Having read into the stuff a bit more:
He seems not to have understood the point of war - speaking of cooperation being a better solution. Let's just take the current geostrategic oil wars. If everyone on this planet wanted to live like a US citizen, we would need five earths. For a Western European style to everyone, we would still be in for 2.5 earths.
Means: if we wanted cooperation and drop the wars, the US would have to drop their overall resource consumption to 20% of their current level, Western European countries to 40%. Now tell that to the voters, that will be fun. The voters maybe don't want war, but they are also unwilling to drop the harvest of the wars. Because while this world order is cool for the West, it isn't acceptable for the rest. Means, they won't play it this way unless they are forced.
Another point, he hasn't understood relativity theory, this is obvious. He tells of possible future propulsion using antimatter, they would be much more powerful. Now if an object gets closer to the speed of light, its mass becomes bigger. Relativistic effect, proven in particle accelerators. As the mass gets bigger, the acceleration goes down because F = m_rel*a (relativistic mass). Just reaching (not even passing) the speed of light just for something so small as an electron would require not "big", but infinite amounts of energy because the relativistic mass gets infinite. For reaching this goal in a finite time, you would overmore need infinite power.
Before putting relativistic theory on the dumpster of the 20th century, it wouldn't be the worst idea to actually attend some university physics lectures. First year of physics will do fine.
While I don't want to put his PsyOp knowledge into question (that was his profession, after all), maybe he should stick with what he really has knowledge about instead of making up a crackpot.
