Agnes Burp's View of Selflessness and War Strategy -- This Is Amazing

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

When women act selflessly, it is usually for the sake of the young, or the very old. Many women are surprised by their ability to do this -- they don't appreciate the power of instinct. When men act selflessly, it is often for defense of their group (if it be under attack), or for aggrandizement of their group. Men, too, have little awareness of the instinct component of their drives.

Nowadays, thousands of years after human instincts were developed, most of them remain useful. Woman's proclivity to help the helpless is welcome as there are plenty of helpless people. But the instinct that makes a man defend his group is "off" insofar as he is being deceived as to what group is really his. And the same goes for his contributing to his group's getting ahead. I say he's obeying the wrong boss.

This article is about war strategy and "the in-group." The general theme is that most men today -- indeed most people today -- are not aware of who is working for whom. If they knew, they would change loyalties pretty fast.

A very nice girl from Ruritania will be the author here. I have dubbed her "Agnes Burp." You needn't analyze why Agnes is switching her loyalties, as the country known as Ruritania doesn't actually exist. (It's a convenient name used in International Relations classes to mean "any nation.").

The real author is myself, Mary Maxwell, but I have a real country, the US. I want to talk about the US here without your trying to ferret out the 'politics' of what I'm doing. Agnes Burp has no politics. She is a quintessential Ruritanian. "Hail Ruritania! Blah blah rule the wave! Blah blah, blah blah, nev-er shall be slave." That sort of thing.

Ms Burp Speaks:

Less than 24 hours after it was announced, last week, that three Americans were killed by Iran, someone asked, on a blog, "Was it the US that actually killed its own three men?" I had a great laugh, in fact we Ruri's were in stitches. That would be so typical of the US elite, to use their own boys, to achieve some goal.

I know if Mary Maxwell were here, she would be trotting out the old sociobiology line, which is that leaders in war naturally "use" their troops. Yeah, yeah, sure, but that old biological stuff fits a situation where all members of Tribe A are really rootin' for Tribe A, from the chief down to the lowliest. I'm talking about the contemporary scene.

What we have today, so far as I can make out from my little perch in Ruritania, is a mostly-globalized power structure. Accompanied by billions of people living in what looks, on a world map, to be separate states, but really are not. They go through the motions of electing (or should I say "electing") their representatives, but those reps have no power. I wonder how many of them -- parliamentarians in UK, Congresspersons in US -- even know they have no power.

Here's the deal. At some time in the past, a number of men pooled their resources with the idea of conquering the world. I don't know when that was. A good guess is that it happened during the Roman empire. A safe guess is that it happened before the French Revolution of 1789. A reasonable guess is that one of its "secretaries" was Adam Weishaupt of Bavaria, a friend of Mayer Rothschild whose five sons had more or less got the hang of organizing the world's financial wealth.

Is this a Jewish thing? In general, I, Agnes, tend to side with Mary Maxwell on it being not a Jewish thing or an Anything thing. See? -- it's our normal instinct to picture groups as coherent wholes with a plan. In fact I have seen "philosophical" claims that purport to show how the Hebrew tribe has always had a plan for a "Greater Israel." Fine. Some people may have that plan, and even shout about it, but that does not mean they are in power, or that such a plan has a future.

Who is really in power? And what is their plan? I suppose each of the apparently powerful individuals has to concentrate on getting his tuchas out alive. Beyond that, if there's any comprehensive plan, it is likely to include a lowering of the population numbers of this world. Spokespersons Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab have already announced that this is what they want.

In fact, Gates has already shone in that area, by knocking off some Third World people with his GAVI organization. And Schwab, as a past operator at the IMF, has weakened many a nation. (Actually, all of that may be just a function of "Let's get our tuchases out alive.") The real enemy of the guys at the top is the masses at the bottom. Such as myself, my extended Burp family, and mankind.

Power Today Is Fragile!

In the olden days (the very olden days), a man could become boss by physical strength. Have a look at Gates (who I think started his life as a female). He is a classic 97-pound weakling. Look at Schwab. Can you even conjure up a scene in which he demonstrates physical courage? No.

But what of the possibility of them banding together? In some mammal species, an alpha achieves alphahood with the assistance of a buddy or two. The late anthropologist Pierre vanden Berghe opined that the position of "village chief" may have come about originally on the basis of a man having many wives and thus having the help of numerous brothers-in-law and sons. A strong-looking family could discourage others. This is known to the Mafia.

