Open Source Warfare; Attack on Russia

John Robb on Jack Murphy Live Podcast

What is happening to Russia can happen to anyone of us at any time.

John Robb speaks of “open source warfare,” and also calls it an “open source network swarm.” Robb makes an analogy with the death of apex predators. When wolves are present, coyotes, which are just below the level of wolves, have their population constrained, the landscape flourishes with vegetation which is not overeaten by deer. Wolves do not over hunt. They have evolved to help create a stable habitat. In their absence, the lower level predators, in this case, coyotes, run rampant and kill too much. The result is famine, disease, erosion, and “trophic cascades.”

Robb analogizes nation states to apex predators. Once they interlinked through globalization, they started to weaken. In this state, they are not able to exert control over competitors, and their biggest competitor right now is the network. What we are seeing is a network at war with a nation state; Russia. The second tier, mesopredators, do not have the controls and constraints that apex predators have built in, to regulate the population and the environment. The predators die from overhunting and cause the other problems.

With the rise of networks, and corporations which were mesopredators held in check by the nation state, corporations became more powerful and started competing with the state. Jack Murphy comments that we think of the apex predator as the dangerous killer that it would be nice to get rid of, but, actually, his presence makes the system function better with trickle down effects.

Nation states have started to rely on corporations to maintain stability because corporations can do things nation states cannot, such as to crush dissent and to control public dialog, because we do not have rights with regard to corporations. There is nothing holding them in line and they can do basically what they want, so we are only bound by “terms of service” instead of by a constitution, and terms of service are up to the company, they can be changed, and they can be selectively applied. Or, in the case of the network, the big open source network, in the Ukraine situation, it is maximalist. You get a network swarm in action. There is no way to mitigate it, modify it, or turn it off. No one person or even corporation is in control. The network swarm is controlled by widely distributed woke fanatics all around the planet: “Karens;” named after the displeased and entitled woman who demands to see the manager. The open source network swarm ignores the reality of nuclear weapons; it has no sense of mortality unlike individuals and members of nation states. It ignores global economic damage and shortages for those unable to afford high energy and food costs.

These self-important Karens are likely to want “regime change.” Putin had already been designated as the next Hitler prior to the Ukraine invasion because he sees Woke globalism as a plague upon the planet and has expressed his desire for it not to enter Russian shores. He wants no part of transgenderism or gay marriage, taught, as it is, as early as kindergartens in some cases, and the Russians had already been designated as people who it is OK to hate. As JMSmith points out in his poem at The Orthosphere, there are no calls to hate the leader but not to extend it to all Russians. There are Islamophobes, homophobes, but no “Russophobes.”

With the open source network swarm there is no proportionality – i.e., the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. You cannot appease it. There is no one to negotiate with. Their power is seemingly unlimited. They control all things digital, and the list of digitized economic and cultural factors only grows longer. The network swarm can destroy a country’s monetary system. They can freeze bank accounts, stop “Swift,” the secure protocols used to transfer money between financial institutions, primarily banks. The credit card companies can shut you down. Companies used for the transfer of money and payments like PayPay, Patreon, Vimeo, Go Fund Me, can simply deny service. Infamously, Go Fund Me initially said that not only would they stop payments to the trucker protest in Canada, but that they would keep all the money sent. Only after an outcry and bad publicity, did they say they would send the money to charities of their choice, and then only finally and reluctantly they were forced to promise to return the money to the senders. To put this in context, Go Fund Me did not shut off payments to the “Chaz” Capital Hill Autonomous Zone, AKA “Chop” Capital Hill Occupied Protest, where barriers were set up stopping police and emergency services from entering for three weeks, where rapes took place, only being shut down when two black men were killed. By contrast, the Canadian truckers killed and raped no one. Alarmingly, there were calls by Canadians to have the bank accounts frozen of US citizens who tried to send money to the truckers.

The network can eliminate the primary means of mass interpersonal communication – social media and thus determine what can be said and heard. Ironically, by doing this in Russia, Russians are now subjected almost exclusively to Russian government propaganda.

The network swarm can shut down search engines. Google has withdrawn from the Russian market. Most entertainment is digital. Netflix has pulled out of Russia. Amazon has left. Maybe Russians will return to reading books, assuming they can get their hands on any. UPS and Fedex will not be delivering anything. Microsoft will not sell products or provide service, and so on.

