Impeaching the Fake Biden (If impeaching a nation and holding it accountable for high crimes too egregious to ignore was possible, the US would far and away top the list of offenders.)

According to TheHill.com on Tuesday:

“A number of (GOP House members prepared) impeachment articles against the” fake Biden they want introduced if Republicans regain control of the body in November midterms.

They accused him of “high crimes” on issues ranging from lack of border enforcement, all things flu/covid related and withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan a year ago in humiliating fashion.

GOP Rep. Bob Good was quoted saying:

“Congress has a duty to hold the (fake Biden) accountable for…failures of his constitutional responsibilities…”

“(A) new Republican (House) majority must be prepared to aggressively conduct oversight on day one.”

And this from TheHill:

Ahead of this year’s November midterms, “dozens of conservatives either endorsed (the fake JB’s) impeachment formally, or suggested they’re ready to support it.”

Since undemocratic Dems usurped power by election-rigging and took office in January 2021, “(a)t least 8 resolutions to impeach” him were introduced — to no avail with Dems controlling Congress and the White House.

According to GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s spokesman, Nick Dyer:

“She believes (that the White House imposter) should have been impeached as soon as he was sworn in, so of course she wants it to happen as soon as possible” if Republicans regain House control.

Reportedly, House and Senate majority leaders, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell respectively, are cool to the idea.

Impeachment of Clinton in 1998 and Trump twice gained them added public support.

No US president — legitimate or the other way around — was ever removed from office by impeachment.

According to Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution:

House members are empowered to impeach a sitting president.

Senate members have sole removal power, a two-thirds majority required.

Article II, Section 4 states: 

“The president, vice president and all civil officers of the US shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Indisputable grounds exist to impeach and remove the selected, unelected, White House imposter from office.

Election-rigging is an indisputable high crime.

Since Dems usurped control over the three branches of government, they recklessly escalated proxy hot and sanctions war on Russia over Nazified Ukraine.

They risk going down the same road against China over Taiwan.

In cahoots with the Wall Street owned and operated Fed, they wrecked the economy by soaring inflation and disrupted supply chains.

They caused shortages of basic goods, increased poverty and food insecurity, and are heading things for likely protracted Main Street Depression conditions.

There’s no ambiguity about the fake Biden’s illegitimacy and unfitness for any public office.

Along with other high crimes and misdemeanors, the illegitimate Biden regime continues war on Afghanistan by other means in multiple ways:

In pursuit of its war OF terrorism, not on it, the regime maintains illegal control of Afghanistan’s airspace.

According to a months earlier USCENTCOM statement:

When the Pentagon “authorizes (air) strikes…in Afghanistan, (it) won’t be negotiating with the Taliban about where and when (it’ll) drop bombs (sic).”

The Biden regime illegally considers the country “a free space” for US forces to operate in at its discretion — in flagrant breach of the UN Charter.

It went further by illegally and maliciously freezing around $9 billion held at the Wall Street-controlled New York Fed.

It was done to deprive the Taliban and millions of Afghans of access to the nation’s money — what’s vitally needed to prevent mass food insecurity from turning into widespread famine conditions.

Dominant Biden regime hardliners also ordered the US-controlled loan sharks of last resort IMF and World Bank to deny financial aid to Afghanistan.

And illegally imposed US sanctions on the nation remain in place with no prospect of their removal.

During 20 years of US occupation, the empire of lies and forever wars on invented enemies inflicted virtually every imaginable high crime against long-suffering Afghans.

The same reality applies to all nations raped and destroyed by hegemon USA throughout the post-WW II period — and earlier throughout the history of the self-styled indispensable nation.

If impeaching a nation and holding it accountable for high crimes too egregious to ignore was possible, the US would far and away top the list of offenders.

Biden Regime to Sell $1.1 Billion More Arms to Taiwan- Dominant Biden regime hardliners are recklessly pushing things for direct confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and with China over Taiwan.

Dominant Biden regime hardliners are recklessly pushing things for direct confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and with China over Taiwan.

What’s building is the ominous threat of possible war in Europe and the Asia/Pacific against nations able to hit back hard with overwhelming power if belligerently attacked by an aggressor.

According to US MSM, the Biden intends to ask Congress for rubber-stamp approval of another $1.1 billion worth of arms to China’s breakaway province — once again in defiance of the One China principle.

