ADVENT: Dossier
Ian Powell, Director of ADVENT Intelligence
"Only when the world is unified under our leadership, and sees only what we wish them to, will we be able to move forward."
- Ian Powell, Director of ADVENT Intelligence
There are many men and women who walk the halls of the Pentagon, the White House, and other places of importance and influence in the world, but few have the staple – or the uniqueness of Ian Powell, currently the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. When they speak of power brokers in Washington, it has shifted over the years from prominent members of Congress, lobbyists, or special interests in favor of what some view to be much more dangerous.
The Intelligence Community has emerged as a heavy influence against both the executive and legislative branches, and much of this is due to the work of Ian Powell.
Even invoking his name with certain people triggers reactions, and the majority of the people we spoke too declined to be identified. "There are some things we don't touch," a senator admitted. "It's scary how much influence Powell has over Treduant. Much less foreign policy. If I didn't know better I'd say that she turned it all over to the CIA."
"Don't ever mess with the budget for any of the IC," said a member of the Congressional Budget Office. "It never goes well. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the few times there's been pushback on budget – even after the War on Terror, we nearly went into government shutdown with how much they fought over the budget. Military salaries, federal parks, whatever, those can all be slashed or raised, but if you dare touch the IC budget, it's a death sentence."
Powell's iron grip within the United States Intelligence Community is an open secret, though he didn't come from nowhere. As a lifelong intelligence officer who joined the CIA nearly forty-five years ago as a covert agent, Powell steadily rose through the ranks while bringing his unique brand of pragmatic patriotism to the agency. Since being appointed as Director fifteen years ago, he has served under three presidents and all of them have elected to retain his services and he has been unanimously confirmed by the Senate.
Calling him a controversial figure in Washington would be an understatement. Shrewd, ruthless, committed, and dangerous have all been words used to describe him by purported allies and detractors alike. Under his leadership the CIA, and the intelligence community at large has become more interconnected and centralized under the clear direction of the CIA.
His decisions have been controversial within the IC, with many former and current employees complaining about the undue influence the CIA has over everything. "I don't think he gets that not everyone is the CIA," an employee of the National Geospatial Agency said. "We don't really do covert operations, but when the 'recommendation' came down to establish a agent program, who is going to say no to fucking Ian Powell?"
"At this point we might as well call ourselves CIA-lite," one employee lamented. "Not that we have any influence over CIA policy, obviously. They pretty much write it now and tell us 'do this' and we do it because our bosses are a bunch of spineless hacks."
The deference to Ian Powell is one which many employees brought up in a negative light, albeit with notable concern and fear. "I've seen Director Robert stand up to the President, Congress, and dictators," an employee said, referring to Director Robert of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "But he completely crumpled when Powell came in and said 'ok, we're doing stuff this way'. Not that Powell isn't charismatic – but it's the kind of charismatic you're attracted to if you're a sociopath. Everyone normal is just afraid of him."
"Powell?" A representative asked when the subject was brought up. "I'm not talking about Powell."
Most members of Congress shared that sentiment.
Not everyone has a negative view of him. One CIA operative was surprised when it was brought up. "I'll agree that he isn't the most compromising, but look at what he's been able to accomplish. He's an excellent leader, but if you're wrong, he's going to tell you that you're wrong and your plan sucks. That's off-putting to some people."
"They obviously don't get him," another member of the intelligence community said. "It's personal for some of them, especially in Congress. They don't like being rejected, nor do they like spies. I think the fact that he's been in his position for over a decade speaks to his skill and dedication."
Even outside the IC, Powell is a source of some controversy, though he nonetheless works to keep a relatively low profile. He's drawn bipartisan concern over his initiatives to reach out to foreign intelligence agencies, and is known for being the primary architect of the Pentagram Program which saw the expansion of the Five Eyes partnership to include Germany, South Korea, France, Israel, and Russia – the latter of which caused outrage and breathless speculation initially.
