Contemporary strategic analysis is increasingly confronted by a form of conflict that transcends the traditional boundaries of information warfare. While propaganda has historically sought to replace a target's accepted "truth" with a competing "truth," a new doctrine has emerged that operates on a deeper, more fundamental level of cognition. This doctrine aims not to win an argument but to destroy the target's capacity to recognize truth at all, targeting the philosophical axioms upon which an entire worldview is built. This represents a paradigm shift toward what can be termed Axiomatic Warfare.
The core thesis of this report is that this doctrine, identified here as Delusionism, is the operationalization of the post-structuralist philosophy of Gilles Deleuze into a geopolitical strategy. The doctrine weaponizes the concept of the "simulacrum"—a copy for which no original exists—to generate narratives whose power lies not in their veracity but in their ability to produce real-world effects, such as social division, institutional decay, and cognitive paralysis. It is a strategy predicated on the principle of "good storytelling, not truthtelling."
This analysis frames Delusionism as the primary ideological weapon within a theorized multi-decade Sino-Russian grand strategy known as the "Minimisation Plan". The objective of this plan is the systematic deconstruction of the Western "arborescent" world order—a hierarchical system rooted in a singular concept of truth and legitimacy—by a decentralized, "rhizomatic" anti-hegemonic alliance. The ensuing conflict is therefore not between competing truths but between two fundamentally different operating systems for reality: one that presupposes a singular, verifiable truth and one that presupposes an infinite multiplicity of self-validating realities. This conceptual divergence reframes the entire geopolitical contest, moving it from the battlefield of information to the more profound battlefield of foundational axioms.
This report will proceed by first dissecting the philosophical arsenal of Delusionism, tracing its origins in Deleuze's work. It will then examine its geopolitical application within the Minimisation Plan, analyze the mechanics by which it achieves cognitive dissolution, and conclude with a critical assessment of its strategic vulnerabilities and long-term viability.
The intellectual engine of Delusionism is Gilles Deleuze's "reversal of Platonism," a radical assault on the foundational principles of Western metaphysical thought. The Western intellectual tradition, since Plato, has been structured around a hierarchy of "Forms" and "copies." This model posits a world of transcendent, original "Ideas" (Truth, Justice, Beauty) and a material world of imperfect copies that are judged by their fidelity to that original. This framework underpins the entire Western apparatus of knowledge, which is an exercise in tracing phenomena back to an authenticating origin, distinguishing "good copies" (facts) from "bad copies" (falsehoods).
Deleuze systematically inverts this hierarchy. In place of a world of copies tethered to an original, he posits a world composed of simulacra. A simulacrum is not merely a degraded or false copy; it is a copy for which there is no original, an entity that asserts its own reality without reference to a higher, legitimizing model. A simulacrum is not a "fake" but a new, self-validating reality whose power is measured not by its fidelity to a source, but by its effects in the world. This philosophical move is not merely academic; it has profound strategic implications. It suggests an inversion of the relationship between power and truth. In the traditional Western model, power is legitimized by its alignment with a pre-existing truth. In the Deleuzian model operationalized as Delusionism, a narrative becomes "true" if the exercise of power makes its effects tangible. Power no longer seeks justification from truth; it generates its own functional reality through its effects.
From a critical standpoint, this claim is tenable only if one accepts its foundational axiom: the denial of a unified origin. If one begins with the opposite axiom—that all phenomena emerge from a single, contiguous, underlying field or source—then the concept of an origin-less simulacrum becomes a logical and physical impossibility. From this perspective, every particle, force, and structure is, by definition, a manifestation or "copy" of the origin's dynamics, rendering Deleuze's premise fundamentally incompatible.
Deleuze and his collaborator Félix Guattari contrast two models of reality: the arborescent and the rhizomatic. The "arborescent" or "tree-like" model is characteristic of Western thought and its institutions. It is defined by a central root—a single origin, a unified truth—from which a trunk and hierarchical, bifurcating branches logically extend. This structure inherently privileges unity over multiplicity and identity over difference. The post-Cold War "unipolar order" represents a quintessential arborescent structure, predicated on a single origin of political and economic legitimacy and a set of hierarchical institutions branching out from that hegemonic center.