What stood the test of time since enactment of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act — affirming no US intention to establish formal diplomatic relations with Taipei — has been virtually declared null and void by the Trump and Biden regimes, a hostile affront to China’s sovereignty.

At its Monday and Tuesday press briefings, China’s Foreign Ministry didn’t comment on the new US arms sale.

In response to an earlier US announced one to Taiwan, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhou Lijian, said the following:

US sales to the breakaway province “seriously interfere with China’s internal affairs, seriously damage China’s sovereignty and security interests, send a seriously wrong signal to Taiwan independence forces, and severely damage China-US relations and peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait,” adding:

“China will make a legitimate and necessary response according to how the situation develops.”

In response to the latest MSM reported upcoming arms sale to Taiwan, spokesman for China’s US embassy, Liu Pengyu, said the following:

“The US side needs to immediately stop arms sales to and military contact with Taiwan, stop creating factors that could lead to tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and follow through on (its) statement of not supporting ‘Taiwan independence.’ ”

The new US arms package reportedly includes:

60 AGM-84L Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles for $355 million

100 AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder tactical air-to-air missiles for $85.6 million, and 

$655.4 million for a surveillance radar contract extension.

On Tuesday, an unnamed Chinese official reportedly said that US arms sales to Taiwan strengthen pro-independence elements to resist reunification with the mainland.

At the same time, these sales to the island won’t change the military balance between Beijing and its breakaway province.

Repeated arms sales to Taiwan escalate regional tensions in pursuit of US imperial aims.

According to Bloomberg News on August 29:

“The State Department informally notified Congress of the sale late Monday,” adding:

“(N)otification marks the beginning of several weeks of staff consultations that will result in a formal arms-sale proposal from the State Department.”

“With support for Taiwan running high among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the package will likely face little resistance from lawmakers.”

According to the Biden regime’s State Department, it doesn’t comment on proposed arms sales until Congress is formally notified.

When approved, the latest package will be the largest one since a $2.4 billion sale to Taiwan in October 2020 and largest one since the illegitimate Biden regime usurped power by election rigging.

Its dominant hardliners and likeminded congressional members are recklessly challenging China by repeated arms sales — 4 so far by the Biden regime with a fifth package upcoming.

The Biden regime and Congress also increased numbers of provocative visits to the island.

And provocative saber-rattling transits through the Taiwan Strait by US warships risk direct confrontation with China by going too far.

Would either wing of the US war party tolerate the presence of Russian or Chinese warships positioned in international waters near the US east or west coasts, in the Gulf of Mexico, or deployed near the US border in Canada or the United Mexican states?

No elaboration of what’s clear is needed.

What’s going on is part of US war on China by other means, including decades of repeated arms sales to Taiwan, a breached promise to go the other way.

On August 17, 1982, the US/PRC Joint Communique included a promise by the Reagan admin. to reduce arms sales to Taiwan.

Instead, since the January 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, over $70 billion worth of US arms have been sold to Taipei — further proof that hegemon USA can never be trusted, its word never its bond.

Last Friday, China’s Xinhua stressed the above reality, saying:

So-called US “rules-based international order (is code language for its longstanding pursuit of) hegemony (over other nations by) destroy(ing) rules and order” — as mandated by the UN Charter and other international laws.

US actions on the world stage prove time and again that its ruling regimes pursue what they “see fit.”

They repeatedly and illegally interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, toppling their governments, replacing them with subservient to US interests puppet rule.

At the same time, virtually everything the US agreed to with other nations it breached.

Time and again, Beijing stressed that Taiwan is sovereign Chinese territory to be reunited with the mainland.

That it won’t tolerate US interference in this core issue.

Challenging China over Taiwan risks direct confrontation.

Is that where things are heading?

If the empire of lies pushes things beyond a point of no return with China and Russia, will its core NATO allies go along or break with the US on this crucial issue to avoid possible global war with nukes?

If the worst of scenarios unfolds ahead between hegemon USA and Sino/Russia, will Britain, France, Germany and other Western states risk self-destruction by going along with their higher power in Washington or make a clean break in self-defense?

The fullness of time will tell.

What To Do When Gun Control Gets Really Bad- We Need to Prepare For The Worst And Always Ready to Resist!