Robb comments that for Russia to turn off the swarm and reintegrate into the West would require complete capitulation; including regime change, war crimes/reparations (implied), and disarmament (nuclear and conventional), and that is not going to happen. The prospect of Putin feeling pressured into using nukes as his last resort seems at least imaginable. Robb has a Quote Tweet as evidence:

The Kyiv Independent


Ukraine looks for means to use Russia’s seized reserves as war reparations. Deputy Minister of Economy Denys Kudin said that Ukraine is looking for ways to receive the $415 billion of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves seized by the Western countries.

Most importantly, is that these tactics; the massive, oversized scapegoating available to the open source network, can and is directed at single individuals for a joke or a non-approved statement. There is no legal recourse for such an attack. One ostentatiously non-compliant individual, Nick Fuentes, was denied a bank account at over twenty banks. Each time he opened a new account, the bank would be swarmed with threats, mostly of bad publicity, and the miscreant would be rejected.

In open source warfare, as with all large scale scapegoating, the participants often cannot agree on what they like, but they can about what they hate. They currently hate Russia and white men, particularly if they are Christian. If you disagree with the network you get disconnections and bans. Robb suggests that the network does not use arguments but uses images to produce “empathy triggers,” such as the George Floyd video.

Robb describes a Chinese intellectual studying the US in the 1980s who saw the universities as a replication system for maintaining stability. The universities were the way that we transferred our culture and introduced new technology, refreshing our elites and senior bureaucrats over time in corporations and in government and he saw that it was breaking down, moving away from perpetuating the culture and the inventions we used to maintain our stability and saw a growing antagonism within the university system to the Western way of life. He saw this as an internal contradiction that would destroy us and he tried to devise a plan for this not happening in China, to keep their culture intact in the face of rapid globalization and technological change which was only going to get worse. So, China devised network control over everyone. Teenagers could only spend three hours a week gaming and got punished if they did more. They watch your purchases, and public debates, clamping down when necessary. This was based on Confucianism which is itself centered around the family. The Chinese wanted to avoid the destruction of the family that they saw happening in the US in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Robb comments that if you lock things down in this manner, then you need to do horrible things to people within your country who do not align, like the Uighurs. They sent a million men into camps to renounce Islam and sent bureaucrats into homes where the man had been removed and tried to force them to adopt Chinese ways. There is also the problem that the culture becomes stagnant and misses ways of adapting to the environment as it changes.

The same Chinese official thought US success was based on decentralization and focus on the individual, making us innovative, but China responded by centralizing everything nonetheless. Americans concentrate on trying to differentiate themselves from other people. It incentivizes coming up with a new song, fashion; something at work that makes you special.

Politicians know that if they try to assume leadership and try to stop the network attacks, and say “Lets create a way for Putin to extract himself,” that they will be attacked politically, fired from their jobs, ostracized and destroyed. Boris Johnson is trying to lead it and you do that by trying to innovate; to come up with new ways to advance its goal. For instance, trying to formalize the ban on oil imports. But, you are only a leader if you are advancing the goal of the network and once your usefulness is over you are gone.

When you are having an open source war against a nuclear power, who is doing the calculation concerning mutually assured destruction with regard to nuclear weapons? No one. The network has reduced Russia to the level of isolation of North Korea in a week. The technology stacks they are using to run all their equipment and their economy are broken. They are trying to import Chinese tech and systems but it is not something you can do overnight. It turns a regional conflict into a war of existence. A global war for the very existence of Russia. That changes all the calculations for when you use nukes. There is the danger that the disconnection will not end. The network will be emboldened. Let’s take care of Putin finally. Push for war crimes, regime change, and nuclear disarmament. This escalation can push Putin into full alignment with China. “Terminator” proposed an attack by Sky Net, a sentient AI. Here you have an open source attack that cannot provide a face-saving offramp to deescalate and will push Russia and Putin to the point of existential threat.

Jack Murphy asks: “Is there any way to distract the network? Show it a new shiny object? To demonstrate its mortality?” No. Every corporation, every branch of government is involved.

Murphy suggests you can write a book called “Karen Caused Nuclear War.” The moral signaling, the network escalation, the continuation of the resistance and the anti-Trump hysteria to Putin hysteria, taking a regional thing and turning it into a nuclear war.

22 thoughts on “Open Source Warfare; Attack on Russia

  1. “…we think of the apex predator as the dangerous killer that it would be nice to get rid of, but, actually, his presence makes the system function better with trickle down effects.”

    Saddam, Gadhafi, et al.

  2. “The network swarm is controlled by widely distributed woke fanatics all around the planet: “Karens;” named after the displeased and entitled woman who demands to see the manager. ”

    Karen generally has no (or very limited) ability to act. Her power is to threaten, and then System functionaries (the people actually having the ability to execute operations) obey her dictates. If enough people could somehow be induced to stand up to Karen, her power would be broken.