In direct opposition, Deleuze and Guattari propose the "rhizome" as a model for reality. A rhizome is a subterranean, non-hierarchical network where any point can be connected to any other point without a central root or predetermined path. It is a model for decentralized systems that operate through fluid connections and emergent properties, making it the conceptual blueprint for guerrilla warfare and, as theorized, for the multi-domain grand strategy of the Sino-Russian alliance. This model provides the ideal structure for an asymmetric challenge to a hierarchical power.
This concept, too, is subject to an axiomatic counterpoint. From a unified origin perspective, the rhizome is an illusion created by observing the complex interactions of a system's "branches" without acknowledging their common "root". While systemic interactions can appear decentralized and complex, they would all ultimately trace back to the dynamics of a single origin. The structure of reality, in this view, is fundamentally arborescent, and the appearance of a rhizome is merely a failure of observation.
By synthesizing these concepts, it becomes clear that Deleuze's entire philosophical project—the systematic denial of a unified origin—provides a "ready-made intellectual toolkit" for deconstructing the Western liberal order. The Western worldview's greatest strength—its commitment to a singular, verifiable, "rules-based" order—is simultaneously its greatest vulnerability, as it presupposes a shared reality in which evidence can be debated and truth can ultimately be ascertained.
A doctrine based on Deleuzian principles attacks this fundamental presupposition. By rejecting a singular truth, the Delusionist doctrine frees its practitioners from the constraints of consistency and verifiability. This allows for the simultaneous deployment of multiple, even contradictory, narratives (simulacra). The strategic objective is not to convince the adversary of a particular falsehood, but to introduce a multiplicity of potent simulacra into the information ecosystem, shattering the very notion of a single, authoritative narrative. The ultimate goal is to create a state of "unresolvable ambiguity" that erodes institutional trust, sows social division, and paralyzes an adversary's decision-making cycle, thereby achieving a form of metaphysical warfare aimed at dissolving the adversary's cognitive foundation.
Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995) stands as one of the most influential French philosophers of the latter half of the 20th century. Born in Paris to a conservative, middle-class family, his formative years were shaped by the German occupation of France during World War II. During this period, his older brother, Georges, was arrested for his involvement in the French Resistance and died in transit to a concentration camp. Deleuze pursued his philosophical studies at the Sorbonne, where he was taught by noted figures such as Georges Canguilhem and Jean Hyppolite.
Deleuze's early career was characterized by a deep engagement with the history of philosophy. After passing the competitive agrégation exam in 1948, he taught at various lycées (high schools) in Amiens, Orléans, and Paris. During this period, he published a series of monographs on canonical thinkers, including David Hume (Empiricism and Subjectivity, 1953), Friedrich Nietzsche (Nietzsche and Philosophy, 1962), Immanuel Kant (1963), and Baruch Spinoza (1968). These works were not mere historical summaries but rather creative encounters, through which Deleuze began to develop his own philosophical system centered on concepts of difference, multiplicity, and immanence. This period culminated in the publication of his two doctoral dissertations in 1968, which would become his magnum opus, Difference and Repetition, and Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza.
The student and worker uprisings of May 1968 marked a pivotal moment, radicalizing Deleuze's thought and work. In 1969, he met the psychoanalyst and political activist Félix Guattari, initiating one of the most famous collaborations in modern philosophy. Together, they co-authored the two-volume Capitalism and Schizophrenia, consisting of Anti-Oedipus (1972) and A Thousand Plateaus (1980). These works launched a powerful critique of psychoanalysis and capitalism, introducing seminal concepts such as "desiring-machines," "deterritorialization," and the "rhizome". During the 1970s, Deleuze became more politically active, joining Michel Foucault in advocating for prison reform and supporting the gay rights movement.