Nonetheless the program was approved quietly after significant media coverage, despite the initial rancor. Many people, media and IC employees both have expressed speculation over the expansion, and his motivations behind it. Some are skeptical. "What, it isn't obvious?" An agent snorted. "He wants to bring all of the worldwide intelligence communities under CIA control. He's doing the exact same thing he did to the American IC. I don't know how they don't see that."
This was a common theme among a number of employees, though others didn't assign nearly as much conspiracy to it. "This isn't surprising if you know him," a close friend of Powell's shared. "He's always believed that relationships with allies were essential, and there was more to be gained by being open than closed. He believes if America has a strong global presence, it will need direct lines to their militaries, intelligence agencies, and governments. It feels like he's put in a lose-lose situation. If he takes action, he's labeled a warmonger. If he reaches out, he's labeled a traitor. At this point I think he's learned to ignore it."
Powell's unique brand of patriotism has long been a source of curiosity for many people, and even his critics aren't completely sure what to make of it. "He's loyal," one senator said with a shrug. "No question about that, but he's got a lot of close connections with his foreign counterparts – Pentagram folk. Beyond normal professional relationships. He's friends with them, he calls them up regularly, and considering the pushback he got on that program, he probably trusts them more than he trusts us."
"He's not a patriot, he's a globalist," another representative derided. "He wants to compromise American influence. It's absurd that he's still in charge with what he's pulled. Expanding our intelligence sharing with the Russians and Israelis? Is he mad? I don't know what he's thinking, but it's definitely not with America's interests."
Others disagree with this assessment. "He absolutely believes in American Exceptionalism," a ranking officer of the CIA said. "But not in a flamboyant way. He believes that the world is safer under an American hegemon, and this is his way of executing that belief. I mean, look around the world. We have intelligence sharing and influence over policy with ten of the most powerful nations in the world, we have more military bases overseas than ever, and by extension we have influence over policy. The world follows our direction now."
"It's all to contain China," another analyst suggested. "He acted decisively. He got a lot of crap for including Russia on the Pentagram, but the tradeoff was that we got them aligned with American goals, that cuts out China's strongest potential global ally. Who else do they have? North Korea? What he did was smart. If you want to know why countries are rejecting Chinese projects, loans, and offers in favor of Pentagram countries, thank Powell for that. It's working."
More recently, Powell's connections to the newly inaugurated President Nicole Treduant have come under scrutiny, as it was reported that they met several times during her campaign, leading accusations of election meddling to become public, which have been firmly denied by both the White House and CIA.
There have been investigations threatened by members of Congress, but thus far these have failed to materialize. Whether that is due to the extensive influence of Powell, a lack of hard evidence, or the new President's skyrocketing popularity is unknown and likely will remain so.
What will remain constant into the fledgling presidency of Treduant is the shadow of Ian Powell over Washington. Her first day in office she stated her intention to keep him as Director, and if the past is any indication, he will remain a fixture of the intelligence community and American foreign policy for many years to come.
- Article: The Enduring Influence of Ian Powell
Transcript of meeting between Chancellor Saudia Vyandar and Acting Director of ADVENT Intelligence Ian Powell
[Saudia Vyandar]: "If you don't mind my asking, how long have you been planning to do this?"
[Ian Powell]: "Several months now."
[SV]: "You've been working on it for some time."
[IP]: "Chancellor, did you really think that you could just show up out of nowhere, and think everyone would pretend that it was just a massive coincidence?"
[SV]: "Not especially, but I did expect people to put that behind them in favor of the alien threat."
[IP]: "Understandable. You came with the Commander's recommendation, which was…better than expected."
[SV]: "Not good enough?"
[IP]: "The Commander has a tendency to go beyond what I expect. I figured you were some operative with a talent for management he'd found somewhere and decided would be a good fit. I didn't expect him to have leveraged an entire cabal to fight the alien threat."