Now pretend for the moment that a 21st-century Gates and Schwab depend on each other's good offices, so to speak. If one suddenly bars the door to the other, where can the barred one turn? Gosh, it must be quite a worry. And each of the ruthless alphas knows that his helper's interest may change, any day now, thanks to the complexity of the modern world. How do they stay faithful to one another? Beats me.

John C Coleman, writing in the 1990s, from classified British documents, says it is a "Committee of 300" that rules the world. On the one hand, I doubt Coleman's claim, as 300 can't usually work together (can they?). But on the other hand, it does look like the works of their many hands are in synch. Imagine co-ordinating education, the medical industry, all finance, Orwellian surveillance, AI, destruction of family life, etc. Wow, it's colossal yet it does seem to happen!

Weaponry

It does not matter if you are a 97-pound weakling, if you own a gun. I mean it doesn't matter if your contender is the guy down the street who has a black belt in Karate -- guns win. But today even if you own the most magnificent gun, if your contender owns a laser weapon, you're done for.

Moreover, if your nation owns an array of fantastic weapons, including DEWs, a contender who possesses the technology for shutting down your whole electronic system will beat you. They can also prevent your computer from directing the launch of your gazillion-dollar satellites. (Incidentally, did you know that there's already a mass of debris in Space, and no system of supervising such behavior?)

As for bioweapons, let's stop thinking of alphas as our sole weapons-mongers. Today any Tom, Dick, or Harry can poison the wells. Or put fentanyl in candy bars. Or get a job at Ft Detrick (or Wuhan) and fiddle with his own nation's weaponized anthrax. Or let loose the supply of contaminated mosquitos -- as is currently being done, officially, in Hawaii.

I vouchsafe to add here an oddity that hadn't occurred to me until the August 2023 devastation by fire of Lahaina town in Hawaii. Namely, that control of the most advanced weapons, which you may think is done by globalists such as the WEF, or by China or the US, may be done by the manufacturers of those weapons. God knows they have the "means." Think about it.

One other thing about weaponry must be said. Deception is a huge weapon in and of itself. The 20th century mind-controllers must have been understandably wowed when they saw that they could take an ordinary person, train her to be a killer, send her out to kill, and know that neither he nor she would be caught, as her memory of it would self-erase. "No, Your Honor, I with my little eye did not see him die...."

My Proposal

That brings me, Agnes Burp, humble citizen, to where I need to be to propose my war strategy. I mean my anti-war strategy -- no normal human being wants a third World War!

You may have guessed, as you were reading along, where I am going with this. I have argued that we are no longer in groups, at least not the kind to which people traditionally belonged. Nations may look unchanged, as maps still show distinct borders, but business organizations, World Government, and all manner of hidden players abound.

We need to recognize this reality and try to control its consequences. I would go so far as to guess that no nation as shown on the map has got a military plan that consists mainly of defending that nation from attack. Even the old goal of procuring resources violently from abroad, for one's people, is not the elite's war plan. Their plan is:

1. Tuchas survival for men who had crossed too many lines,
2. Relatedly, destruction of any working society,
3. Trying out new 'kill' methods because once you're on that path, you have to keep up with the Joneses, and
4. Catering to gluttony. Note: we are all gluttons, and even a squirrel puts away more acorns than needed. But for some humans, wealth became so luxurious and seemed so attainable that it just had to be chased after "at all costs."

So what's my proposal? Go back to what my friend Mary Maxwell said about the instincts. She pointed to the male's willingness to defend his group. She said: "But the instinct that makes a man defend his group is 'off' [is sidelined] insofar as he is being deceived as to what group is really his."

I say, Don't blow a good instinct! We need men to defend us, and they are famously willing, in a war, to do so selflessly. But it remains for us to persuade them that they are being deceived. I said above that when it was announced that three US soldiers were killed "by Iran," someone asked, on a blog, "Was it the US that actually killed its own three men?" Don't rule it out. (Do you remember the four contractors in Fallujah?)

Army conscription is a thing of the past in Western countries (since 1974 in US). Hence there is no setting in which potential draftees are likely to discuss their nation's participation in World War Three. But if they did meet informally, they could put their famous patriotism on the table and work out what they can do now to defend their real group.

At the very least they could examine crackpot proposals like The Great Reset. They could inspect the mountain of lies that were uttered by "government" about the pandemic. They could stop letting troops and veterans be wantonly harmed.

They could brush up their Shakespeare and recite St Crispin's Day speech, from Henry V. Here, I'll provide it. If that doesn't draw out the relevant male instinct, I don't know what would:

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

[oh, and that was preceded by]:

... Proclaim it, Westmoreland, ...
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.