Gun Control is a favorite tactic for many politicians on the left. It allows them to shift the blame from the person, whose worldviews and political party often aligns with theirs, to a simple tool they can ban. With an all Republican everything, you’d think we wouldn’t have to worry, but that’s far from true. These people seemingly always find a way to infiltrate politics and attempt to strip us of our God-given rights. So what do we do? How do we fight back if gun control legislation is proposed or passed?

#1. Learn How To Make Your Own

California is the beacon of cruddy gun control laws in the United States. They’ve gone above and beyond to reclassify your standard semi-automatic rifle into what they call an assault rifle. What we’ve seen is people and companies outsmarting the legislature at every turn. One of the most famous means was building your own gun. Specifically AR 15s. AR 15s are always on the chopping block, but even California couldn’t stop the signal.

With the advent of 80% lowers Californians were able to again build their own rifles within the law. The AR 15 is hardly the only weapon you can build. In fact, an enterprising patriot build can manufacture their own semi-auto Sten gun, Glocks, MAC 10/11s, AK rifles and more. The main issue is going to be acquiring the skills and tools needed to make these weapons. It takes a little mechanical skill and a lot of different tools.

It would be wise to start learning the insides and outsides of guns now. Learn to build them, acquire the tools, and fire up the Youtube machine. Here you’ll find as hard as they try they can’t stop the signal. You can build your own with a little practice, and it’s perfectly legal to do so. You aren’t just building guns, you are learning valuable skills regarding the construction and design of firearms that could be invaluable if things got really bad.

Important below:

Today I’d like to share with you a “3-second survival hack” you can use to skyrocket your chances of protecting your loved ones during ANY crisis.
This technique is so powerful it can give you almost superhuman powers during the ugliest nightmares imaginable….
From natural disasters like earthquakes or tornadoes…
To explosive situations like mass shootings or even nationwide martial law.
And It doesn’t matter if you’re out of shape…
Or have no equipment…
Or even if you’re disabled living in a wheelchair.
This technique has been tested and proven by elite soldiers and real world “miracle” survivors from around the world.

#2. Recognize the Gun Ban Matrix

One fact we’ve seen over and over again with anti-gunners is that they know absolutely nothing about guns. If the power these people had wasn’t so terrifying it would be hilarious. Every time they open their mouths about guns they say something incredibly stupid. They simply target guns that look scary and that’s it. That’s why the gun ban matrix exists. The gun ban matrix is a list of features and guns unlikely to be banned because anti-gunners are idiots and don’t understand firearms.

These are the guns you should consider investing in should sweeping legislation occur. In case the situations getting drastic and confiscation begins things may move too fast for people to react. In that event a neutered gun is better than no gun.

The first guns to go are going to be the traditional targets for anti-gunners, the AK 47s, the AR 15s, the Tavors, and the usual suspects. They may be banned by name, or by the features they share. A good alternative to these semi-auto rifles is the Ruger Mini 14 and Mini 30 series. They can be purchased in not so scary configurations.

Past the Mini 14 and Mini 30, there is the fixed magazine SKS rifle. It’s often left off ban lists, and it’s affordable and common. It’s limited to ten rounds, but with stripper clips, you can reload quite fast with practice.

Past this level we get into manually operated firearms, this includes pump-action shotguns, and lever and bolt action rifles. A good lever action rifle is a rapid firing gun and in the right caliber can hold up to 14 rounds. These guns are highly unlikely to be banned without a full constitutional amendment.

#3. Don’t Give A Single Inch

With the recent Las Vegas shooting there has been an increased interest in banning a firearm accessory known as a bump fire stock. These accessories are rather dumb and useless, and in no way did it make the shooter more lethal. Regardless of how dumb and useless they are there is no reason the firearms community should let them be banned without a fight. With the NRA even saying the ATF should reevaluate bump fire stocks.

This is how gun control starts, with tiny little cuts. We let them take one dumb accessory and next time they’ll push for something else, and they’ll keep pushing. Give them nothing, not a single inch. As gun rights advocates we have to defend what we have and go on the offensive. Fight back and take our God Given rights back.