[SV]: "Few would have."
[IP]: "The conversations have been very enlightening. Your people were good. Some of them even got into groups I was overseeing."
[SV]: "Though not always successfully. Falka always complained about penetrating US intelligence organizations. It was more reliable to subvert contractors or Pentagram agencies to get US information."
[IP]: "Smart woman. Not ruthless or experienced enough, but she could be a good director one day."
[SV]: "She successfully outwitted you for quite a few years."
[IP]: "Please. I can tell the signs of counterintelligence. I knew there was someone with a lot of resources trying to subvert me. It was bizarre, truthfully. Chinese, Cuban, or North Korean was what I assumed given the variety of methods and origins, but as it turns out, I was wrong."
[SV]: "Nonchalant about this, aren't you."
[IP]: "What, did you expect me to take offense? I don't get mad at intelligence officials for doing their jobs. I do my best to ruin their lives and careers, but I don't get offended because of their actions. Humans have a tendency to miss the forest for the trees in these instances."
[SV]: "A fact I know all too well."
[IP]: "So I've seen, which is why I knew you weren't a threat. I won't condone what you did – though given how you used the world so thoroughly, a strong case could be made to execute you.
[SV]: "As if you weren't doing the same thing. Or any other nation."
[IP]: "Ultimately a factor in why I reconsidered. EXALT wasn't necessarily worse, we simply didn't know you existed. Regardless, I can agree that you belong where you are now."
[SV]: "A compliment? I didn't expect that."
[IP]: "An observation, Chancellor. I've observed many leaders in my career. Most were ineffective bureaucrats or obsessed with pointless window dressing like nationalism, race, and social justice. Leadership requires decisiveness, conviction, and ruthlessness. We do not live in a peaceful world or galaxy, and those who lead us must understand that – and I can see you do."
[SV]: "The war has opened the eyes of many people."
[IP]: "Indeed. It's funny how it took an alien invasion to reach this point. I truthfully never believed I would see it – certainly not like this."
[SV]: "And what do you see this like?"
[IP]: "Simple, Chancellor. A true unification of Humanity. One where nation, race, and gender do not matter. There is only one power, one culture, one set of values, and one vision for our species."
[SV]: "And you never expected that to come?"
[IP]: "No, because no country had the will to achieve it. There was only one way Humanity would ever be united, Chancellor. Through ruthlessness. We were never going to unite in a utopia – it was always going to be through the cultural subversion of superpowers. There still remain holdouts, of course, but I am confident that soon all of them will be brought under ADVENT."
[SV]: "Unification will be achieved, whether they wish it or not."
[IP]: "Exactly, Chancellor. Exactly."
XCOM Profile 007
Authorization Level: Internal Council
Subject: Ian Powell, Acting Director of ADVENT Intelligence
Threat Level: Low
Assessment Author: The Commander of XCOM
Approved by: The Commander of XCOM
SECTION 1: Physical Characteristics
Hair color: Grey
Eye colors: Brown
Skin color: Black
Height: 6'0"
Weight: 182 lbs.
Age: 65
Scars or Markings: None
Physical Condition: Ian is nowhere near as young as he used to be, but he keeps in good condition. Age is catching up to him, but he's avoided major injuries and illnesses throughout his life, and he's in close to the best shape one his age can be. At the same time, he's incapable of matching a modern soldier, let alone a modified one.
Nation of Birth: United States of America
SECTION 2: Assessment
Ian Powell, one of the most powerful men of the old world, and who most were unaware of.
Speaking as someone who served under him for years, he is without a doubt one of the most professional and skilled intelligence directors in Human history. This is as close to an objective statement as you can get. It would be difficult to name a man or woman in an equivalent position who has accomplished as much or had as much influence as Powell.
Although I suppose Saudia or Elizabeth may fit that category, EXALT was something of a special case.
