End is Near? Something Unthinkable Just Happened i…
End is Near? Something Unthinkable Just Happened in U.S… Even the U.S. Didn’t Expect This Much
End is Near?
Something Unthinkable Just Happened in U.S…
Even the U.S.
Didn’t Expect This Much
But I want to go to this bizarre story coming out of America about the drones.
Are they drones?
Are they UFOs?
What just happened in America is one of the most consequential events in the history of the biblical world.
And almost no one fully understands how massive it really is.
Across the nation, the sky is turning violent.
Flood waters are swallowing entire neighborhoods.
Fires are returning without mercy.
And in several national parks, reports began surfacing of animals mysteriously disappearing.
But what’s becoming even more disturbing is not just the disasters themselves.
It’s the growing feeling that the systems people trusted to protect them are no longer keeping up.
Warnings arrive too late.
Officials contradict each other.
Prices rise while confidence collapses.
And now millions of Americans are asking a question they never thought they would ask.
What happens when the country no longer feels stable.
So stay with this investigation carefully because this does not seem like a coincidence anymore.
And if you’re already starting to see strange signs, make sure to like, subscribe, and leave your thoughts below.
It began in Mississippi, not with destruction, with the sky.
Days before the summer storms fully arrived, people across the state started noticing something they could not easily explain.
We were at church tonight and everybody’s alarm started going off.
We were under emergency tornadoes all around us.
We knew that some weather was going to come, but we didn’t realize it was going to be quite this fast.
>> The air would suddenly go silent for minutes at a time.
Birds disappeared.
The wind stopped completely.
And above small towns and open highways, the clouds began holding strange shapes for far too long.
Then the color changed.
Not dark gray, green.
A deep green light spread across neighborhoods outside Jackson and Yazu County, reflecting off windows, roads, and faces, like the entire atmosphere had shifted into something unfamiliar.
Some described it as looking underwater.
Others said it felt like the sky was lowering itself toward the ground.
And then came the tornadoes.
Not isolated funnels, but long chains of rotating storms stretching across multiple counties during what should have been ordinary summer weather.
Lightning flashed continuously inside the clouds, sometimes without thunder.
In several videos recorded across Mississippi, the sky appeared to pulse from within before the storms even arrived.
Meteorologists explained that unstable atmospheric conditions, heat, and dense moisture can create rare visual effects before severe weather events.
But people living underneath those skies were asking different questions.
Why did the atmosphere feel so unnatural before the storms even formed?
Why did so many areas report the same silence before the tornadoes appeared?
And why did this summer feel less like weather and more like a warning?
And just as people across Mississippi were still trying to understand what they had seen in the sky, the pattern moved south.
This time it came through water along parts of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.
The rain did not build slowly like ordinary storms.
It arrived with immediate force, dumping massive amounts of water onto roads, neighborhoods, and drainage systems already struggling to keep up with years of extreme weather pressure.
People woke up to streets already underwater.
Security footage from several neighborhoods captured the same terrifying sequence.
Calm roads at midnight, then violent flood water rushing through intersections less than an hour later.
Cars began floating sideways.
Storefronts disappeared behind brown currents.
Entire neighborhoods lost power before emergency crews could even reach them.
One resident near Baton Rouge described opening his front door and seeing water moving fast enough to carry garbage bins down the street like boats.
And underneath the chaos came another growing fear.
The systems meant to protect people were reacting slower and slower.
Emergency alerts arrived late in some areas.
Rescue crews became overwhelmed.
Shelters filled almost immediately.
Families trapped inside homes began posting their locations online because emergency lines could no longer respond fast enough.
Scientifically, experts pointed toward warmer oceans feeding stronger moisture systems into the Gulf region.
Infrastructure specialists warned that drainage systems across many American cities were never designed for this level of rainfall intensity.
The explanations made sense.
But standing inside dark homes while flood water climbed towards second floors, many people were thinking about something much simpler.
How much more can people endure?
And strangely that question started changing the atmosphere online because in the middle of the flooding another kind of message began spreading across social media.
Not panic, not politics, hope.
Videos appeared showing strangers forming human chains through flood water to rescue elderly residents.
Churches opened their doors before official shelters were established.
Restaurants with no electricity cooked everything they had left and handed out free meals in parking lots lit only by generators and headlights.
In one widely shared clip, a man standing kneedeep in flood water outside a damaged church quietly read from Psalm 46, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Therefore, will not we fear.”
Millions watched that video within days because people were exhausted, not just physically, emotionally.
The disasters kept coming.
The uncertainty kept growing.
Yet in the middle of collapsing roads, failed systems, and rising water, people were still searching for something stable enough to hold on to.
And for many, they found it in faith, not necessarily in predictions, not in fear, but in the belief that hardship does not mean abandonment.
That even when systems fail, hope does not have to fail with them.
For many families watching America become more unstable by the month, those verses began spreading for a reason.
Because people were not only looking for explanations anymore.
They were looking for something strong enough to carry them through the situation itself.
And while flood waters were still covering parts of the Gulf Coast, another shift was already unfolding hundreds of miles away.
This time through fire.
Across parts of Texas and the southern plains, heat settled over the land with unusual intensity.
Grass dried almost overnight.
