuela.


Why do millennials hate America?

A giant U.S. flag is painted on a grain silo in Alton, Ill. (John Badman/Telegraph via AP)

The beauty of the artificial constructs we call generations is that it allows us to lump together and generalize about huge swaths of the American public. We love to do this sort of cataloging, this bleak mental compartmentalization that lets us dismiss or embrace people quickly, some weird artifact of the time when we had to protect our caves with spears and so needed to evaluate threats quickly.

To do this effectively, you need a particular number of categories into which people can be pigeonholed, with the sweet spot at something around half a dozen. We recognize that dismissing all Democrats or all Republicans as one thing or the other is silly and overly general (though we do it anyway), so we cross-pollinate with “moderate Democrats” and “conservative Republicans” and so on. The Zodiac is too big and too obscure; only hippie weirdos know the purported difference between a Taurus and a Scion or whatever the different categories are.

But generations, man. There are just a few — silent, greatest, boomer, X, millennial and nü-millennial (a.k.a. the little babies that we haven’t named yet) — and it’s super easy to catalogue people into their generation by sight. See a young person using an “i-Phone” and talking about Justin Bieber? Millennial — and therefore flighty and goofy and selfie.

And thanks to Gallup, we now know something else about millennials: They hate America.

Since 2001, Gallup has asked Americans how proud they are to be Americans — a sort of patriotic temperature-taking. There are five possible responses: not at all, only a little, moderately, very and extremely. “Extremely” is a funny way to put it, like you are taking patriotism to the extreme — the Poochie of patriotism — and therefore look like this guy.

In that first 2001 survey, 55 percent of American adults were extremely proud to be American. That survey was conducted in January, though, and in the next survey, conducted after the 9/11 attacks, the figure jumped to 65 percent. By 2003, right after the start of the second Gulf War, the number was 70 percent. But then it started to drop. This year, the number of extremely proud Americans is at only 52 percent — the lowest recorded so far.

Why? Because millennials. Well, and liberals.

Gallup provided data from 2001, 2003 and 2016 for a number of demographic groups, and while the trend in each is consistent — up then down — the numbers differ. Republicans are consistently the most extremely proud of their country, peaking at 80 percent in 2003 but still at 68 percent — higher than Democrats ever were. Liberals are at 36 percent in 2016, the lowest figure, save for those under-30 types. Only 34 percent of millennials are extremely proud to be American.

There’s overlap between some of those categories: Millennials are more likely to be liberal and nonwhite than older Americans are, for example. If we’re clumping people together, though — which we are because that is what we do — it’s those millennials that are dragging our extremely proud numbers down.

Over this Fourth of July weekend, then, you are encouraged to reach out to the millennials in your life and encourage them to take their American pride to a new extreme. Maybe show them this video, which is categorically the most extremely American snippet of film I’ve ever seen in my life.

How to access Marianas Web (Level 5 Internet)

How do I access Marianas web?
Note: this is illegal if something happens is not my fault and use tor before going into it.

Source : /x/ – How to access Marianas Web (repost) – Paranormal – 4chan

Marianas Web, also known as Zion, domains use a .clos domain and .loky domains. Clos means closed shell. Not sure what loky means. Both of these domains are accessed slightly differently. This is the deepest, darkest, most secretive and hardest part of the internet to access, partly because it isn’t even the internet, but is instead an internet within an internet, called an intranet (see i2p).

Information on how to access this part of the web is very difficult to find, so a lot of people either don’t believe it or believe in the wrong information about it. For example, the notion that you need a quantum computer to gain access to MW. You actually don’t. Here’s how you access it.

How to connect to .clos:

First, we must have the Linux OS derivative called Ubuntu.Then download Freenet and ChaosVPN, and you are good to go. Simply copy one of the below .clos links and you’ll have your first taste of MW!

Videos snuff Choose the victim online


Human trafficking and organs



Classified Information


erlast Project


Project dark warrior


Baphomet and habierto cult


Crystalline power metrics


Broder engine plans


death coil tesla


Discussion about God and baphomet doqj64ndhsjkeipa9187z.clos

Act 13 (the 13 largest illuminati families)


5th dimension pw.k45s9vcx03f5eq2vsa2v5.clos/







nibiru turns the sky red





Anonymous 06/01/16(Wed)23:02:58 No.17761796
36.3k Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Tye Mueller

promoted by Truthfinder
Have you ever googled yourself? Do a deep search instead.
This new service reveals personal records for millions of Americans with a simple computer search.
Learn More at truthfinder.com
Related Questions
More Answers Below

How do we know if Mariana’s Web exists at all if no one’s ever been able to access it?
What is the Marianas Web?
Could the Marianas web exist?
What is inside the Marianas Web?
What is the deep/dark web and how do you access it?
Ask New Question

Eric Pudalov
Eric Pudalov, Tech writer and researcher, coder-in-training, darknet user
Updated 22w ago · Upvoted by Sierra Fernando, Secret Field Researcher at The Internet (2011-present) · Author has 606 answers and 6.5m answer views
Originally Answered: How can we can get access to Mariana’s Web?

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but there is no Marianas Web. This is one of the popular myths regarding the deep web that started with one of those mis-infographics that’s been passing around, specifically the one referenced here: Deep web – RationalWiki

I don’t know exactly who created it, but much of it is total nonsense, including the idea that there are levels to the web – there aren’t. Also, the parts about “polymeric falcighol derivation,” “closed shell systems,” and “gadolinium gallium garnet quantum electronic processing,” are completely made up as well. (Actually, as you can see in the above picture, the author tried to explain what he was talking about with side-notes. I’m still dubious.)

For some reason, the “Mariana’s Web” myth has regained popularity recently, however. It may be because people have been making YouTube videos about it, or posting on forums about it; in fact, a lot of people have emailed me and asked me about it personally!

What people are thinking of as the “dark web” is actually made up of many different anonymity networks, like Tor[1] , I2P[2] , Freenet[3] , ZeroNet[4] , GNUnet[5], Blockstack[6], and Substratum[7]. As the term suggests, these networks allow you to send email, share files, send messages, and host websites anonymously (albeit in different ways). It’s these networks (Tor in particular) on which you can find things like the darknet markets, a plethora of scam sites, many carding forums, and some sick material as well.