I can summarize his history to a degree. Most of what is public is scarce and standard. He was recruited into the CIA right out of graduating college, and became a special agent. I don't know exactly what roles and missions he undertook, but he was a clandestine operative who mentioned once how he went all over the world 'fixing problems'.
Ian likes to play off preconceptions and expectation. His process to solving issues is not what you likely expect. He isn't an assassin, though it's almost certain he's killed his share of people. His specialty was acting through networks, proxies, and agents which he managed on his own. He is responsible for establishing vast and diverse human networks in Europe, Asia, and Central America, which gave the CIA and the Intelligence Community a wealth of knowledge.
After this, he was promoted to a leadership position and his vision became far more overt and clear. It was before my time, but some of the stories have been relayed to me many times.
It should be specified that prior to being promoted to Director of Operations, he was in charge of the Insider Threat and Counterintelligence teams. One of his most infamous acts was when he covertly established an extensive network of supposed moles, spies, and traitors within the CIA, all the way up to those speaking to the Director.
For Powell, he is not interested in the purely theoretical. Theories are useless to him without evidence to back it up. Thus, instead of just writing a comprehensive report on the vulnerabilities in the CIA, he exploited them and, in the process, found a large number of weak points, sellouts, and traitors.
So when he made his presentation before the Director and President, and exposed everything he had been able to do – on his own – along with a very vivid description of what he would do if he was a terrorist or foreign power. His quote was roughly along the lines of "Mr. President, if I wanted to, I could influence your entire foreign policy. I would kill your soldiers, based on what I know. And if I put my mind to it, I could kill you. Be grateful that it was me who did this, and not our enemies."
It was a very dangerous stunt he pulled. Risky, but he was making a point. Considering that he was immediately promoted to Director of Operations, and that almost a year later the entire leadership of the CIA was removed and Powell was installed as Director with free reign over the agency, his gambit clearly paid off, especially when taking into account his previous field work.
The CIA has always been influential, but under Powell it turned into the de-facto passive influence within the United States executive apparatus. He oversaw similar counterintelligence operations and probes throughout the rest of the Intelligence Community, and over the course of a decade, slowly shaped them to effectively become specialized arms of the CIA, a move that made him a number of enemies, but all of whom he was able to ignore or mitigate.
He had little issue with gathering information on enemies or allies as it were. He was a primary architect of every piece of surveillance legislature in the United States, and I suspect he also helped write ADVENT's as well, since there are a number of similarities. He used this information liberally; which I suspect why he was able to face notably little opposition.
Quite possibly his largest achievement was the expansion of the Five Eyes partnership into the Pentagram Program, including more European allies and even Russia of all nations in the official goal of improving relations and promoting international cooperation. Unofficially, it was to contain China and put American eyes into places they had not been able to reach before.
Powell got a lot of pushback for including Russia, but he was able to achieve something no one before him had managed – he made a personal tour to the Kremlin and the fairly generous sharing agreements of the Pentagram Program mandated representation at all member institutions. American spies walked openly into the heart of a nation which had not too long ago been a death trap.
Of course, Russia and other nations kept their secrets, as did America. But this agreement had successfully negated Russia as a significant threat to American interests, as both nations began tying themselves together militarily and diplomatically – ultimately aligning with a significant portion of Powell's foreign policy.
Quite brilliant, and few realized it at the time, though it was quite amusing to hear bipartisan accusations that he was a Russian asset.
In retrospect, I never asked him how he got them to quiet down.
One of his more clandestine initiatives is one I know quite well, and that was the quelling of the growing threat of Islamic extremism in the Middle East, which he dealt with by putting me in charge of a group to deal with them as I saw fit. I suspect I was not the only group he deployed in that fashion, though I believe mine was the only one that achieved that level of infamy.
I suspect even he did not expect me to achieve what I did, though he did ensure I received support almost until the end.
Since the War on Terror I'm not as familiar with his operations, though from the reports he's been deepening the relations between Pentagram partners and has likely established a major network in China, and I would not be surprised if he had a hand in the elevation of President Treduant.
