Why hasn't the US attacked Iran yet?
I have been pondering this. According to PNAC (Project for a New American Century) which was a policy blueprint written in the late 90s to change regimes all over the Middle East that included Iran. 1/
At first, I thought the Iranian treaty with China protected Iran and US and China agreed that US would not attack Iran unless Israel was attacked by Iran. For years, Israel has TRIED to bait Iran to attack it for years. 2/
Over the weekend, I was watching a documentary on the Columbian drug cartel where after the fall of the Soviet Union, they wanted to buy a Soviet submarine to transport cocaine. Their representative came back and with an offer. The generals asked if the cartel wanted a nuke 3/
thrown in for more money! They didn't want a nuclear missile thrown into the deal. Aha! My speculation is that after the fall of the SU, the Iranians purchased at least 1 (possibly more) nukes. In the event of a US attack, Iran would nuke Tel Aviv or some Israeli city. 4/
The US and Israel know this but it is *secret* because if it was all over the press, segments of the establishment would DEMAND to nuke Iran into the proverbial parking lot...preemptively. Dangerous for the region if they do not take out Iran's purchased nukes. 5/
Speculation but if the Medellin Cartel could have purchased a nuke, (if story is true), then chances of Iran being able to purchase a nuke seems very plausible. And THIS is why the US has not invaded Iran to finish its Middle East strategy, which has only backfired anyway. 6/
Here is Wesley Clark saying how the plan was to change regimes in 7 countries, including Iran. This was while we were bombing Afghanistan: (2 min. video). 7/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ One way to mount a campaign to give Twitter and Facebook a real headache is to get 1 million people to click on 100 ads per day for a month. This would be 100 million USELESS clicks per day and 3 billion useless clicks in a month. This would kill Twitter's ad revenue because
2/ advertisers would discover that their ads were not performing-they would either demand refunds and/or lower click bids. Twitter & FB would lose billions of dollars. Every 7th post on Twitter is an ad. It would be easy to click on 100 ads in a day. Plus algos would be screwed.
3/ The irony is that this is better than ignoring ads, but willfully, with purpose, clicking on them really screws up FB and Twitter. Jiu-jitsu clicking...and it is absolutely legal. No bots clicking, but humans clicking.
1/ Targeting your customers digitally was an antidote for collapsing CPMs not an antidote for collapsing marketers' sales. Marginal costs for delivering ad impressions is so close to zero, let's call it ZERO. So to maintain CPMs, black box algos were created to charge marketers
2/ more money. And media owners want to charge you a premium for targeting your own customers. Then media owners conjure another trick: "Look alike audiences". They try to get marketers to target people "that look like your customers" because even media owners know that if you
3/ exclusively target your own customers, you are on a road to ruin as the universe shrinks thru death and other reasons for attrition. Every move media owners make is designed to dig deeper into your pocket. Agencies skilled in the dark art of the day propagate this snake oil.
When we started our online e-commerce company in 1998. MANY advantages pushed us online. 1) Customer service was done ONLINE AND OVER PHONE 2) No sales tax was charged, lowering costs for consumers 3) Transactional costs were lower than "old school" direct marketing or retail
4) Shipping/postage was low enough to charge $4.99/order and cover most, if not all, costs. 5) Marginal costs were lowered in our favor and we could thrive with lower gross margins, further benefits for consumers. 6) Convenience and novelty attracted consumers.
In 2021, many advantages to retailers are actually SHIFTING BACK to brick & mortar. Transactional costs for online from fulfillment to postage/shipping is no longer favorable. Niche brick & mortar stores can have 60%+ gross margins. Sales tax is no longer an online advantage.
1/ I have been pondering the calculus of decision making of different societal layers. It is quite clear that there is a different calculus used by Henry Kissinger or Bezos and Musk. The rationale used for public disclosure of actions is not what drives the bus.
2/ Oligarchs use descriptions of events accessible to the plebes. What they are great at is creating a pseudo-environment where discussion/debate takes place but the real rationale remains hidden.
3/ Deconstructing the calculus using methods and *rules* everyday people use to make decisions fails...and is meant to fail. This is a feature of Oligarchic thinking and articulation, not a bug.
1/ Covid is certainly bad on its own, but there are either intended or unintended consequences of this crisis. Whether these are just "emerging" or "planned", is not really the point. But we see a growing response to the crisis that many are not looking at the consequences.
2/ For us conspiracy minded folks, we see a technocracy as a planned response. But even if technocracy is *just emerging* as a response to the pandemic, we have human agency. The AI/Transhumanist/Globalist crowd are making hay and getting many people to embrace policies that
3/ would not have acceptable w/o the pain of the pandemic. Will the pandemic give rise to a global ID? Will vaccine passports be part of this? If entrepreneurs like me figured out how to "benefit" financially from the pandemic, you better believe Oligarchs are better positioned
1/ Online retail is getting huuuge press on its response to the pandemic. But a dirty secret is that few online retailers are actually making profits. Those flush with VC/PEG money have *invested* in growth and not profits.
2/ We have been online retailers for 20 years and have known hundreds of online retailers. Few actually understand their real costs. And those subsidized with other people's money mistakenly believe they can just turn a knob to become profitable once they achieve "scale"
3/ Simply wrong in 99% of the cases. Scale has emergent costs not originally input into their spreadsheet driven models. When the subsidies run out, they usually go on life support... and one after the other have gone bust.