There’s also Blockchain-DNS.info – Blockchain Name Resolver, which is an alternative DNS with domain names like .bit, .lib, .emc, .coin, and .bazar, but not all of the sites are active. I’ve checked out a number of these, and as on Tor, many of them look like amateur sites, or old school sites from the early ’00s; here’s an example: http://shadowlife.bit/

As a matter of fact, I found a site that has an internet map, which might help dispel the “ocean levels” idea.

Doesn’t it look a lot more like a galaxy than an ocean?

I’m assuming that, when people ask about a “Marianas Web,” they’re thinking of some kind of secret network that’s only accessible by a select few. The closest thing to this that exists in reality would be classified government networks, such as SIPRNET, NIPRNET, GWAN, NSANet, and JWICS. The NATO CRONOS would be another example. These are used specifically by the U.S. government (and NATO) to transmit classified information between the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. State Department, and other “trusted allies.”

Honestly, I have a feeling that, were the average person to see what kind of information is being shared over these networks, they might find it boring! If you’re curious, it’s probably not much different than what you can see on WikiLeaks, which is now available on the clearnet (ironically). For instance, check out this specific page: WikiLeaks – Vault 8

Some of the anonymity networks I mentioned above require a little bit of technical knowledge to use, but once you get accustomed to them, they really aren’t that complicated for the average user. I suggest you stick to that.


[1] Tor Project | Privacy Online

[2] I2P Anonymous Network

[3] Freenet

[4] Decentralized websites using Bitcoin crypto and the BitTorrent network

[5] GNU’s Framework for Secure Peer-to-Peer Networking

[6] Blockstack

[7] https://substratum.net
40.4k Views · View Upvoters

promoted by Grammarly
Take your writing to the next level.
Grammarly’s free writing app makes sure everything you type is easy to read, effective, and mistake-free.
Learn More at grammarly.com
Mamunur Rashid Sojib
Mamunur Rashid Sojib, studied at BBA in Management (2015)
Answered 113w ago · Author has 109 answers and 1.2m answer views

The legend of Mariana’s Web appears to get its name from the deepest part of the ocean, Mariana’s Trench. It’s supposedly the deepest part of the web, a forbidden place of mysterious evil or at least, that’s the myths a subset of online believers has cultivated. Marianas Web, named after the deepest ocean trench on Earth.
Source: The myth of Mariana’s Web

The Dark Net is made for anonymity; the sharing of information without fear of detection or prosecution. Due to its nature this attract many people, both bad and good. some to speak freely of political jurisdiction and others to engage in all manners of illegal activity.

Like the ‘normal’ web, Marianas web has a range of topics, but mainly illegal. And that’s exactly what Marianas Web is, its the Deepest part of the Web, where people don’t want you to go.
Source:Marianas web and the other levels

Some intrepid Internet mavericks even claim that the Marianas Web is the location of a super intelligent form of female AI that has become sentient, and overlooks the Internet like some unfathomable digital mother nature.

You can only access this level using Polymeric Falcighol Derivation, which requires quantum computers to work. But quantum computers do not exists in real.

Even though the Marianas Web is a bit of a joke, the Deep Web certainly isn’t, and for me it captures all other Internet mysteries. It is a completely unregulated store of massive amounts of information with no real distinction between real and fake. Also, it’s filled with trolls and criminals, who thrive on misdirection and fear. At the end of the day, though, the Deep Web is still just a network of human-made activity: anything mysterious that happens inside it emanates from us, and our technology. Yet, the way people talk about it – with fear and reverence – almost feels like it’s somehow become the subconscious of the Internet, filled with our collective terrors, where ghosts, boogeymen, gods, myths and supernatural dreams of the past 10,000 years of civilization have been uploaded, and from where they will continue to haunt us into the future.
Source: The Four Greatest Unsolved Mysteries On The Internet
91.7k Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Tamara Kelly
Your feedback is private.
Is this answer still relevant and up to date?
Ronit Masih
Ronit Masih, Owner & Author at Godacityhacks.com (2017-present)
Answered 34w ago
Originally Answered: How can I enter Mariana’s web?

First of all, there’s no proof that Mariana’s web is real or not. Secondly, according to the information you can enter deep and dark web with the help of TOR browser which is a risk in itself.

But you can’t enter Mariana’s web with the help of your phone or your laptop. We can access Marianas web with the help of polymeric falcighol derivation for which we need to use a quantum computer.

With the help of Quantum computer, a particle can exist in two states at the same time.Due to this stability and structure, even a professional hacker can’t penetrate into Marianas web, no one can hack it easily.A Quantum computer can solve a problem in 1 second, while our computer will take more than 10000 years to solve the same problem.Only 4 Quantum computers can fulfill the need of entire USA.

Many people say that quantum computers don’t exist but it isn’t true as Google and NASA are working on it jointly and they have claimed to own a functional quantum computer the link to which is here:

Google and NASA Say They Have a Functional Quantum Computer, but What Does That Mean? – Modern Notion

But these technologies would be reserved to elites only and it won’t reach out to common masses. So, it is very difficult to enter the Mariana’s web(if it exists) despite having the available technologies.

The real question is, why would you want to? The stuff a normal person would be interested in is in plentiful on the normal easily accessible internet, the stuff in the Darknet is honestly boring for most if you’re not there for a specific person.

Take a gang hideout. If you go there just to look at say their warehouse, then you’ll be pretty bored. Some barrels here, some boxes there, that’s it. Now the gang uses it for drug or weapon trafficking, and when they’re there, sure there are drugs and weapons in the warehouse. But that’s the thing, the gangs not gonna do their business while you’re there, or they’ll just kick you out and then do their business. If you are just randomly looking around, the deepweb/darknet/Mariana’s bullshit is gonna be pretty boring. Not much to see. Some poorly interfaced websites, some troll ones here and there, and mostly sites that don’t even work or have servers down.

Now if you’re in the business of conducting business on the Darknet, then you’re in luck. Great place for private information sharing and trading of goods. You’ll find some pretty interesting things down there as well (who knows, maybe that gang also does some trafficking too that night).