He was always proactive, for better or worse.
Though you should be very clear what you are getting, if you put him in a position of power.
SECTION 3: Psychological Profile
Ian Powell is difficult to categorize easily.
Throughout his career he has been hailed (or derided) as an unflinching patriot promoting American hegemony over the world, though this was a…superficial interpretation. It looked at the surface of what Powell was responsible for and never considered other reasons, methods, or justifications. If one spoke with Powell, they would likely be surprised at some of the things he says.
Powell is not an American patriot. America just happened to be the best vessel from which to achieve his actual goal – global stability and Western cultural dominance. Powell privately despised overt nationalism, and was very much in favor of consolidation and stability of like-minded powers. At the same time he saw the current entities trying to achieve this, such as the European Union, United Nations, ASEAN, and others as ineffectual, fragmented, and too self-centered to achieve anything.
To some extent, I would not be surprised if he hadn't considered devising a proto-ADVENT, as all of his actions were leading to significant consolidation eventually. First the effective centralization of American intelligence under the CIA, and the launch of the Pentagram Program which included the most generous intelligence sharing agreement in US history.
This is something crucial to understand about Powell – he wants to take the diplomatic route. The fewer casualties, the better. He believes that unity and common ground is usually enough to outweigh self-interest. That said, if you stand in the way of his vision, he will remove you without a second thought.
His ruthlessness is tempered by pragmatism and restraint. I suspect that was a major reason he ultimately assisted in hunting me down. He didn't approve of my methods, and I left too many bodies for his liking, as he dislikes messes. His also dislikes unpredictability and elements out of his control, of which I definitely qualify, and by extension, XCOM does as well.
He is also very fixated on loyalty. Less to people, but certainly to missions and ideologies. Loyalty has to remain a constant, and if it suddenly becomes a shifting variable, then the person is unreliable and cannot be as easily controlled, and can certainly not be relied on. He holds a personal disgust for traitors and turncoats of all types, though can at least understand the mindset of someone who turns traitor for ideological reasons.
Betrayal for selfish motivations greatly offends him. I suspect there is a story behind this, but he has not told me.
Much of his life is still shrouded in mystery, and I suspect it will remain that way. Nonetheless, Powell is someone I greatly respect and consider a staunch ally. He will likely never fully trust us, but unless we overly turn against ADVENT, we will never have to fear him taking action.
Untitled Memoir, Ian Powell, Unpublished
There is much that can change one's view on the world and people within it. To some extent everyone experiences this at least once in their lives, but truthfully most people keep their impression of others based on a set number of experiences they experience in their adolescent years. Most who experience close families, friendships, and stability will have a positive view of others, while those who have suffered abuse, live in isolation, or face discrimination will view the world with suspicion and resentment.
Few ultimately change their views on this subject often, and when they do, it is even harder to dislodge them in the future. Though it should be noted that it is far more likely that the idealist will succumb to pragmatism or nihilism than the opposite. It is far easier to change minds based on the negative than the positive.
However, most people have a limited scope and sample size. Their pool of friends numbers in the single and double digits. People who they surround themselves with are echoes of their own stances and beliefs. They rarely look beyond their own social circles to expand their views and consider alternatives.
Humans are averse to challenge. We react to it poorly. Most are not mature enough to engage in rational discourse while keeping an open mind. Fortunately or otherwise, the majority of people are not subtle. They challenge openly and bluntly, putting their opposition on the immediate defensive and allowing them to dig in and grow stronger in their belief.
Breaking Humans down is an exercise in frustration. We are a factional and contentious species. We enjoy the familiar and seek out those who echo our beliefs, thoughts, and actions while rejecting and avoiding those who do not. At the personal level it is friendships we form our factions around; in the professional world it is via degree, society, and profession. Within government there are political parties, federal agencies, and the military.
At the level of nations, there are international alliances and agreements.