From 1969 until his retirement in 1987, Deleuze taught at the experimental University of Paris VIII at Vincennes, where his lectures became legendary. In his later years, he turned his attention to aesthetics, publishing influential works on cinema (Cinema 1: The Movement-Image and Cinema 2: The Time-Image) and painting (Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation). After suffering from severe respiratory illness for much of his life, including the removal of a lung, Deleuze died by suicide in November 1995.
The theory that Delusionism is a deliberately operationalized doctrine is strengthened by a critical temporal relationship. The philosophical concepts that provide such a powerful lens for analyzing 21st-century conflict are not recent developments; they emerged from the intellectual ferment of post-war France and were widely available for study long before the alleged initiation of the Minimisation Plan.
As the timeline below illustrates, Deleuze's foundational works were mature and broadly disseminated in the West for at least a decade before the key geopolitical realignments of 2001. This suggests that his philosophy should be viewed not merely as a coincidental analytical framework applied in hindsight, but as a potential operational doctrine that could have been studied and weaponized by state actors engaged in long-term strategic planning.
| Date/Period | Key Deleuzian Development | Key 'Minimisation Plan' Event |
|---|---|---|
| 1968-1969 | Publication of Deleuze's magnum opuses, Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense. | |
| 1972 | Publication of Anti-Oedipus with Félix Guattari, introducing concepts like "desiring-machines". | |
| 1980 | Publication of A Thousand Plateaus, introducing the concept of the "rhizome". | |
| 1980s-1990s | Widespread translation and dissemination of Deleuze's work in English-speaking academia. | |
| June-July 2001 | Establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO); signing of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, marking the alleged initiation of the 'Minimisation Plan'. |
The foundational phase of the Minimisation Plan (2001-2021) can be understood as the deliberate construction of a geopolitical rhizome designed to challenge the West's hierarchical, arborescent order. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), established in June 2001, and the BRICS forum are the primary institutional nodes of this network. Analyzed through a Deleuzian lens, they are not traditional alliances—which are arborescent structures requiring deep ideological cohesion—but are better understood as a decentralized, anti-hegemonic "assemblage".
Their stated goals of counter-terrorism and economic cooperation serve as a cover for their strategic function: to bypass and de-center the Western-led order. This structure exhibits a key feature of a rhizome: its strength is not in its unity but in its connectivity. The inclusion of states with conflicting interests, such as India and China or Iran and Saudi Arabia, is often cited as a weakness. However, from a rhizomatic perspective, it is a feature. An arborescent alliance like NATO requires that all branches connect to the same trunk of shared values. A rhizomatic assemblage only requires temporary, shared opposition to the existing hegemon on specific issues. India does not need to agree with China on borders to connect with it on the node of "de-dollarization." This allows the assemblage to be more flexible and expansive, challenging the hegemon from multiple, seemingly uncoordinated directions and making a unified response more difficult.
This network also performs a crucial function described as "legitimacy laundering." By building a consensus within these non-Western forums before taking an aggressive geopolitical action, the Sino-Russian alliance can frame its move as the implementation of a multilateral consensus, pre-emptively countering Western accusations of unilateral revisionism.
The foundational narrative simulacrum of the Minimisation Plan is the concept of a "multipolar world." This narrative has been consistently deployed in BRICS and SCO communiques, which call for a more "democratic, fair and rational political and economic international order". This language is a sophisticated psychological operation designed to reframe revisionist ambitions as a noble quest for global equity, making it highly appealing to nations in the "Global South" and attracting a growing coalition.
This narrative functions as a perfect simulacrum: its power lies not in its veracity but in its effect. It successfully frames the anti-hegemonic project in positive, aspirational terms. The recurring strategic pattern can be analyzed using the "Satan Archetype" model:
The "multipolarity" narrative, therefore, is not a sincere policy proposal but a foundational ideological attack designed to build the rhizomatic network necessary for the broader strategic competition.
Beyond the foundational "multipolarity" psyop, the Delusionist doctrine relies on the continuous injection of potent simulacra into the global information ecosystem. The efficacy of these narratives is not contingent on their empirical verifiability; rather, their power lies in their ability to generate tangible effects, primarily by creating a state of "unresolvable ambiguity" that corrodes institutional trust.