So here is the cold hard truth: The sites you might be most interested in, are private (closed shell). You need an IP, or a password, or some sort of key to access the network itself. A lot of these sites are just between friends, or business partners. They can be hosted/accessed on a variety of platforms and are used for anonymity. Yes, a lot of illegal stuff goes on between these sites. Videos, information, cheese pizza, etc. There are open sites that can be accessed without any keys/codes using browsers like Tor. Again, these are generally boring unless you’re in the business of doing business, or use their forums just to chat to people (used to be a great place to get free Bitcoins too back in the day, sorry not anymore). If you just want to look around, you’re free to do so, but you probably won’t find anything too interesting and will leave.

Finally: The purpose of the Darknet/deepweb/Mariana’s cooch is anonymity. Just because you want some privacy doesn’t mean you’re doing illegal shit. I like to masturbate, just because I don’t want anyone to know when I’m doing it doesn’t mean it’s bad, just means I appreciate my god damn privacy without google shooting ads for shit I looked up once 10 years ago, or fucking facebook recommending me friends from girls I went on dates with on dating sites (which is colossal bullshit).
18.8k Views · View Upvoters
Atish Ranjan
Atish Ranjan, Blogger
Answered 10w ago · Author has 131 answers and 78.1k answer views

In one sentences, I would say it is not very easy to access Mariana web. However, you can easily access Dark web using TOR based browser keeping some safety concerns in mind but Mariana web is something about that no one is sure whether it even exists or not. So, Even if it does, you need a quantum computer to access it.

You should read more details about it in this small summarised post which talks about Mariana web in simplified manner. What is Mariana Web? Is it Internet’s Biggest Mystery?
1.6k Views · View Upvoters

America Could Have Been One Giant Sweden — Instead It Looks a Lot Like the Soviet Union

Imagine an alternative universe in which the two major Cold War superpowers evolved into the United Soviet Socialist States. The conjoined entity, linked perhaps by a new Bering Straits land bridge, combines the optimal features of capitalism and collectivism. From Siberia to Sioux City, we’d all be living in one giant Sweden.

It sounds like either the paranoid nightmare of a John Bircher or the wildly optimistic dream of Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, however, this was a rather conventional view, at least among influential thinkers like economist John Kenneth Galbraith who predicted that the United States and the Soviet Union would converge at some point in the future with the market tempered by planning and planning invigorated by the market. Like many an academic notion, it didn’t come to pass. The United States veered off in the direction of Reaganomics. And the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. So much for “convergence theory,” which like EST or cold fusion went the way of most crackpot ideas.

Or did it? Take another look at our world in 2015 and tell me if, somehow we haven’t backed our way through the looking glass into that very alternative universe — with a twist. The planet currently seems to be on the cusp of a decidedly unharmonic convergence.

Consider what’s happening in Russia, where an elected autocrat presides over a free market shaped by a powerful state apparatus. Similarly, China’s mash-up of market Leninism offers a one-from-column-A-and-one-from-Column-B combination platter. Both countries are also rife with crime, corruption, growing inequality, and militarism. Think of them as the un-Swedens.

Nor do such hybrids live only in the East. Hungary, a member of the European Union and a key post-Communist adherent to liberalism, has been heading off in an altogether different direction since its ruling Fidesz party took over in 2010. Last July, its prime minister, Viktor Orban, declared that he no longer looks to the West for guidance. To survive in an ever more competitive global economy, Orban is seeking inspiration from various hybrid powers, the other un-Swedens of our planet: Turkey, Singapore, and both Russia and China. Touting the renationalization of former state assets and stricter controls on foreign investment, he has promised to remake Hungary into an “illiberal state” that both challenges laissez-faire principles and concentrates power in the leader and his party.

The United States is not exactly immune from such trends. The state has also become quite illiberal here as its reach and power have been expanded in striking ways. As it happens, however, America’s Gosplan, our state planning committee, comes with a different name: the military-industrial-homeland-security complex. Washington presides over a planet-spanning surveillance system that would have been the envy of the Communist apparatchiks of the previous century, even as it has imposed a global economic template on other countries that enables enormous corporate entities to elbow aside local competition. If the American tradition of liberalism and democracy was once all about “the little guy” — the rights of the individual, the success of small business — the United States has gone big in the worst possible way.

The convergence theorists imagined that the better aspects of capitalism and communism would emerge from the Darwinian competition of the Cold War and that the result would be a more adaptable and humane hybrid. It was a typically Panglossian error. Instead of the best of all possible worlds, the international community now faces an unholy trinity of authoritarian politics, cutthroat economics, and Big Brother surveillance. Even though we might all be eating off IKEA tableware, listening to Spotify, and reading the latest Girl With the Dragon Tattoo knock-off, we are not living in a giant Sweden. Our world is converging in a far more dystopian way. After two successive conservative governments and with a surging far-right party pounding its anti-immigrant drumbeat, even Sweden seems to be heading in the same dismal direction.

Indeed, if you squint at the history of the last 70 years, you might be persuaded to believe that the convergence theorists were right after all. For all the excitement the fall of the Berlin Wall generated and the paradigm shifts it inspired, the annus mirabilis of 1989 may not have been the end of one system and the victory of the other, but an odd interlude in a much longer evolution of the two.

Bats Do It, Whales Do It

Bats and whales don’t look at all alike. But they both operate in similarly dark environments. Bats hunt at night, while whales navigate the murk of the ocean. Because neither animal can rely on visual clues, they have developed the ability to echolocate, to use, that is, sound waves to find their way around. This clever strategy is an example of convergent evolution: adaptation by different creatures to similar environmental conditions.

Some social scientists in the Cold War period looked at Communism and capitalism in much the same way that evolutionary biologists view the bat and the whale. Both systems, while structurally different, were struggling to adapt to the same environmental factors. The forces of modernity — of technological development, of growing bureaucratization — would, it was then believed, push both systems in the same evolutionary direction. To achieve more optimal economic results, the Communists would increasingly rely on market mechanisms, while the capitalists would turn to planning. Democracy would take a backseat to bureaucracy as technocrats with no particular ideology ran the countries in both blocs in that now-distant two-superpower world. What would be lost in participation would be gained, it was claimed, in efficiency. The resulting hybrid structures, like echolocation, would represent the most effective ways to operate in a challenging global environment.