Winds strengthened.
The landscape, already stressed by months of unstable weather, began reacting violently.
Then the fires came.
Entire fields ignited in minutes.
Smoke towers rose high enough to darken the afternoon sky.
Along highways near the panhandle, drivers described seeing orange walls of flame moving across open land faster than expected, swallowing fences, utility poles, and abandoned structures in seconds.
At night, the sky turned red.
Not from sunset.
From reflection, massive layers of smoke spread across multiple states while ash drifted through towns miles away from the active fires.
In some communities, people woke up to a thin gray layer covering cars, rooftops, and sidewalks like winter dust.
And what unsettled people most was not just the destruction, it was the repetition.
The fires kept returning.
Areas already extinguished reignited days later as winds carried embers into dry brush and damaged forests.
Some residents evacuated more than once in the same month.
Others simply stopped unpacking after returning home.
Scientists pointed to rising temperatures, drought cycles, and extreme atmospheric swings creating ideal conditions for longer and more aggressive wildfire behavior.
Individually, the explanations made sense.
But emotionally, something deeper was happening.
People were beginning to feel as though the land itself was struggling to stabilize.
And yet, strangely, another kind of message began spreading through the smoke.
Not only fear, renewal.
Across social media, videos appeared of churches gathering outdoors beneath orange skies to pray over burned communities.
Volunteers arrived carrying food, water, and tools before official recovery teams could fully organize.
In several towns, families whose homes survived opened their doors to strangers who had lost everything.
One pastor standing beside a blacken field in Texas quoted Joel 2.
I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten.
That verse spread quickly online because for many people the fires no longer represented only destruction.
They represented exposure, a stripping away of things once assumed permanent stability, comfort, control.
And in the middle of that loss, many Americans began rediscovering something else.
Community, faith, dependence on one another, and the belief that restoration can still emerge after devastation.
Isaiah 61 speaks of those who will be given beauty for ashes.
For generations, that phrase sounded poetic.
But standing beneath skies filled with literal ash, many people heard those words differently now.
Not as denial of destruction, but as a reminder that ruin does not always have the final voice.
Because while the fires continued burning across parts of America, another pattern was quietly emerging, too.
The harder the disasters struck, the more people searched for something eternal enough to survive them.
And after the fires came, something even harder to explain.
Silence.
Not symbolic silence.
Literal silence.
Across several national parks and protected wilderness areas in the western United States, rangers and longtime visitors began reporting the same strange phenomenon.
The forests no longer sounded alive.
Areas once filled with bird song, insect noise, and animal movement had become unnaturally quiet almost overnight.
At first, people assumed the fires had pushed wildlife deeper into remote areas, but the reports kept spreading beyond burn zones.
In parts of Colorado, Montana, and sections of forest near Yellowstone, motion sensor cameras captured long stretches of empty terrain where deer, elk, and smaller wildlife should have been constantly moving.
Rangers described walking through entire sections of forest without hearing birds, without seeing tracks, without even the usual movement in nearby brush.
One hiker in Wyoming said, “It felt like everything left before we understood why.”
That sentence spread online quickly because people were already emotionally exhausted from the storms, floods, and fires.
And now, suddenly, the disappearance of animals made the country feel even more unsettled, as though nature itself was reacting to something invisible long before humanity could recognize it.
Scientists offered several possible explanations.
Habitat disruption, migration pattern shifts, pressure changes after environmental instability, and ecosystem stress caused by rapid climate swings.
Individually, those explanations sounded reasonable.
But together, the silence still felt disturbing because humans instinctively notice when creation stops behaving normally.
And strangely, as videos of empty forests and silent valleys spread online, another message began spreading with them.
The idea that this world is temporary.
Pastors, Christian creators, and ordinary believers began sharing verses about departure, awakening, and the promise that one day God’s people would be gathered out of chaos and lifted into peace.
Conversations about the catching away, the rapture began appearing more frequently beneath footage of silent forests and strange skies.
Not everyone believed it literally, but millions understood the emotional meaning behind it.
People were longing for rescue, for separation from fear, for the belief that history is moving toward something greater than collapse.
One verse appeared again and again across social media.
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.
1 Thessalonians 4:17.
What made the verse feel powerful was not panic.
It was longing.
Because after years of instability, many Americans no longer feared only disasters themselves.
They feared becoming spiritually numb inside them.
And the idea of being lifted beyond suffering, beyond confusion, beyond destruction began resonating deeply with people searching for hope.
Romans 8 says that creation itself groanth and travaleth in pain together until now.
For many watching the forest fall silent, those words no longer sounded abstract.
It felt as though the earth itself was holding its breath.
And somewhere inside that silence, people began wondering if creation is reacting this strongly.
What exactly is it waiting for?
And maybe that was the moment the conversation in America slowly began to change.
Because after the strange skies, the floods, the fires, and the silent forests, more people started asking a different kind of question.
Not why is this happening, but why are we so unprepared for it happening again?
Across the country, attention gradually shifted away from the disasters themselves and toward the systems struggling underneath them.
Emergency alerts arriving too late, aging power grids failing during extreme weather, drainage systems built decades ago trying to manage rainfall levels they were never designed to handle.