Case Study A: The COVID-19 Lab Leak Hypothesis. This narrative functions as a perfect simulacrum. Its strategic value is not derived from proving or disproving the hypothesis, but from its capacity to be endlessly debatable while remaining ultimately unresolvable. This permanent state of ambiguity serves to permanently erode public trust in scientific bodies, public health institutions, and governmental transparency, achieving a key strategic objective regardless of the underlying facts.
Case Study B: The Weaponized Jeffrey Epstein Scandal. This narrative operates similarly as a "black hole" for institutional legitimacy. It taps into and amplifies pre-existing anxieties about elite corruption, creating a pervasive sense of decay that is impossible to fully disprove. The specifics of the case become secondary to the narrative's function, which is to breed cynicism, paranoia, and a generalized distrust of political and financial elites, further paralyzing the target society. In both cases, the goal is not to establish a new truth but to make the very concept of a shared, verifiable truth seem naive and unattainable.
To quantify the cumulative effect of these narrative attacks, the Psochic Hegemony model provides a framework for mapping their moral and volitional character. The model uses a two-dimensional plane: a vertical axis for Morality (υ), measuring who benefits from an action, and a horizontal axis for Will (ψ), measuring the intensity of its enforcement. A healthy worldview is set to a baseline Moral Force of Fm=(1,1). A psyop is plotted as an Action Force vector, Fa=(υa,ψa), and its effect when believed is calculated as a vector addition: Fm_new=Fm+Fa. A running "Worldview" score, starting at 1.0, tracks the cumulative integrity of the target worldview, which is "reduced in size as it becomes polluted" by the acceptance of lies.
The following table models the theorized cumulative degradation of a target Western worldview over a 25-year period, demonstrating the attritional nature of the Minimisation Plan.
Table 3.1: Psochic Hegemony Analysis: Cumulative Worldview Degradation (2001-2025)
| Psyop # | Narrative/Simulacrum | Action Force (Fa=υ,ψ) | Resistance Required (Ra) | Effect on Moral Force (Ea) | Impact Magnitude | Acceptance Factor | Incremental Worldview Reduction | Cumulative Worldview Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "Multipolarity as Global Equity" (2001-) | (−0.5,0.7) | (0.5,−0.7) | (0.5,1.7) | 0.86 | 0.7 | 0.060 | 0.940 |
| 2 | "Ukraine 2014 Coup Narrative" (2014-) | (−0.6,0.5) | (0.6,−0.5) | (0.4,1.5) | 0.78 | 0.5 | 0.039 | 0.901 |
| 3 | "Systemic Western Electoral Illegitimacy" (2016-) | (−0.8,0.3) | (0.8,−0.3) | (0.2,1.3) | 0.85 | 0.6 | 0.051 | 0.850 |
| 4 | "COVID-19 Lab Leak/Bioweapon" (2020-) | (−0.7,0.6) | (0.7,−0.6) | (0.3,1.6) | 0.92 | 0.8 | 0.074 | 0.776 |
| 5 | "De-Dollarization Inevitability" (2022-) | (−0.4,0.8) | (0.4,−0.8) | (0.6,1.8) | 0.89 | 0.7 | 0.062 | 0.714 |
This quantitative model reveals a critical aspect of the doctrine's objective. The goal is not simply to induce nihilism. The vector addition shows that as a worldview's moral component (υ) is systematically reduced, its will/aggression component (ψ) is inflated. For example, the effect of Psyop #1 is a vector of (0.5,1.7), indicating a worldview with diminished morality but heightened assertiveness. The strategic aim of Delusionism, therefore, appears to be the creation of a target population that is cynical, distrustful, and internally divided, but also more aggressive, reactive, and prone to radical action. This induced state of high-energy, low-cohesion chaos makes the target society ungovernable and turns it into its own worst enemy.