Convergence theory officially debuted in 1961 with a short but influential article by Jan Tinbergen. Communism and capitalism, the Dutch economist argued, would learn to overcome internal problems by borrowing from each other. More contact between the two foes would lead to a virtuous circle of more sharing and greater convergence. Further exposure came with John Kenneth Galbraith’s 1967 bestseller, The New Industrial State. From there, the concept spread beyond the economics profession and the transatlantic alliance.  It even found adherents, among them nuclear physicist and dissident Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union.

In the 1970s, the coming of détente between the two superpowers suggested that these theorists had been on the mark. Policies emphasizing “coexistence,” adopted by each of the previously implacable enemies and facilitated by scientific exchanges and arms control treaties, seemed to herald a narrowing of differences. In the United States, even Republicans like Richard Nixon began to embrace wage and price controls in an effort to tame the market, while the rise of cybernetics suggested that computers might overcome the technical difficulties that socialist countries faced in creating efficient planned economies. In fact, with Project Cybersyn, an early 1970s effort to harness the power of semiconductors to regulate supply and demand, the government of Chile’s democratically elected socialist president Salvador Allende planned to usher in just such a technotopia.

Of course, Allende went down in a U.S.-backed military coup. Détente between the two superpowers collapsed in the late 1970s and, under the sway of Reaganism, American government officials began to dismantle the welfare state. At the same time, the Soviet Union, now headed by aged bureaucratic leaders like Leonid Brezhnev, sank into an economic funk before Mikhail Gorbachev made one last desperate, failed effort to preserve the system through a program of reforms. In 1991, the Soviet Union disappeared and the victory of rampant global capitalism was proclaimed.

Not surprisingly, in the early 1990s several scholars wrote epitaphs for what clearly seemed to be a conceptual dead end. Convergence was dead. Long live, well what?

The Short-Lived End of History

Even as convergence theory was bowing out ungracefully, political theorist Francis Fukuyama was reinventing the concept. In the summer of 1989, with his controversial essay “The End of History” in which he proclaimed the eternal triumph of liberal democracy (and the economic system that went with it), he anticipated the central question of the era: What would replace the ideological confrontation of the Cold War?

Several months before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the outbreak of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, Fukuyama argued that Communism would no longer pose an alternative to liberal democracy and that the European Union, the “universal homogeneous state” of his philosophical mentor, Alexandre Kojève, would ultimately be victorious. The endpoint of global political and economic evolution, in other words, was once again a political bureaucracy and an economic welfare state patterned on European social democracy. For Fukuyama, the tea leaves were clear: convergence was back as the way of the future.

What would have thrilled the architects of European integration — and the likes of Jan Tinbergen and John Kenneth Galbraith — was, however, a grave disappointment for Fukuyama, who was already in a premature state of mourning for the heroism that epic confrontations inspired.  The ideological conflict that had given shape to the Cold War and meaning to all those who fought in its political and military skirmishes would, he feared, be defused and diminished.  All that might then be left would be polite exchanges over minor disagreements in a boardroom in Brussels. The end of history, indeed!

Soon enough, Fukuyama’s thesis, briefly hailed here as the endpoint of all speculation about our global fate, came up visibly short as other potent ideologies reemerged to challenge the generally liberal democratic ethos of the West. There were, as a start, the virulent strains of ethno-nationalism that tore Yugoslavia apart and continued to rage across the expanse of the former Soviet Union. Similarly, religious fundamentalism, especially Islamic extremism, challenged the hard power, the multicultural ethos, even the very existence of various secular states across the Middle East and Africa. And the row of Communist dominoes toppling eastward stopped at Mongolia. China, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam at least nominally retained their governing ideologies and their single party structures.

At the same time, the European Union expanded, absorbing all of East-Central Europe (except for a couple of small Balkan states), even incorporating the Baltic countries from the former Soviet Union. Convergence, Fukuyama-style, came in the form of acceding to therequirements of EU membership, a lengthy process that reshaped the political, economic, and social structures of its eastern aspirants. The war in Yugoslavia eventually ended, and Europe seemed to have avoided a much deeper clash of civilizations. Even in Bosnia, the Orthodox, Muslim, and Catholic factions achieved a grudging modus operandi, though the country remains far from a well-functioning entity.

Fukuyama had, in fact, suggested a variant of convergence theory — that it would take the form of absorption. In this more ruthless narrative of evolution, the blue whale survives as the largest leviathan of the deep, while the immense shark-like Megalodon disappears. The Soviet Union made its bid for the proletariat of the world to unite and push capitalism into extinction. It failed. Instead, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany vindicated the capitalist theorists. So did the absorption of East-Central Europe into the European Union.

And once again, that was supposed to be the end of the story. The EU would be a diluted version of the Sweden that the original convergence theorists had posited — generally peaceful, modestly prosperous, and passably democratic. The “common European home,” which Gorbachev invoked at the peak of his prestige, might one day even include Russia to the east and transatlantic partner America to the west.

Today, however, that common European home is on the verge of foreclosure. It’s not just that Russia is heading off in an entirely different direction or that the United States recoils from even the weak Scandinavian social democracy that the EU promulgates. Greece is contemplating what once was heresy, its own Grexit or departure from the Eurozone. More troubling, in the very heart of Europe in Budapest, Viktor Orban is turning his back on the West and facing East, while anti-EU, anti-immigrant right-wing parties are gaining adherents across the continent. A new axis of illiberalism might one day connect Beijing to Moscow, Hungary, and possibly beyond like a new trans-Siberian express. The vast Eurasian landmass, the historic pivot of geopolitics, is sinking into despotism with a corporate face and cosmetic democracy.

And Hungary is no European outlier, despite the EU’s censure of Orban’s authoritarian tendencies. Other leaders in the region, from the conservativeJaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland to the social democrat Robert Fico in Slovakia, look enviously at Orban’s model and his political success. Euroskepticism is spreading westward, with the far Right poised to take over in Denmark, the National Front capturing the most seats in the last European parliamentary elections in France, and the recently victorious Conservative Party in Great Britain planning to go ahead with a referendum on continued membership in the EU.