And for many Americans, that realization was strangely uncomfortable.
Because unlike tornadoes or droughts, these problems did not feel untouchable.
They felt fixable.
Infrastructure experts pointed out that many flood systems across major cities had not been significantly modernized in years.
Despite repeated warnings about stronger storms, utility workers described power grids operating under growing strain from heat waves, population growth, and increasing energy demand.
Fire prevention teams warned that overgrown vegetation and poor land management allowed smaller fires to become uncontrollable far too quickly.
Even wildlife specialists connected the disappearance of animals in certain regions to habitat fragmentation, pollution, and expanding human pressure on ecosystems already weakened by environmental instability.
In other words, not everything people were witnessing had to become permanent.
And that distinction mattered because fear spreads fastest when people believe nothing can be changed.
But slowly another message began spreading across communities online and offline.
Preparedness is possible.
Restoration is possible.
People began organizing local emergency supply groups.
Churches partnered with shelters and food banks before disaster struck instead of after.
Neighborhood volunteers created communication networks for elderly residents during storms and power outages.
In some states, communities started clearing fireprone areas themselves after waiting years for larger projects to begin.
One emergency coordinator in Texas said something simple during a public meeting.
Panic isolates people.
Preparation brings them together.
That sentence resonated far beyond the room because Americans were beginning to realize that surviving instability would require more than fear or outrage.
It would require responsibility, cooperation, and the willingness to rebuild trust at the local level.
Again, Galatians 6:2 says, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”
For many people, that verse started feeling practical instead of symbolic.
Help your neighbor prepare.
Check on vulnerable families, share resources, strengthen communities before the next crisis arrives.
Not because the world is ending, but because difficult seasons reveal how deeply people still need one another.
And maybe that is the part often lost in conversations about disaster.
The goal is not to spread hopelessness.
The goal is to recognize the pattern early enough that people can respond wisely, support each other, and prevent fear from becoming stronger than compassion.
Because while America’s systems may be under pressure, pressure also reveals where repair is still possible.
And for the first time in a long time, many communities were beginning to understand that resilience does not start with governments or headlines.
It starts with people deciding not to face hardship alone.
Currently, a temporary ceasefire exists between Iran and the United States.
However, most analysts believe that conflict risks reigniting in the near future, perhaps within a few weeks or a month, as it is difficult for both sides to reach an agreement that is both mutually beneficial and truly satisfying.
Today, I want to analyze how
This conflict will unfold.
My view is the current US Iran conflict is the first typical war of the 21st century.
To clarify, let’s look back at how warfare has changed over the centuries.
The simplest way to win a traditional war was to destroy the enemy’s fighting ability by inflicting maximum casualties on the battlefield.
The side that won the decisive battle usually won the war as well.
That was the model of warfare that lasted for hundreds of years.
In the 20th century, the situation fundamentally changed.
Nation states with enormous populations could continuously replenish their military forces.
Therefore, victory no longer lies in killing the most soldiers, but in completely destroying the enemy’s production and industrial capabilities.
In World War II, the main objective shifted to attacking civilians and their rear areas to collapse the enemy’s socioeconomic foundations.
Entering the 21st century, warfare has entered a new phase.
We have nuclear weapons and the world population has reached over 8 billion.
So, it’s impossible to completely annihilate the enemy.
Using nuclear weapons carries a very high risk of retaliation.
Therefore, the goal now is not to kill as many as possible, but to use the population against their own government.
Modern powers seek to sow discontent and divide society through economic sabotage and strangulation by weakening the economy, causing shortages of food, energy, and jobs.
They hope the population will turn against their government.
That’s why I believe this US Iran conflict represents a new form of warfare in the 21st century.
First, let’s talk about the 8 billion people on Earth.
Many consider this a great achievement of humanity.
But if we look deeper, this isn’t necessarily good news.
We are sharing a limited amount of resources and living space is becoming increasingly cramped.
In fact, without modern chemical fertilizers, Earth could only support about 1 to two billion people.
So, how do we reach a world of 8 billion people where most of us are dissatisfied with the state of affairs?
Scientists often claim this is the result of the technological revolution that progress in science and technology allowed humanity to flourish.
But that’s not the real reason.
The true cause lies in a political revolution, the birth of the modern nation state which emerged from the French Revolution.
The central thinker behind this transformation was Jean Jacqu Rouso.
Although often associated with France, he was actually Swiss.
Rouso developed a theory known as the social contract which became the foundation of the French Revolution.
Before Rouso, people rarely questioned their relationship with authority.
You were born into a community and simply followed the traditions, customs, and expectations of your family and society.
Rouso challenged this idea.
He argued that human beings are born free.
Freedom is a gift from nature.
The central question then becomes why do free individuals choose to surrender part of that freedom to live in a society?
Rouso’s answer was that we enter society not to lose freedom but to gain greater freedom.
Together we create what he called the general will, a collective force that serves the common good.
He distinguished between two concepts.
The will of all, what we now call simple democracy, and the general will.
The will of all is simple majority rule.
For example, if three friends are deciding where to go on a weekend trip and two vote for the beach while one prefers the mountains, the group goes to the beach even if the mountains might ultimately be a better choice for everyone.
That is basic democracy according to Rouso.