    • True. But in this case it’s more like Karens with guns. What you are advocating would be finding a mob to fight another mob in the scapegoating game.

      • Karen pressures your employer to fire you but if your employer refuses, she cannot fire you.
        If she cannot get you fired she tries to deplatform you. But if the platform refuses, Karen fails.
        If the platform refuses she goes to the bank and demands sanctions. But if the bank refuses, Karen fails. And so on.

        Yes, many functionaries are Karens. But probably most are not. The scenario I describe above is possible, although highly improbable. For now.

        If a charismatic man rallies enough functionaries to his side, this sort of General Strike against Karen could happen.

      • Alan says – “Yes, many functionaries are Karens. But probably most are not.”

        Alan’s analysis seems correct in the sense that there did not used to be Karens and now there are millions – the main reason is changes in the people and organization of modern society. Karens are always leftists, and so are the people who comply with them – whereas in the past most people would have maintained Christian values.

        Furthermore, the world is now very wholly bureaucratic – whereas it did not use to be. Karens works because of the preponderance of managers/ officials/ bureaucrats. Karens do not do the work of the world, nor do they depend for their careers on the work of the world getting done – they claim (and the top managers agree) that supervision, monitoring and regulation are more important than actual work – hence Karens are pushing at an open door..

        In a less totalitarian and evil world, Karens would not happen.

  3. “With the open source network swarm there is no proportionality – i.e., the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. You cannot appease it. There is no one to negotiate with. Their power is seemingly unlimited. They control all things digital, and the list of digitized economic and cultural factors only grows longer.”

    Which is why probably only a strong man, backed by a strong faction, could put an end to the madness. But perhaps he would substitute another form of madness.

    • I think the idea is that no strong man can face down the mob if his country relies on modern technology, i.e., Afghanistan would be immune.

  4. All very well said, but I must add that not all swarms (or “Karens”) are created equal. A manager who “caves” to some complaints and not others retains control while shifting responsibility. I’m not keeping score, but the power to cancel an event with on-line threats and complaints seems to be an exclusively left-wing power. The administration at my university frequently uses selected anonymous complaints to justify its actions, and these complaints are most often that some leftist client feels threatened, disrespected, etc.

    It is hard to be certain about anything in eastern Europe right now, but it appears to me that Ukraine allowed itself to become the cat’s paw of the Western powers, and is now learning that the West will use it as an excuse to do other things. The West will pursue its own ends in the name of bleeding Ukraine, but will not do anything to stop that bleeding.

  5. Working in my office this week, I’ve gotten a couple of emails from the American Physical Society inviting me to read their statement on the invasion of Ukraine. Then I had some work to do on, and I noticed a link inviting me to read their statement on the invasion of Ukraine. Why the hell should APS or github be issuing political manifestos on issues of the day? Just a few years ago, that would have been considered inappropriate for apolitical entity. What happened since then, of course, is the racial reckoning, in which all associations large and small asserted the most outrageous and hateful lies against whites and Western civilization. Now there are no apolitical entities; all are tentacles of the regime. Presumably they will all be issuing manifestos regularly on every topic to which the regime media draws attention.

    • Duck Duck Go was the only browser I knew of that did not manipulate the search results for political purposes. They have just announced that any search results concerning Russia/Ukraine that does not conform to the official regime narrative will be removed or downgraded. So much for that then.

    • The Association of American Geographers invited this lapsed member to sign a petition against the Russian invasion when it was just a couple of days old. Did they send this fatuous pronouncement to the Kremlin? Was Putin chastened by this rebuke? I long ago wrote to protest against the AAG needlessly taking positions in favor of anything other than geography and geographers, and after receiving its answer allowed my membership to lapse.

      • On second thought, it’s the idea of political topics that we’ve lost, and losing the idea of apolitical organizations is a consequence of this. It used to be that organizations knew that certain topics are controversial, and it is best not to broach them if there is no reason to do so.

        It would be hard to name a single controversial topic nowadays. There is only one allowed opinion on any subject. Plus, there is now a precedent that silence is dangerous; it makes you stand out in the way that putting out an opinion used to make you stand out. Organizations know they will be punished if they don’t speak out soon enough or emphatically enough.

      • I saw this at a dinner party full of faculty last Saturday. Political prejudices among university faculty are so strong they do not “feel out” a stranger on topics normal people recognize as controversial. I was talking to an English professor and said that my appreciation of the Moderns was diminished by knowing what it led to. She assumed I meant fascism. I’m sure I can be tone deaf, but I do understand that there are people who see the world differently than I do, and that all of them are not cretins.