Little factions that can work together, but there is always that lingering doubt of mistrust. Of risking putting faith into the other, even if the differences are only slight.
These factions can be broken down further into race, gender, ideology, religion, and values. The sheer amount of versatility our species is capable of is incredible, and at the same time, dooms us to a perpetual cycle of war and dispute. Humans are prejudiced against each other, against those who they view as different.
To throw more confusion into this mix, Humans are willing to overlook differences in favor of others who they perceive as greater threats. Differences in religion and political ideology come before divisions of sex or race. This is not a universal law, but it is a repeated constant. Humans are capable of unification, but only when there is a threat large enough to ignore the differences. An example is of course when the Allies of the Second World War joined to face the Axis threat, despite significant ideological divides. But those did not matter, as the Nazis posed an existential threat to all of them.
I have worked and interacted with world leaders throughout my entire career, and seen the people who make up the nations across the world. It has led me to a very simple conclusion.
The world cannot be united as it is.
The countries of the world are too incompatible for there to be true peace. The values of the Chinese are incompatible with the West. The corruption of Africa cannot coexist with the law of Europe. The theocracies of the Middle East will forever clash with the world of secular democracy.
Institutions such as the United Nations, while noble in principle, fail to understand this basic fact about our species. It makes the mistake too many nations of the world continue to press towards. The mistake of tolerance.
There exist fundamental political divides in the West, and in America specifically. Right and left. Nationalism versus tolerance. Globalism versus isolation. Both sides are wrong and fundamentally overlook the flaws of their beliefs. The liberal believes that tolerance should be elevated above all else, to hold the beliefs of others as all equal and valid, or in rare cases superior if they become delusional enough.
Nations of tolerance will ultimately suffer the consequences of this belief. It is a mistake to see all cultures as equal and think all beliefs as valid. The totalitarian communism of the Chinese and the theocratic dictatorship of the Saudis is not equivalent to the democracy of modern nations. Yet both countries are treated as equivalent out of fear of racial, religious, or cultural offense.
The radical Muslim is rationalized as an aberration, not considering the source that watered this seed. The dogwhistleing racist is defended as free speech through code words and willful ignorance. The trappings of neo-Nazism are defended as merely different political ideology, also hidden behind the shroud of nationalism. Promotions of socialist, communist, and fascist talking points are accepted in academic institutions. Defenses of failed states and dictators are recognized and mourned, turning their ire to the outside Western threat, and not looking to the true cause of failure. These instances are not simply political disagreement, they are dangerous to the foundations of a nation.
It is important to define what a nation is first.
A nation is not a mass of land nor the arbitrary borders around it. What defines a nation are the principles and values it holds and culture it espouses. A nation is not merely a flag or a name, but a collection of fundamental beliefs, systems, and traditions.
It is why the so-called patriotic nationalist is just as much of a fool as the tolerant liberal. A state can change itself based on the whims of its leaders or demands of its people. Those who hold loyalty to an immutable flag, yet pay no attention to the shifting ideology are no patriots, but willing pawns of the elite.
A nation of values cannot be tolerant of that which is fundamentally incompatible with its ideology lest it let such values become subverted and faded. It cannot even entertain the illusion they are equal. The incompatible must be vilified, shunned, and rendered socially unacceptable, lest it take root in the weak-minded and impressionable.
This was achieved through the ideological war between communism and democracy. Communism was not accepted as a legitimate stance or ideology. It was stamped out viciously and violently and exposed to the world as a sham that eventually led to ruin. Germany did the same with Nazism, criminalizing and purging any mention or support for the vile ideology.
Women and civil rights have followed similar paths, where opposition to such beliefs is unacceptable and those who follow such beliefs are ostracized from society and vilified. More recently the marriage equality movement was settled by the suppression and humiliation of the fanatical religious, though notably to a lesser degree as the grip religion holds over people remains strong.