However, Rouso believed this system is flawed because it only reflects what people currently desire rather than what is truly best for them.
He argued that we should strive for something higher.
The general will not who we are right now, but who we could become if we truly came together as a people pursuing the common good.
To better understand the general will, it helps to look at Emanuel Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative, which he considered the highest moral law.
According to Kant, three principles define truly moral human action.
Universality.
Act only according to rules that you would want everyone else to follow.
Imagine your every action being repeated across the entire universe.
Would you want to live in a world where everyone behaves as you do?
If not, then don’t behave that way.
Free will.
True moral action must come from genuine free choice.
You cannot be forced or manipulated into doing the right thing.
Humanity as an end.
Never treat other human beings merely as means to achieve a goal, even a supposedly better society.
Every person is an end in themselves and must be respected as such.
There is a ceasefire now between Iran and the United States.
But most analysts expect that this war will resume in a week, two weeks, a month.
But it will it will resume because it is impossible for the United States and Iran to come to a mutually beneficial and satisfying um arrangement.
So today I want to look at how this war will evolve.
And my argument to you today is that this US Iran war, it’s really the first war of the 21st century.
Um, and so I want to explain to you how warfare has evolved these past few hundred years.
So the simplest way to fight a war is you would destroy a state’s capacity to fight by killing as many soldiers as possible, right?
You would arrange to fight the enemy on a battlefield.
Whoever wins this uh battle would win the war.
And that was how traditionally wars wars were fought for hundreds and hundreds of years.
But in 20th century something happened which is that the state and nation state they had the capacity to have a lot of people millions of people.
And so the state could always replenish its forces on the battlefield.
And so now what you had to do was you had to destroy the state’s capacity to produce to manufacture.
Okay?
And this is really so the point is to kill as many civilians as possible before you wanted to kill as many soldiers as possible.
But in the 20th century war, mainly World War II, you’re trying to kill as many civilians as possible.
But in the 21st century, it’s different because we have nuclear weapons now and there are too many people.
So it is impossible for you to kill everyone.
And if you use nuclear weapons, then others will use nuclear will use nuclear weapons on you.
Okay?
So now in the 21st century, our goal is to use the population against the state to turn the civilians against the government by sewing as much discord and dissent as possible within society and you do that through economic sabotage, economic strangulation.
Okay.
Okay.
So that’s the argument I will make to you um today.
The first thing I want to look at is why is it that we have 8 billion people?
8 billion people are living on this planet.
And for most of us, we think this is a tremendous achievement.
But if you think about it, it’s not that nice because there aren’t that many resources to share.
There’s not that much that much space.
In fact, if it were not for fertilizers, we would only be able to support 1 to 2 billion people.
So how do we get to a stage where 8 billion people in this world and most of us are are not very happy with the state affairs?
Okay.
And scientists will tell you it’s because of the revolution.
It’s because of this revolution in technology and understanding that’s allowed us to progress.
That’s not true.
Okay.
The real reason is because of the nation state.
And the nation state it is a revolution in politics that came to us because of the French Revolution.
All right.
So um the main architect of the French Revolution, his name is Jeanjac Russo.
He was he was not French.
He was he was actually um Swiss, but he’s important because he developed a theory that underpinned the French French Revolution called social contract theory.
Before we didn’t really think about what the individual’s relationship with the state was.
Basically, you were born into community and you just did what tradition and custom and family asked you to do.
But Jen Jeruso was the first to say no, we are born free because God gave us freedom.
So why do we choose to surrender our freedom in order to join a community?
Okay.
And so his theory is that we join society to become more free.
So by ourselves um um we together okay all of us together we create something called a common will and think of this as democracy.
Democracy is basically idea idea that to make a decision we just vote and then whatever comes whichever is the majority wins.
So for example we might debate whether we go to McDonald’s or Pizza Hut.
Okay there’s three of us.
If two of you say let’s go to Pizza Hut, we go to Pizza Hut because that’s democracy for Gene Rouseo.
This is not a good system because we should strive to be higher than we are.
We should strive for total freedom and that’s the idea of the general will.
Okay?
The common will is who we are.
The general will is who we could be if we came together as a people.
Okay?
And the best way to understand the general will is through Kant’s theory of the categorical imperative.
Okay, which is for him the highest moral law.
So as human beings, what makes us truly human?
What allows us to achieve our ideal state are three principles.
Okay.
The first principle is a principle of universality.
So imagine that all your actions will be reflected throughout the universe.
So if you smile, everyone smiles at once.
If you get angry, everyone gets angry at once.
And you ask yourself, what sort of society do I do I want to live in?
Do I want to live in a society where everyone is smiling or angry?
Right?
And then that’s the way you should behave and the law of universality.
Second is the idea of free will.
No one can compel you to smile.
You must smile out of your own free choice.
Even though smiling makes you feel happy, if I make you smile, that goes against um the good of humanity.
Okay.
The third is the idea of human as an ends.
Okay.
So I can never sacrifice another human being in order to achieve a better society because we are the ultimate end.
Together these ideas form the foundation of Rouso’s concept of the general will.
Even if the majority votes to eat ice cream every day, that does not lead us toward true progress or an ideal society.