    • I think this started several years ago when open source projects started adding codes of conduct for their contributors. Now the politicization is both normal and obligatory, in a community which was once, in theory, almost monomaniacal in its focus on the technology and on the skill, rather than the identity, of the contributor. Of course, most of those folks are probably also deeply committed to left-wing politics and cosmology, so they probably stood no chance against the rising tide of woke-ism. A few open source projects have had their code-bases polluted with Anti-Russian or Pro-Ukrainian malware. I think that goes to show that free and open source software was always techno-utopian, and that the trust the movement earned over the last few decades was misplaced.

  6. What is the expression? Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty.
    With all the companies deplatforming Russia I can very easily see Putin deciding to just burn the chessboard with nuclear fire.

  7. 9You would not come back to me, the Lord says, when sirocco I sent, and mildew, and the locust preyed on garden and vineyard, fig-tree and olive-tree of yours;
    10 you would not come back to me, when with Egypt’s pestilence✻ I slew you, when your warriors fell at the sword’s point, and your horses were carried off, and never a camp of yours but the stench of it plagued your nostrils;
    11 you would not come back to me, when ruin threatened, swift as the divine stroke that ruined Sodom and Gomorrha, and you yourselves were like a brand saved from the burning.
    12 Now I have worse, Israel, in store for thee;✻ when that worse comes, prepare thou must, Israel, to meet thy God. (Knox Bible, Amos ch 4)

  8. The “open source warfare on Russia” is just the latest in a series of psy-ops.

    All of these hoaxes E.G. Russia collusion, COVID19 pandemic, support for the Ukraine, are really just one big psy-op split up into multiple parts.

    The first test, the Russia collusion narrative, was to see what % of the population would believe something made up whole-cloth, but that was also impossible to prove empirically (its all cyber, there’re no videos of Russian agents dumping Trump ballots into the ballot box that anyone can point to)–we only know it didn’t happen because there’s no positive empirical evidence for it, which is the basis of Anglo-Saxon common law.

    It was also a de-facto intelligence test for conservatives, which they failed miserably. If Democrats want to make your kids gay, take your guns away, start a war with Russia, etc, and Putin “hacked the election” to put someone in office who wanted the opposite of those things (Trump), than the only logical conclusion for the conservative to come to is that the Democrat Party is far more a threat to your way of life than the spooks of Putin and Russia. Moreover, it also necessarily implies, from the conservative POV, that Russian election meddling would actually have been a positive event when compared to cultural marxism + possibility of nuclear war. Yet, even Trump failed to realize this, or at least state it publicly. Not a smart man.

    That was the psychological conditioning phase of the population.

    Phase two was new conditioning + behavior modification I.E., “wear the mask”, “get the vax”, social distancing, and other rapid changes. They were lying about something (i.e., people dropping dead like flies from the Deadly Flu) that could easily be disproved by taking a walk down the street. Getting people to ignore their own senses and believe in the narrative was a big step forward in their plans. Believing that kind of physical lie (corpses everywhere from the deadly virus, we need to re-structure society) would not’ve been possible had the population not been “primed” for the last half-decade into believing a metaphysical lie about Russia.

    Phase three was linking the first hoax, the purely metaphysical Trump-Russia collusion hoax with behavior modification (masks, vax) and then using all of it to foment to the population into hating Russians and wanting to support the Ukraine and go so far that 30% of the US population thinks nuclear war is an acceptable risk to save the Ukrainian regime.

    Its really hard to believe that conservatives can be so stupid as to realize the media has been lying about literally everything its possible to lie about for the last decade, but that they’re somehow telling the truth about Russia. Its also hard to believe that conservatives are going along with cancelling Russia, not realizing that, in the mind of the leftist, everything that “muh evil Russia” represents is totally interchangeable with what White Christian conservative Americans represent. When the leftist fantasizes about “killing Russians”, that will eventually be funneled into “killing American Christians” (probably under the auspices that they’re the domestic version of Russians) when they decide to flip the switch and change targets. It boggles the mind they can’t see this. I guess that’s why the NPC meme became a thing.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they actually combined the various psy-ops into one big meta-psy-op. Waiting for “Russian agents have released a new COVID19 variant in the USA”

    Unrelated: but Identity Dixie just quoted one of your pieces recently. I like seeing blogs that I read reference each other.

    • That all sounds about right. The murderous implications of women’s studies and black studies departments (well before BLM) have been apparent to me from the start. If men, and then specifically white, and even worse, Christian men, are uniquely responsible for all the oppression in the world then it becomes morally imperative to kill them all. As Thomas Sowell writes, black people cannot control what goes on in the minds of white people, namely, “racism.”


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.