In other words, a geopolitical game of Go is underway. And just when you thought that the liberal pieces had spread successfully from the Atlantic to the western edge of Russia — and under former Russian leader Boris Yeltsin possibly to the very shores of the Pacific — the anti-liberals made a few key moves on the margins and the board began to shift in their favor. Croatia’s entrance into the EU in 2013 may well have been the high-water mark for that structure. An economic crisis in Greece, a political crisis in Great Britain, and a liberal crisis in Hungary could combine to unravel the most upbeat scenario for the recrudescence of convergence theory.

With the EU potentially on its way out, brace yourself for something considerably less anodyne.

Convergence American-Style

The United States prides itself on being an exception to the rules, hence the endless emphasis by American political leaders of every stripe on the country’s “exceptionalism.” The U.S. remains the world’s only true superpower. It refuses to sign a range of international treaties. It reserves the right to invade other countries and even assassinate its own citizens if necessary. How could such a unique entity converge toward anything else?

These days, it’s usually just right-wing nuts who sound like old-fashioned convergence theorists. They’re the ones who label President Obama a secret agent of European socialism and believe that his health care plan will pollute the country’s precious bodily fluids, much as Dr. Strangelove’s General Jack D. Ripper worried about fluoridation. Despite the ornate fantasies of such figures, the United States has clearly moved in the opposite direction. Today’s Democrats are considerably more conservative economically than the Republicans of the 1970s and the Republicans have effectively purged all moderates from their ranks in their surge rightward.

Instead of converging toward Scandinavian socialism, the U.S. has been slouching toward illiberalism for some time now. The Tea Party bemoans the “nanny” and “gun-control” state, but misses the deeply sinister ways in which that state has been captured by the forces of illiberality. The United States has expanded its archipelago of incarceration, our homegrown gulag, so dramatically that we have more people in prison — in total and by percentage of population — than any developed country on Earth. Our political system has been taken over by a club of the rich — our own nomenklatura — with corruption so embedded that no one dares call it by that name and critics instead speak of the “revolving door” and “voter suppression” and the “influence of money in politics.” The deterioration of public infrastructure has, as in the Soviet Union in the 1970s, turned the country into an embarrassment of falling bridges, exploding gas lines, bursting pipelines, backward railroads, unsecured power plants, and potential ecological catastrophes.

Add in spreading governmental surveillance and secrecy, unsustainable military spending, and a disastrously interventionist, military-first foreign policy and the United States is looking a lot like either the old Soviet Union or the Russia of today. Neither is a flattering comparison. America has not yet descended into despotism, so the convergence is hardly complete. But it might be only one right-wing populist leader away from that worst-case scenario.

Where Does History End?

In the long sweep of history, development is not a one-way street that leads all traffic toward a single destination. No doubt the Romans in the first century AD and the Ottomans of the sixteenth century imagined that their glorious futures would be full of successful Caesars and sultans. They didn’t anticipate any great leaps backwards, much less the future collapse of each of their systems. Why should the EU or the American colossus be exempt from history’s serpentine ways?

And yet America consoles itself that what’s happening in Russia and China is only a temporary detour. Fukuyama might have been premature in his 1989 declaration of history’s end, but his historical determinism remains deeply imbedded in how Western liberal elites look at the world. They sit back and wait impatiently for countries to “come to their senses” and become “more like us.” They arrogantly expect convergence by absorption to proceed, if not tomorrow then eventually.

But if, in fact, the signs along the highway are not all pointing toward the same destination, then maybe we should stop checking our watches to see when North Korea will finally collapse, the Chinese Communist Party implode, and Putinism grind to a halt. These are not evolutionary dead-ends awaiting another political meteor, like the one in 1989, to strike the planet and wipe them out. For all we know, they might even outlive their Western challengers. The Chinese hybrid, for instance, seems no less stable at the moment than any liberal democracy, particularly now that its economy hassurpassed that of the U.S. to become the largest in the world. Nor does Beijing appear to be intent on ending its one-party rule any time soon.

Convergence theorists expected that certain global trends, from technological innovation to economic development, would push different ideological systems toward a merger at some point in the future. They may well have been right about the mechanism, but wrong about the results. A different set of factors — global financial crisis, widening economic inequality, increasingly scarce natural resources, anti-immigrant hysteria, persistent religious extremism, and widespread dissatisfaction with electoral democracy — is pushing countries toward a considerably less harmonic kind of convergence. Forget about the “new industrial state.” Welcome to the new post-industrial despotism.

The ongoing convulsions of geopolitics are throwing up all manner of new hybrids. Many of these market authoritarian regimes are deeply troubling, the offspring of a marriage of the less savory aspects of collectivism and capitalism. But they are also potent reminders that, because we are not the slaves of history, we can transform our putatively triumphant liberalism, with all its manifold defects of corruption, inequality, and unsustainability, into something more optimal for both human beings and the planet. The bats did it, the whales did it, and even though it’s not inevitable, we humans can do it, too.

John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, the editor of LobeLog, a TomDispatch regular, and the author of several books, including Crusade 2.0.