We must instead be guided by Kant’s categorical imperative and aim for something higher.
From the general will emerges the sovereign, the highest authority, essentially the sacred will of the people.
This sovereign then gives rise to the state and government, which in turn shapes citizens through laws, culture, and education.
This entire framework is what Rouso called the social contract.
His vision of the ideal political order.
The French Revolution was launched by intellectuals and revolutionaries who sought to realize this social contract in practice.
However, many opposed the idea, especially the monarchs of Europe.
In the old system, the king was sovereign.
The new theory declared that the people themselves were the true sovereign.
This created a fundamental conflict.
At the time, nearly all European countries were monarchies.
They viewed the French Revolution as an existential threat and repeatedly invaded France to crush it.
Yet, something remarkable occurred.
The professional armies of the monarchies, composed largely of career soldiers, faced off against newly formed French citizen armies, ordinary people with little to no military training.
Surprisingly, the citizen forces repeatedly defeated the professional troops.
Why?
Because the revolutionary ideals inspired people to fight with extraordinary commitment and self-sacrifice.
The monarchies relied on professional armies that functioned more like mercenaries, soldiers who fought for pay, preferred to intimidate rather than engage in fierce combat, and were unwilling to take extreme risks.
In contrast, French citizens fought with genuine conviction and total dedication.
This allowed France to mobilize vast numbers of motivated people, giving them a decisive advantage.
As a result, France rapidly became the dominant power in Europe and eventually built a vast empire.
Once other nations were defeated, they studied the French success and realized they needed their own version of national awakening.
They rejected Rouso’s social contract, but embraced the broader idea of the nation state, built instead on shared language, culture, and heritage.
This new form of nationalism, famously described in Germany as blood and iron, spread across Europe.
These nations became extremely powerful because they could now call upon their citizens to fight with the same level of passion and devotion.
This shift explains why Europe rose to dominate the world from the 19th century onward.
However, the danger of strong nationalism is that populations willing to fight with such intensity tend to engage in frequent and prolonged conflicts.
To sustain this system, European nations began focusing intensely on rapid population growth, encouraging larger families to build ever stronger manpower reserves.
This intense focus on population growth led to a dramatic increase in the number of people.
However, as populations expanded, conflicts became increasingly destructive, reaching their peak during World War II.
By the end of that war, Europe had exhausted itself.
Its civilization lay in ruins, which allowed the United States to emerge as the new global power.
America brought a completely different vision of the nation state.
While the French emphasized the social contract and the Germans focused on blood and iron, the United States developed its own model.
As a multicultural nation built by immigrants seeking to settle a vast continent, America turned the nation state into a vast economic game.
In this system, the constitution and government act as the game masters.
The rules are simple.
Anyone who comes to America and works hard can pursue prosperity.
The more participants who join and succeed, the stronger and wealthier the nation becomes.
After World War II, the United States actively spread this model across the world.
First to Europe and Japan, then to many other countries.
Some nations such as China and the Soviet Union refused to join and maintain their own systems.
But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, this Americanled model spread rapidly through globalization and came to dominate the planet.
The problem with this game is that over time a small number of players accumulate most of the wealth while the majority fall into debt and struggle.
This has created extreme inequality, the very situation we see in today’s world.
America’s system was highly successful at generating enormous prosperity and encouraging population growth to expand the pool of participants.
Yet now with wealth heavily concentrated at the top and widespread debt below, many feel the current game has run its course.
Some believe it is time to reset the entire system.
The fastest way to reset such a game is to break it down completely and start over.
This logic explains much of the tension we face in the world today.
The core argument is this.
Our freedom is a divine gift from God.
It is the very thing that connects us to the divine.
Therefore, freedom cannot be surrendered.
If we allow our freedom to be taken away, we lose our humanity and sever our connection to God.
For that reason, it is better to resist than to live as a slave.
This belief deeply motivated the citizens during the French Revolution.
Ordinary people with no military training were willing to charge bravely into heavy enemy fire against professional soldiers.
Their driving spirit was give me liberty or I am nothing.
Without freedom, life itself had no meaning.
This idea is extremely important.
Let me share another key passage from Rouso.
I am continually astonished that such a simple sign of good government is not recognized or perhaps men recognize it but are not honest enough to admit it.
What is the purpose of any political association?
The preservation and prosperity of its members.
And what is the clearest sign of that preservation and prosperity?
Their numbers and population growth.
Other things being equal, the best government is the one under which the population increases most rapidly without relying on the immigration of foreigners or the establishment of colonies.
The government under which the population declines is the worst.
Over to you, statistitians count, measure, and compare.
This reveals two powerful ideas that emerged from the French Revolution.
Liberty is the highest value.
A good government and a thriving society must actively promote population growth.
The more people, the stronger and more successful the nation.
These two principles together enabled France to become the dominant power in Europe at the time.
French territories shown in dark green on historical maps expanded dramatically, creating a vast empire across much of Europe.
The French success alarmed the Germans who were being defeated and occupied.
German intellectuals responded by developing a new theory of nationalism.
The most influential figure was Johan Got Fika, widely regarded as the father of German nationalism.
Ficta argued that what truly binds people together is not liberty but language.
Language connects us to our ancestors, to our shared culture, and to one another.