The greatest vulnerability of Delusionism is rooted in its own philosophical foundation. A doctrine built on the axiom of "no origin" is fundamentally self-negating. While it provides a powerful toolkit for deconstruction, it offers no positive vision or stable foundation upon which to build a new order. It can dissolve the existing arborescent structure, but it is philosophically incapable of creating a viable replacement. This creates a strategic paradox: the doctrine may be potent enough to achieve its negative aim of minimizing the adversary, but it risks precipitating a global power vacuum and systemic chaos that ultimately benefits no single actor. This can be framed as the "Self-Negating Prophecy" of the doctrine: in destroying the foundations of its adversary, it may destroy the conditions necessary for any stable order, including its own.
The practical application of the rhizomatic model in geopolitics faces significant challenges. The most pressing is the gravity of power. A truly decentralized network must constantly resist the gravitational pull of its most powerful node—in this case, China. There is a persistent risk that the rhizome will collapse into a new, more centralized, China-centric arborescent structure. Such a development would undermine its core strategic flexibility and alienate other nodes in the network that joined to escape hegemony, not to submit to a new one.
Furthermore, the cohesion of the assemblage is questionable. The allegiance of many members, particularly in the Global South, may be more transactional than ideological, based on Chinese economic inducements rather than a genuine convergence of values. This makes the assemblage potentially brittle and prone to fracture under significant economic or military pressure, especially when key members diverge from the Sino-Russian line on critical issues.
Finally, a critical question remains about whether a strategy based on "good storytelling" can indefinitely survive contact with hard material reality. While simulacra are powerful tools for shaping perceptions, they cannot alter underlying economic, military, or demographic facts in the long run. A narrative of inevitable de-dollarization, for example, cannot by itself replace the deep, liquid, and legally stable markets that underpin the dollar's status. The Delusionist doctrine's reliance on creating ambiguity makes it inherently vulnerable to decisive, unambiguous outcomes. A systemic economic collapse within the anti-hegemonic bloc or a decisive military defeat of a core member would constitute a puncture in the narrative bubble that could not be easily obscured by further storytelling, potentially causing a catastrophic loss of credibility.
This points to the most effective counter-strategy. If the conflict is indeed axiomatic, then fact-checking and counter-propaganda are insufficient, as they operate at the level of "copies" while the attack is on the concept of the "original." The only logical and robust defense is one that consciously re-engages the conflict at the axiomatic level. This requires a strategic imperative for the West not just to debunk lies, but to re-articulate, re-affirm, and defend its own foundational belief in the existence and accessibility of objective truth. This is not merely a governmental or military task, but a civilizational one, involving education, civic renewal, and a philosophical defense of the principles of Enlightenment and scientific inquiry.
This analysis has examined Delusionism as a coherent and historically significant strategic innovation. It is a doctrine rooted in the post-structuralist philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, weaponizing concepts like the simulacrum and the rhizome to wage a new form of Axiomatic Warfare. Its core principles involve the deployment of self-validating narratives (simulacra) to create unresolvable ambiguity, the construction of a decentralized geopolitical assemblage (rhizome) to challenge the existing hierarchical order, and the ultimate goal of achieving the cognitive dissolution of a target society.
The doctrine's strengths are profound. As an asymmetric tool, it allows revisionist powers to deconstruct a stronger adversary's primary source of strength—its coherent, truth-based worldview—without requiring direct material confrontation. Its ability to turn a target society's own information ecosystem against itself is a potent force multiplier. However, its weaknesses are equally fundamental. Philosophically, it is a self-negating doctrine that can destroy but cannot build. Practically, its rhizomatic structure is vulnerable to internal power dynamics and transactional fragility. Strategically, its reality-agnostic approach is susceptible to being punctured by undeniable material events.
The emergence of Delusionism as a grand strategy represents a formidable challenge to the Western liberal order. Countering it requires a paradigm shift in strategic thinking, moving beyond tactical information warfare to a deeper, civilizational defense of the very axiom of truth upon which that order is built.
As requested, a meta-analytical breakdown of the logical methods used in this report is provided below.