The reasons I love Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

George W. Bush left office with a public approval rating of just over one-third, tied with Jimmy Carter as the most unpopular president since Richard Nixon. Unpopular at home, Bush’s tenure also saw anti-Americanism reach unprecedented levels. In Germany, favorable attitudes toward the United States declined from 78 percent, when George W. Bush took office to 31 percent when he left office. In 2007, Turkey gained the distinction of becoming perhaps the most anti-American country, with only nine percent of the country reporting a favorable view of the United States. Much of the disapproval of Bush, both in the United States and abroad, centered on his administration’s response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and his embrace, at least partially, of a neoconservative foreign policy.
Much of the media, both in the United States and abroad, misconstrue neoconservatism. Too often, critics of U.S. policy use it as a straw man argument defined amorphously as opposition to whatever those critics believe. Others characterize neoconservatism as unrestrained militarism. The most malicious commentators use it as a synonym for Jewish dual loyalty. Such characterizations are nonsense, and the result of academics, commentators, and officials who believe if they can label and libel an idea, they need not debate it.
So what do neoconservatives believe? First, that democratization and traditional liberal values should be intertwined with national security policy. Rather than simply make realist calculations about what is in the United States’ short term foreign policy interest at any given time, neoconservatives believe that there is intrinsic strength in alliances among democracies, that friendship should matter in foreign policy, and that long-term security derives from transformative diplomacy. The intercession of human rights and individual freedom with foreign policy therefore becomes a national security interest. Hence, President George W. Bush’s statement in his second inaugural speech, “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.” The flip side of such belief is austere realism about the nature of some adversaries. Far from being the Utopians which some critics claim, neoconservatives see adversaries starkly. While many American and European proponents of a realist foreign policy embrace engaging adversaries, underlying such an approach to diplomacy too often is an assumption of their adversaries’ sincerity. Neoconservatives harbor no such illusions and so seek to combine diplomacy with military power. While neoconservatives are not trigger-happy, they do recognize that a strong defense can both deter would be aggressors and enhance diplomacy.
The Failure of Realism
The last quarter century validates neoconservative analysis. Take Iraq: On December 20, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan’s Middle East envoy, met Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. Reagan sent Rumsfeld to re-establish relations with Baghdad which had been severed years before. The White House and State Department feared growing Iranian influence. While no one believed Saddam to be a liberal ally–U.S. intelligence had earlier confirmed Saddam’s use of chemical weapons–Rumsfeld did not broach the subject. Human rights were not top of his agenda. His handshake with Saddam, caught on film by Iraqi television, was a triumph for diplomatic realism.
The aftermath is well known. The Iran-Iraq War would continue for another five years, leaving several hundred thousand more dead on the battlefield. Still, U.S. officials sought to engage Saddam. On January 12, 1990, Senator Arlen Specter traveled to Baghdad where, the next day, he met Saddam Hussein. For Saddam, the visit was useful, for Specter believed the Iraqi leader’s talk of peace and, over the next few months, undercut proposals by his colleague Senator John McCain to extend military sanctions on Iraq. Hussein used the delay to rebuild his military. On August 2, 1990, he ordered his tanks into Kuwait. In subsequent years, Saddam subsidized waves of Palestinian suicide-bombers, effectively ending the Oslo peace process.
The chain of events is clear: The international community had innumerable opportunities to stop Saddam’s ambitions. The fickleness of European powers and many American administrations, more interested in contracts than in human rights or good governance, not only allowed Saddam to get away with murder, but also set the stage for further war. Saddam’s career was a model of realist blowback.
Critics attack Operation Iraqi Freedom because intelligence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction proved wrong. This is a multibillion dollar scandal which should be more seriously investigated, but it is not a condemnation of neoconservatism. The status quo with regard to Iraq was not tenable. Sanctions were collapsing amidst French, Russian, and Arab greed. Post-war inspectors found no nuclear and few chemical and biological weapons, but they did find documents and presidency minutes which show with absolute certitude that Saddam Hussein was determined to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction program as soon as sanctions collapsed. Containment had failed.
Critics of the war in Iraq conflate two issues: First, the decision to go to war. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, that was a decision with wide support amongst divergent policy circles. The second was the decision not simply to replace one dictator with another. That was the debate in which neoconservatives prevailed. Accordingly, as U.S. troops entered Iraq, President Bush promised freedom and democracy. But rather than establish a stable democracy, terrorists and militias began to tear the country apart. After hundreds of billions spent and the sacrifice of more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers, it is right to ask whether democracy in Iraq was not a fool’s dream.
It was not. President Harry S Truman faced similar questions about Korea. Critics accused him of embroiling America in open-ended war and losing touch with reality. They said democracy was alien to Korean culture. Time proved them wrong. Any juxtaposition of nuclear North Korea with democratic South Korea shows the value of Truman’s policy.
Is Diplomacy a Panacea?
Iraq was not the only country in which diplomacy and a realist embrace backfired. From the moment that Iranian students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, realists have sought desperately to engage Iran. There has not been a single U.S. administration that has not extended an olive branch to the Islamic Republic, only to have it swatted away with clerical disdain.
The European Union has fared no better. The Iranian nuclear challenge was the first major international challenge outside Europe on which the European Union sought to lead. In many ways, the coming Iranian bomb is a testament to the failure of European diplomacy. When Iranian president Muhammad Khatami spoke of a desire for a “Dialogue of Civilizations,” he played European leaders for fools. Between 2000 and 2005, the height of the dialogue, European Union trade with the Islamic Republic almost tripled. Rather than moderate Iranian behavior, Tehran invested the hard currency windfall into its military and nuclear program. Indeed, in a June 14, 2008 debate with advisors to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Khatami’s former spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh admitted as much. While Ahmadinejad is pilloried in the West because of his Holocaust denial and the illegitimacy of the 2009 election, Western diplomats too often ignore that the Islamic Republic’s reformists remain as invested in that regime’s nuclear program and, indeed, claim credit for it. Realists praise the power of diplomacy and engagement, too often they ignore how adversaries employ insincere negotiation as a means to advance weapons program. The Soviet Union developed its biological weapons capability despite agreements banning such development, and the Islamic Republic has come to the verge of nuclear weapons capability despite its protestations that it adheres to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Fighting Terrorism
Neoconservatism also provides a better answer to the fight against terrorism than does realism. Too many U.S. and European officials and academics misunderstand terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. Those who employ it make a cost-benefit calculation and conclude that they can gain political objectives through the murder of civilians. When diplomats and academics ponder root causes and seek compromise and concession, they increase the benefit of terrorism and drive down relative costs. The Middle East provides myriad lessons as to how such conciliation backfires. The Oslo Peace Process which saw Israel evacuate portions of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and Israel’s complete disengagement from Gaza five years later all provide windows into how compromise with terrorists backfires.
While American, European, and United Nations officials lament cycles of violence in the Middle East, seldom do they consider that suicide bombings developed and rose in frequency after the 1993 Oslo Accords ushered in a period of engagement. Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat repeatedly used terrorism as a tactic. In 1996, a rash of suicide bombings hit Israel. Only after the West employed extraordinary pressure and Israel responded with limited military force, did Arafat reign in terrorists. Arafat’s reaction demonstrated both his culpability and the effectiveness of coupling diplomatic and military strategies. Arafat also provides an example about how diplomatic incentives backfire. Documents seized by Israel at the Palestinian Authority’s former Jerusalem office and Arafat’s compound in Ramallah detail how the Palestinian Authority manipulated exchange-rates on European Union aid to build a slush fund to pay for another five years of terror. Indeed, Palestinian terror has grown in proportion to European Union aid.
Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was as disastrous. The day after the completion of Israel’s withdrawal, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hasan Nasrallah declared, “The road to Palestine and freedom is the road of the resistance and intifada! It should be neither the intifada that is framed by Oslo, nor that which is negotiated by the compromising negotiator in Stockholm. All you need is to follow the way of the martyred people of the past who shook and frightened the entity of this raping Zionist community.”
It was not only Hezbollah which saw Israel’s retreat as a sign of weakness, but also Iran and Syria. The Syrian government facilitated supply of Iranian missiles to Hezbollah bolstering not only rocket quantity but also quality. As a direct result of Israel’s withdrawal, Hezbollah found itself with an arsenal exceeding 10,000 missiles. Empowered by the withdrawal, on July 12, 2006, Hezbollah launched a cross-border operation which resulted in the deaths of five Israeli soldiers and the capture of two others. Within hours, Israel was at war with Lebanon. Its withdrawal backfired. The lessons of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon are clear. Adversaries who do not desire peace will further conflict.
Israel re-learned the same lesson after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Rather than bring peace, terrorists filled a vacuum which sparked further conflict. From 2006 through 2008, Hamas terrorists fired more than 1,600 rockets indiscriminately into Israeli civilian centers. The Israel Defense Forces responded with precision military strikes against terrorist infrastructure and known terrorists. While the UN Human Rights Commission may condemn Israel for its military operations in Gaza, it is only Israel’s willingness to utilize military force which prevents Hamas and Hezbollah from renewing the previous scale of their attacks, as the Iranian and Egyptian governments have facilitated resupply of Hamas and Hezbollah so that today, every square meter of Israeli territory is vulnerable to terrorist groups wielding missiles. Nevertheless, the threat of aerial bombardment and targeted assassination prove a greater disincentive than international conferences and mini-bars at 5-star hotels.
The Importance of Democracy
Whether President George W. Bush was more unpopular among U.S. diplomats or European leaders is hard to ascertain. In many intellectual and foreign policy circles, Bush generates irrational hatred which many commentators conflate with neoconservatism. Bush’s crime, it seems, was not unilateralism, but his unwillingness to conduct business as usual. Diplomats live to engage, but Bush rightly determined that diplomacy and the validation it bestows upon partners are not always appropriate. On June 24, 2002, addressing the failure of Arafat’s dictatorship, Bush declared, “If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire men and women around the globe who are equally entitled to the benefits of democratic government.” He applied the same policy toward Iran, placing the U.S. squarely with reformists and democrats, declaring on July 12, “As Iran’s people move towards a future defined by greater freedom, greater tolerance, they will have no better friend than the United States of America.”
Such rhetoric was not entirely new, but Bush’s initial determination to adhere to it was. On August 15, 2002, Bush warned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that the U.S. would not supply Egypt with new foreign aid in response to the jailing of a leading democracy activist. It is the White House, and not traditional NGOs, that led the drive to cool relations between the United States and the Saudi autocracy, despite continued American dependence on oil. The era of cynical realpolitik looked to be over.
In the face of a more principled policy, Europe and the United Nations proved fickle. Former French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine said moral clarity was “simplisme.” European leader remained largely silent as Libya assumed the leadership of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Arguments that Arabs, Iranians, or Asians are unable to grasp democracy are wrong. India is the world’s largest democracy. Lebanese and Iraqis have repeatedly braved bombs and bullets to vote. It is an irony of history that the first free elections in Syrian history occurred in January 2005, but no Syrians were allowed to vote: Only Iraqis lined up outside the Iraqi embassy in Damascus.
Afghans, too, have an unprecedented opportunity to develop because of neoconservative-driven reforms. It is trendy to say that Afghanistan never changes, but every government has created change. Precedent is difficult to reverse. Military force has stabilized a regime which, while far from perfect, has restored opportunities to women which the Taliban had denied. It is silly to say that Afghanistan must remain static and unchanged through history, and it is simply not in U.S. or European security interests to allow a vacuum to develop in which terrorists could find safe haven.
Still, elections alone do not define a democracy; although critics often use their result to condemn the spread of democracy as a policy goal. Indeed, after Hamas won Palestinian elections in January 2006, the Bush administration cooled noticeably on democratization. Hezbollah’s challenge to Lebanon and Shi‘i domination of Iraqi politics also provided fodder for critics.
The problems in these cases were two-fold. First, was a failure to address the existence of party militias. Militias exist only to impose through arms what they cannot win at the ballot box. They intimidate voters and undercut the validity of any election win. Under such circumstances, the United States was correct not to embrace Hamas’ victory. U.S. support should never be an entitlement.
Second, foreign ministries and international organizations anxious to oversee successful elections often sacrifice representation for easy management of election day. This was the problem with Iraq’s January 2005 elections. Rather than vote for individuals, Iraqis voted for political parties, whose leaders compiled lists of candidates. In descending order, one candidate would enter parliament for every 31,000 votes the party received. Under this system, aspiring politicians owed their future not to voters but to the party leaders who compiled the lists. Instead of encouraging Iraqi politicians to debate security, sewage and schooling, the party-slate system encouraged them to engage in the most extreme sectarian or ethno-nationalist rhetoric to prove their mettle to party leaders. United Iraqi Alliance leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, for example, would place politicians who toed a Shiite chauvinist line ahead of, say, moderates who sought national reconciliation. Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani tolerated no politician from Kirkuk who prioritized economic development over his hard-line position on autonomy. Demagoguery flourished, and stability faltered. Recognition that systems matter is the main reason why heated debates over election design has marked the months preceding every subsequent Iraqi election.
Neoconservatism also offers the best solution to the Iran crisis. While some hawkish pundits advocate bombing Iran, most neoconservatives do not: Bombing Iran may delay the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, but it will not end it and it will create a costly backlash. The only lasting solution would come with regime change brought not by military force, but from within because of augmented Iranian civil society. Here, it seems that neoconservatives agree with the Iranian people.
The Iranian nuclear threat is really a threat of the command-and-control over nuclear weapons. Should the Islamic Republic acquire nuclear weapons at any time, it would not matter whether hardliners or reformers were in control: more extreme elements such as the Office of the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which would control their use. Only when the structure of the theocracy is disbanded can the Iranian nuclear challenge be contained.
After President Barack Obama sought negotiations with Iranian leaders, Iranian people began chanting, “Obama, Obama, Ya Ba Mah, Ya Bah Unah;” “Obama, Obama, Either you are with us or you are with them.” Rather than chant, “Down with America,” Iranians began chanting “Down with Russia,” signaling upset with Russian refusal to take a tougher line on Tehran. Signs in English have proliferated in Iranian protests. As one Iranian human rights activist quipped, “That’s not because protestors are practicing their English,” but rather because they want the Western audience to understand their wishes and desires. If true democracy came to Iran, the country may not be pro-Western: Iranian grievances against the West are real. But it is doubtful that Iran would be a threat to other countries. If the Iranian people have learned anything since the Islamic Revolution, it is to resist Islamist demagoguery. The Iranian people are far more moderate and cosmopolitan than their unelected leadership. The same is true with North Korea, Syria, Libya, Venezuela and China.