It is language along with blood, heritage and nation that is worth defending and fighting for.
This new philosophy became the foundation of the modern German state.
At the time, Germany was fragmented into hundreds of small kingdoms.
Advan Bismar of Prussia unified the German people through iron and blood, creating what became known as the second Reich.
In his famous speech, Bismar declared, “The position of Prussia in Germany will not be determined by its liberalism, but by its power.
” Prussia must concentrate its strength and hold it ready for the favorable moment, which has already come and gone several times.
Since the treaties of Vienna, our frontiers have not been suitable for a healthy body politic.
Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided.
That was the mistake of 1,848 1,849, but by iron and blood.
In short, the Germans concluded that as a nation, they must protect their identity and freedom through strength and decisive action.
Only through powerful struggle could they survive and prosper as a people.
But how do you actually win wars?
The key is to ensure your entire population is well cared for and supported.
Bismar understood this clearly.
Let me share this passage.
The real grievance of the worker is the insecurity of his existence.
He is not sure that he will always have work.
He is not sure that he will always be healthy.
He foresees that one day he will grow old and be unable to work.
If he falls into poverty, even through a prolonged illness, he is left completely helpless.
Society currently offers him no real protection beyond basic poor relief.
Even though he has worked faithfully and diligently his entire life, Bismar transformed Germany into Europe’s most powerful nation by recognizing that victory in war depends not only on soldiers but on the entire population.
Workers are the ones who build the weapons, produce ammunition, and manufacture machines of war.
Healthy, secure workers are just as vital as healthy soldiers.
That is why he introduced progressive social reforms.
Health insurance, accident insurance, old age pensions, and protections for workers and children.
He saw the nation state as a system designed to create strong, capable people who could contribute fully to the national effort.
Mussolini took this idea even further.
He believed the true purpose of a nation state is to prepare for conflict and that war gives people a profound sense of meaning and purpose.
He deliberately built a national mythology around the greatness and glory of the nation.
In one of his speeches, he declared, “We have created our myth.
The myth is a faith, a passion.
It does not need to be a reality.
It is a reality by the fact that it is a stimulus, a hope, a faith and courage.
Our myth is a nation.
Our myth is the greatness of the nation.
To this myth, to this greatness which we wish to translate into a complete reality, we subordinate everything else.
This marked the peak of the modern nation state model.
During World War II, the nature of warfare had changed completely.
Soldiers were no longer professional mercenaries.
They were ordinary citizens, deeply committed to their nations.
Victory no longer depended on superior strategy or morale alone.
It came down to which side could better protect its own industrial and productive capacity while disrupting the enemies.
The Allies ultimately prevailed because they could severely damage the manufacturing base of Germany and Japan while their own production centers remained largely intact or were safely relocated.
American factories continued operating at full capacity and Soviet industry was moved deep into Siberia far beyond the reach of German forces.
In contrast, German and Japanese cities were heavily bombed.
From 1940 to 1945, for example, Allied forces conducted massive firebombing campaigns over German cities, such as the complete destruction of Dresden.
The lesson was clear.
There was little value in simply defeating enemy forces on the battlefield because new troops and weapons could always be produced and sent forward.
The real target had become the enemy’s ability to sustain the war effort.
To win modern wars, it became necessary to severely disrupt the enemy’s civilian population and industrial base.
That was the decisive factor in defeating Germany.
The campaign against Japan was even more extensive.
American firebombing campaigns destroyed at least half of Japan’s urban areas.
Without this destruction of their productive capacity, Japan might have continued fighting much longer.
Major cities suffered enormous damage.
Nagoya, a city roughly the size of Los Angeles, saw 40% of its area destroyed.
Tokyo, comparable to New York City, lost about 40% of its builtup area, while Yokohama lost around 60%.
These were vast population and industrial centers.
The power of the nation state idea meant that victory in war now required targeting not just enemy armies but the broader society that supported them.
As nation states grew stronger, conflicts became increasingly destructive, requiring ever greater mobilization of entire populations.
World War II stands as the clearest example.
Although it brought immense tragedy and suffering on a massive scale, global population growth never slowed.
For most of human history, population increased very gradually.
Then, beginning around the year 1600, it surged dramatically.
Scientists often attribute this boom to advances in science and technology.
But humanity had always possessed knowledge and tools.
The real turning point was the rise of the nation state, which recognized that success in conflict depended on having large motivated populations willing to make great sacrifices for their country.
To achieve that loyalty, governments had to improve living conditions and provide better support for their people.
This is why nation states actively promoted advances in medicine, sanitation, and public health innovations that dramatically increased population numbers.
After the widespread devastation of World War II, the world turned to the United States for leadership.
The consensus was to build a new international system that would prevent future large-scale conflicts.
America responded by creating a global economic model, consumer capitalism, that we still live under today.
This system is unique in human history.
For decades, it was remarkably successful.
It helped global population grow from roughly 2 billion to over 8 billion.
It lifted hundreds of millions of people into greater prosperity and created unprecedented levels of wealth.
Consider the enormous wealth China has created over the past 3 to four decades through its participation in consumer capitalism.
However, the system has now become unbalanced, unstable, and unsustainable.
