How Much Power Do Other Countries Think That America Has?

"The History of the Intelligence State" -- an essential 40 min lecture on the origin story of The Blob. Thanks to @Hillsdale for a beautiful event. Timestamps in tweet below pic.twitter.com/GTRrgPpLqt

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) September 24, 2024

Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals"

1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the experience of your people."

3. "Whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."

8. "Keep the pressure on."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."

Is the fact that Trump is currently both exposing AND burning down the NED and USAID an indication the Peter Thiel's Palantir no longer requires the "old Intel apparatus"... or an Alinskyan bluff intended to buy time by convincing our enemies that we have more power to control world events than they had previously imagined, while we await an AI breakthrough or technological singularity event?

And can America  return to the pursuit of George Kennan's original 'mad' vision before his "whole of society" doctrine was implemented and turned the people of the world into "mere rags" of US manipulation?

Isaiah Berlin 2/13/51 letter to George Kennan (excerpt):

When armies were slaughtered by other armies in the course of history, we might be appalled by the carnage and turn pacifist; but our horror acquires a new dimension when we read about children, or for that matter grown-up men and women, whom the Nazis loaded into trains bound for gas chambers, telling them that they were going to emigrate to some happier place. Why does this deception, which may in fact have diminished the anguish of the victims, arouse a really unutterable kind of horror in us? The spectacle, I mean, of the victims marching off in happy ignorance of their doom amid the smiling faces of their tormentors? Surely because we cannot bear the thought of human beings denied their last rights--of knowing the truth, of acting with at least the freedom of the condemned, of being able to face their destruction with fear or courage, according to their temperaments, but at least as human beings, armed with the power of choice. It is the denial to human beings of the possibility of choice, the getting them into one's power, the twisting them this way and that in accordance with one's whim, the destruction of their personality by creating unequal moral terms between the gaoler and the victim, whereby the gaoler knows what he is doing, and why, and plays upon the victim, i.e. treats him as a mere object and not as a subject whose motives, views, intentions have any intrinsic weight whatever--by destroying the very possibility of his having views, notions of a relevant kind--that is what cannot be borne at all.

What else horrifies us about unscrupulousness if not this? Why is the thought of someone twisting someone else round his little finger, even in innocent contexts, so beastly (for instance in Dostoevsky's Dyadyushkin son [Uncle's Dream, a novella published in 1859], which the Moscow Arts Theatre used to act so well and so cruelly)? After all, the victim may prefer to have no responsibility; the slave be happier in his slavery. Certainly we do not detest this kind of destruction of liberty merely because it denies liberty of action; there is a far greater horror in depriving men of the very capacity for freedom--that is the real sin against the Holy Ghost. Everything else is bearable so long as the possibility of goodness--of a state of affairs in which men freely choose, disinterestedly seek ends for their own sake--is still open, however much suffering they may have gone through. Their souls are destroyed only when this is no longer possible. It is when the desire for choice is broken that what men do thereby loses all moral value, and actions lose all significance (in terms of good and evil) in their own eyes; that is what is meant by destroying people's self-respect, by turning them, in your words, into rags. This is the ultimate horror because in such a situation there are no worthwhile motives left: nothing is worth doing or avoiding, the reasons for existing are gone. We admire Don Quixote, if we do, because he has a pure-hearted desire to do what is good, and he is pathetic because he is mad and his attempts are ludicrous.