The age of autocracy should pass. The representatives of dictators should not be toasted in the West, even if they are wealthy with oil. Diplomats and policymakers should not dismiss the notion that men and women around the globe are entitled to the benefits of democracy, despite the rejoicing of Iraqis, and the growing chorus of Iranians, Lebanese, and Palestinians demanding freedom. For too long, European Commission officials, self-righteous non-governmental organizations, and self-described peace groups have subverted human-rights standards for narrow political agendas. They have done irreparable harm to those suffering at the hands of dictators and terrorists. When ordinary civilians suffer at the hands of repressive regimes, the West should not be embarrassed to substitute all manner of coercion for empty rhetoric. The cost of pretending that engagement with dictatorship is successful is often far higher than a broader strategy with transformative diplomacy at its core and democratization as its goal.

Why socialism is evil

. Many forms of socialism are virtually identical to communism.
Many people often speak about communism as though it’s a completely separate ideology from socialism, but the truth is in many nineteenth century writings, communism is treated as a school of socialist thinking, not as a separate, more radical system. In fact, you’ll find most of the ideological positions of the modern socialist parties of Europe and the Americas are basically indistinguishable from what Marx called “communism,” and many socialist parties openly admit it. For instance, the Socialist Party of Great Britain states, “As far as we are concerned, socialism and communism are exact synonyms, alternative names to describe the future society we wish to see established and defined in our Object.”
It’s better to think of socialism as a big tent, similar to how “conservatism” is a big tent with many different subgroups. And it’s more accurate to think of communism as a type of socialism that’s essentially synonymous with Marxist socialism than it is to think of communism as a more extreme form of collectivism.

2. Socialists don’t just want market “fairness,” they want a totally classless world.
If you could sum up Marx’s primary concern, it would be that he believed the presence of classes (different groups in society with varying degrees of wealth) lead to exploitation. Marx believed the workers of the world are routinely mistreated by those who own most of the businesses and that it’s unfair the business owners receive so much of the wealth when they often don’t physically provide any labor of their own.
For Marx, the only way to stop this exploitation and prevent it from occurring in the future is to eliminate all classes and create a world in which everyone gets the same amount of wealth (whatever they need, but not necessarily what they want). How can classes be eliminated? By seizing everyone’s property, redistributing the wealth, and collectively owning and managing all industry.

Similarly, the Socialist Party USA wants to “establish a new social and economic order in which workers and community members will take responsibility for and control of their interpersonal relationships, their neighborhoods, their local government, and the production and distribution of all goods and services.”

3. Marx openly called for a radical revolution and the rejection of property rights, and many of today’s socialist parties also do.
In Marx’s “Communist Manifesto,” he explains that a revolution is necessary and that it may be required for the workers of the world to (temporarily) rule over everyone else to usher in his new, better model: “If the proletariat [working class] during its contest with the bourgeoisie [those who control most property] is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”

4. Socialism has never been fully adopted anywhere in the world, according to socialists.

One of the more surprising things I learned is that most socialists don’t consider China, Venezuela, Soviet Russia, or North Korea to be real socialist or communist nations. In fact, many socialist writers say there has never been a truly socialist nation in the history of the world, because socialism in its fullest form requires there to be no classes, and in places like Venezuela, there are definitely classes: those who rule and tens of millions of impoverished citizens who are victimized by the rulers.

It’s true that Marx and other socialist thinkers would not consider many of the countries we often think of as “socialist” as being in line with their ideology (because those countries still have classes). However, free-market advocates such as myself would argue the reason socialism has never totally taken root is because socialism is impossible to achieve! If you try to collectively own and manage everything, you inevitably end up with tyranny, and tyrants don’t often give up their power willingly.

5. Socialism requires global government.
Although some socialist parties might disagree with this claim, it’s pretty clear from reading Marx’s writings and using basic logic that for socialism to work anywhere, it must exist everywhere. Why? Remember that socialism’s primary goal is to completely eliminate classes, and the only way to do that is to take their property so that the collective can own and manage it. What would happen if you tried to do something like that in the United States today? Almost everyone with wealth would try to leave, of course, in search of a place where they won’t be punished for having wealth. That means there would be less wealth to go around in the newly formed socialist nation, causing living conditions to immediately and sharply decline.
Even if you could manage to prevent all wealthy people from leaving a country, you still wouldn’t have a classless world, because some countries have more wealth, land, natural resources, educated citizens, and infrastructure than others. That means without a global government managing all the world’s wealth, you’re still stuck with a class system: countries that have wealth and countries that don’t.

There are many more things that could be said about socialism, but one thing is abundantly clear after having read through numerous socialist works: Marx’s socialism is radical, delusional, and incredibly dangerous.