As a result, the world is shifting back toward large-scale conflict.
Because global population levels are so high, any future major war would carry catastrophic human and societal costs.
The ongoing war in Ukraine already illustrates this reality.
It resembles a 19th century style conflict, similar in nature to World War I, where the primary goal is to exhaust and neutralize the opponent’s military forces as thoroughly as possible.
In contrast, the developing conflict with Iran is set to become the first true 21st century war.
In the initial phase, the United States attempted a shock and awe approach, rapidly removing top leadership, disabling military command structures, and destroying key production facilities.
However, this strategy has proven ineffective against Iran.
The country had spent nearly two decades preparing for exactly this scenario.
Its organization is highly decentralized with backup leadership ready to step in immediately.
Military assets and production facilities are deeply hidden in mountainous regions making them extremely difficult to eliminate completely.
As a result, even after significant setbacks, Iran remains capable of continuing the fight.
Over the coming months, the United States is expected to shift toward a more sophisticated 21st century warfare strategy with three main components.
Economic strangulation, systematically dismantling Iran’s entire economy, exploiting ethnic tensions, intensifying divisions, and conflicts between different groups within Iranian society.
Destruction of civilian infrastructure, targeting systems that provide water, electricity, and food supplies.
The goal of disrupting these basic necessities is to create widespread hardship and frustration among the population.
When people face severe shortages, their anger tends to turn toward their own government, which is easier to blame and challenge than a distant foreign military.
This combination of economic pressure, internal division, and infrastructure collapse, represents the emerging model of 21st century conflict.
It is the approach the United States is likely to pursue in Iran in the near future.
Why hasn’t this approach been used more openly until now?
Because these actions are widely considered war crimes.
They violate international treaties and the Geneva Conventions which strictly limit attacks on civilian infrastructure.
However, as the United States faces increasing pressure and the conflict drags on, it may decide to abandon these restrictions in order to achieve victory.
Here is how this new phase of the war is likely to unfold.
In the early stages, American forces focus primarily on military targets such as weapon systems and bases.
But this approach consumes large amounts of munitions and has proven insufficient to break Iran’s will to continue fighting.
A more strategic method is now emerging, one that focuses on high impact targets affecting both the economy and the daily lives of ordinary citizens.
Key elements include water infrastructure, selectively targeting certain dams and reservoirs to create significant pressure on the civilian population.
This can lead to widespread frustration and potential unrest against the government.
Transportation networks disrupting major roads and railways.
Cities like Thyron, home to over 10 million people, rely heavily on food supplies brought in from rural areas.
By targeting critical transport hubs, food distribution becomes much more difficult.
Power generation attacking power plants and related facilities.
These targets are relatively vulnerable and their disruption creates immediate broad effects across society.
The logic is clear.
Continuing to strike only military targets will eventually exhaust munitions without forcing surrender.
Instead, by carefully selecting infrastructure targets, far greater disruption can be achieved with limited resources.
The goal is to generate maximum strain on the population’s access to water, electricity, and food.
In this model, the most powerful weapon is no longer aircraft carriers or fighter jets.
It is the growing discontent of the Iranian people themselves.
By turning everyday hardship against the government, external forces can weaken the state from within.
This represents the emerging pattern of 21st century warfare.
Slow, methodical, and focused on systemic pressure rather than decisive battlefield victories.
It relies on triangulation, creating multiple simultaneous challenges rather than a single knockout blow.
Another critical element is economic strangulation.
Iran finances its war effort mainly through oil exports and control of the Strait of Hormuz.
The United States has already imposed a blockade on Iran’s main oil terminal at Carg Island, through which roughly 90% of its oil, mostly destined for China, is shipped.
Disrupting the Strait of Hormuz further weakens Iran’s revenue.
In addition, positioning forces near minority regions in northwest and southeast Iran could encourage local unrest, forcing Iranian troops to respond to internal threats and stretching their resources thin across multiple fronts.
This is the nature of modern conflict, expanding the battlefield, collapsing the economy, and using sustained pressure instead of direct confrontation.
The United States has employed similar subtle strategies in the past, but they are now becoming more overt.
Why is this happening now?
In 2012, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinad publicly accused the United States of conducting weather warfare against Iran by deliberately creating droughts.
The method he referred to is known as cloud seeding, releasing silver iodide into clouds to force rainfall in one area, which can prevent rain from reaching another.
In 2019, Iran faced severe drought concerns while Dubai experienced unusually heavy flooding.
Some Iranians claimed this was part of a deliberate weather manipulation strategy.
There are also broader conspiracy theories suggesting that programs like HAP, originally designed for atmospheric research, could be used to influence extreme weather patterns, including storms, floods, and droughts.
Whether these claims are true remains highly debated.
What we do know is that in 1962, Lynden B.
Johnson, then a US senator, made a striking statement.
He who controls the weather will control the world.
He argued that future conflicts would be decided not by traditional weapons, but by the ability to influence weather patterns.
From 1967 to 1972 during the Vietnam War, the United States actually carried out Operation Papey, a real cloud seeding program designed to extend the monsoon season.
The goal was to make supply routes more difficult for Vietnamese forces by increasing rainfall and flooding, thereby disrupting their logistics while American forces operated from the air.