Yet even the strong hand of religion withers when faced with social mockery and vilification.
Not all beliefs are valid. Not all cultures should be preserved. Some opinions should not be heard or held. Some ideologies should not be taught.
Not doing this will lead to chaos and the ultimate subversion of what a nation is.
The wars of the twenty-first century will revolve around this fact, though most remain blind to it. The wars fought will not be primarily through economics, diplomacy, or militaries. Those will merely be tools used to wage the war of culture which will determine the future of the Human species. Nations can be subverted through culture, and their own culture can be twisted to reflect that of others.
There must be steps taken to prepare for this war.
It first begins with recognizing that the concept of a nation is different than a state. A state is an institution that governs citizens. It can exist anywhere and in different forms. A nation is a culture; a set of values. Those can extend beyond the borders of the state, they transcend names, borders and flags.
It is imperative that the like-minded states align together into one nation, as they will be best prepared to counter the cultures which seek to subvert them. Throughout my career I have faced pushback from the so-called patriots who conflate nation and state as the same thing. Who believe that sovereignty is more important than survival, while also failing to realize the state will no longer matter if the culture fails.
The failing of democracy is that it is easy to subvert. It is easy to claim equivalence by cleaning up vile rhetoric and actions of the distasteful ideologies. It can propel dangerous beliefs to the mainstream. It has been exploited by our enemies, be they communists, Nazis, Chinese or Iranians. The tolerant excuse their words as free speech, despite the damage and infighting it can cause.
Multiculturalism simply cannot be compatible with the values of a nation; not if the nation wishes to retain its identity. Else it will become a compromised, warped mockery of what it was, and thoroughly subverted by a stronger culture which will eventually control it. As such it is imperative that our natural allies be treated as close to equals – a first step but a crucial one.
The second is to instill loyalty. Not to a flag or a state, nor the people themselves, but the values and culture of the nation. Therefore their loyalty will be assured, and they shall be less susceptible to the lure of the enemy. Those who hold strong conviction are the loyal, as you know that no matter what flag they serve under, they are an unflinching ally in the culture war.
Following this, the nations of neutrality or limited cultural identity must be targeted and subverted. There are no neutral parties, there are only those who take their future into their own hands – and those who do not. Using the tools of diplomacy and economy, we inject and shape their culture until it is a mirror or aligned to our own. Such subversion requires patience, but it will ensure compatibility in the future. It will herald a brighter future of a united species.
Then of course, there is the eradication, suppression, and elimination of the enemy ideology both domestic and foreign, be it religious, ideological, or racial. All cultures seek to dominate the other, and we must ensure we first know what war we are fighting, and how best to wage it. This war is not solved through conventional means.
Economics, military force, state dinners and diplomatic functions are pointless if one believes they are the means of power, and not tools to fight on a battlefront that exists in the realm of public consciousness and behavior. It is not solved by simply accepting or tolerating the enemy, under the mistaken belief that it is benign and will not pose a threat. Left unchecked it will grow to the point where it will infect the weak-minded and shake the foundations of even the believer.
Most importantly, the culture war ultimately determines the path of our species. Our only path to unification is placing Humans under one uniform culture and ensuring no others rise in their place. It cannot be emphasized how high the stakes are as the world grows older. It is the defense between a flawed, yet free democracy, or the totalitarian control China continues refining. This is an outcome that is clear and possible.
But the alternative is that the culture war stagnates and the world remains in a loop of continual conflict, of nations rising and falling as the state shifts and adapts, as the Roman Empire did before it.
Perhaps this is inevitable. Perhaps this is the ironic doom of our species.
If it is a cycle, it is one I have sought to break. More importantly, a war I seek to win. I suppose by the time it happens, one way or another, I will be long dead.
But as I write this, I can only say that if we are given the chance to achieve this, it should be taken no matter what the cost. We cannot think about the present, we should only look towards the future, as if we don't, next time we may not be given a choice in our future.