This confirms that weather modification technology has been developed and tested.
The ongoing debate centers on how effective, powerful, and scalable such technology truly is today.
We are already seeing elements of 21st century warfare taking shape around the world.
For example, Cuba is currently facing an oil embargo that has led to widespread blackouts.
The strategy is not direct confrontation, but sustained economic and infrastructural pressure designed to create hardship so that the population eventually turns against its own government.
In recent months, there have also been numerous mysterious incidents damaging oil refineries and energy infrastructure in various regions.
Notably, North America remains largely unaffected due to its strong energy reserves and wealth.
If other parts of the world face severe energy and food shortages, they may become more dependent on resources from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, giving America greater leverage in global affairs.
Another key tool in this new form of conflict is the so-called color revolution playbook.
The United States has a wellestablished approach that involves inviting young activists from target countries to the US for training and organizing protest movements and promoting political change, funding youthled groups and opposition movements
Abroad, using social media and information networks to amplify discontent and mobilize populations.
We saw this pattern play out recently in Nepal where young people helped bring down the government.
Even though most Nepalese do not speak English or regularly consume English language media, the movement still gained significant traction.
So why were these young protesters in Nepal holding signs written in English slogans like okay boomer times up and we pay you flex enough?
Okay boomer is an American expression, not a Nepalese one.
Most people in Nepal don’t even speak English.
These signs were clearly not meant for the local population.
They were intended for an international audience, particularly in Washington.
In other words, the protests were staged and funded from outside.
Someone was paying the demonstrators to carry English language slogans so the images could be used to convince superiors in Washington that the movement was gaining momentum.
This pattern is increasingly common around the world.
Many so-called popular uprisings are not truly organic, but are carefully orchestrated by external powers for their own strategic interests.
A clear historical example is the Arab Spring of 2010, 2012.
Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook played a major role in organizing crowds and spreading unrest across the Middle East.
These events are classic cases of what is known as the color revolution playbook.
This strategy goes beyond economic pressure.
The United States has developed sophisticated methods to destabilize governments by turning a country’s own population against it.
The playbook typically includes training and funding youth movements, using social media to amplify discontent, organizing large-scale protests, quietly influencing or bribing security forces to stand down.
This approach has been used successfully in multiple countries.
It allows Washington to challenge regimes that oppose its interests without direct military confrontation.
America’s advantage lies in its control over critical global choke points, the Strait of Malaca, the Panama Canal, the Strait of Gibralar and others.
Even though Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, the US can deploy aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean and impose effective blockades.
This same logic applies to China.
Many believe the ultimate goal is to pressure China economically.
Since China’s economy depends heavily on exports, disrupting its trade routes could cause serious damage.
A sharp economic downturn could lead to rising unemployment and growing domestic discontent, potentially triggering internal instability.
That is what 21st century warfare looks like.
You no longer send in large numbers of troops or focus solely on physical destruction.
Instead, you apply sustained pressure to strangle a nation’s economy and society, creating conditions that encourage the population to rise up against its own government.
The central conclusion is this.
Success in 21st century conflict ultimately comes down to population management.
Your adversary will try to provoke unrest within your population to weaken or collapse your state from within.
Therefore, the only effective response is to maintain strong control over your own people.
This often requires harsh measures from restricting access to essential resources to creating widespread hardship in order to suppress disscent.
To achieve this level of control efficiently, governments are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence, mass surveillance, and advanced monitoring systems.
An AI powered surveillance state is becoming the most effective tool for managing large populations during times of prolonged pressure.
This is the future we are heading toward.
There is no easy way around it.
With such a large global population and ongoing geopolitical rivalries, major conflicts are almost inevitable and they will demand new, more ruthless strategies of control.
Question.
If a country is attacked using this 21st century strategy, how can it respond?
For example, how can Iran counter America’s current approach?
Answer.
When facing economic strangulation, infrastructure attacks, and internal division, game theory suggests there is essentially only one viable counter strategy, creating deep ideological commitment or fanaticism among the population.
When people are suffering from shortages and have little hope for the future, leaders can frame the hardship as part of a larger divine or historic mission.
They tell the people that through endurance and sacrifice they will become invincible.
This mindset can inspire extreme acts of devotion and self-sacrifice in defense of the nation or faith.
History shows that you don’t need the entire population to embrace this mindset.
Only 10 to 20% can be enough to shift the outcome of a conflict.
A powerful example is the Iran Iraq war in the 1980s.
Iraq had a modern, welle equipped army supported by both the United States and the Soviet Union.
Iran, by contrast, had a weakened military with limited equipment.
Yet, Iran managed to resist and eventually turn the tide by promoting the idea that the greatest honor was to offer total devotion to the nation and God.
This inspired waves of young volunteers to engage in incredibly courageous and high-risk operations.
This spirit of total commitment not only strengthened Iranian resistance but also created a powerful psychological effect on Iraqi forces who were shocked by the fearlessness they faced.
Even though 21st century warfare appears overwhelmingly powerful on the surface, this kind of intense ideological commitment remains one of the few effective counters.
That is why we are likely to see a significant rise in religious extremism and radical ideologies in the coming years because they serve as a natural response to this new form of systemic pressure.