#4. Push Back and Push Back Hard

If legislation gets passed regarding gun control, and I mean any legislation at all, we have to push back. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding, tax paying, job having citizens who want nothing more than to live in peace. We all know actual gun control will do absolutely nothing to strip criminals of firearms, just good people who already obey the law.

If gun control happens as law abiding gun owners we have to flood the legislator’s offices with our demands. We have to protest, we have to write letters, we need to march on the capitals. In 2012 the gun community did an amazing job of coming together to resist any form of gun control. We need that same response to every law that passes, heck we need that reaction every gun control law that is even proposed.

We need to push at the local, state and federal level. Work every angle possible. We have to keep supporting companies that agree with our God-given rights, we have to join gun rights organizations of every kind. We literally have to put our money where our mouth is.

#5. Focus on the Small Politics as Much as the Large

It’s easy to forget the importance of local politics when it comes to federal gun control. Local and state politics can make all the difference. We saw Sheriff’s in states across the union step forward and say they would refuse to enforce federal gun control laws in their counties. We saw states and municipalities adopt laws that would act to nullify federal gun control laws.

If we can’t toss the anti-freedom and anti-gun bastards out of federal offices we can at least elect the right people at the local and state level to ensure the laws are useless.

Resist

As American citizens, we owe it to future generations to resist. Resist with every fiber we have. Resist gun control measures with everything we can. We need to prepare for the worst and always ready to resist.

The most shocking article can be found below.

Liberal’s hidden agenda: more than just your guns…

… the impending collapse of the US food supply system
will steal the food from your kids’ tables…

Watch this video below to find out the great secrets hidden by the government.

It’s Official: Hegemon USA at War on Russia (Humanity trembles with the likes of them in charge — their fingers on the nuclear trigger, their willingness to squeeze it.)

Are things on a path toward global war 3.0?

Is it inevitable?

Will it be waged with nukes able to end life on earth by mass destruction and nuclear winter?

Cities turned to smoldering rubble can be rebuilt.

Radioactive contamination is long-lasting.

If occurs from enough detonations, nuclear winter threatens all life forms with extinction.

Physician, nuclear expert, anti-war activist, Helen Caldicott, earlier explained the following: 

“If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced.”

A “single failure of nuclear deterrence (could) start nuclear war.” 

Devastating consequences would follow, potentially killing “tens of millions of people, and caus(ing) longterm, catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of earth’s protective ozone layer.”

“The result would be a global nuclear famine that could kill up to one billion people.”

Nuclear winter is the ultimate nightmare.

Einstein stressed the following:

“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

The risk is greatly heightened by Washington’s criminal class, especially undemocratic Dems.

Paul Craig Roberts stressed it saying:

A Dem-controlled “new Third Reich…Nazi” regime runs hegemon USA — “one far more dangerous thanks to the digital revolution (and thermonukes), a godsend for tyrants.”

The vast majority of Americans and others throughout the West haven’t escaped from “The Matrix in which their minds are trapped.” 

So they don’t realize how greatly their lives and well-being are endangered by diabolical gangsterism running their nations.

On August 26, ResponsibleStatecraft.org (RS below) explained the following:

The Biden regime intends “naming” a Pentagon “military assistance mission in (Nazified) Ukraine…”

It’ll be a separate command like Operation Desert Storm or Operation Enduring Freedom — a US general and support staff running it.

This step represents a virtual US declaration of war on Russia in less than so many words.

It indicates no end to what RS called a “a long hard slog.”

It signals longterm US military support for Nazified Ukraine and use of its territory as a Pentagon base for perpetual confrontation with Russia.

It risks crossing the line from proxy to hot war between the world’s dominant nuclear powers.

Planned months in advance — begun 4 weeks after the made-in-the-USA mother of all false flags to that time — preemptive war on nonthreatening, nonbelligerent Afghanistan by the empire of lies lasted weeks shy of 20 years before a humiliating Biden regime pullout last August.

Will US war on Russia surpass it in length?

Or will nukes be used to end it sooner — and with it planet earth as now exists and all its life forms?

Perpetual war on invented enemies is longstanding US policy — how military Keynesianism on steroids operates.

Enemies are invented to advance hegemon USA’s aims for unchallenged control of world community nations, their resources and populations — by brute force and other diabolical means.

Well over 1,000 Pentagon bases worldwide are platforms for waging forever wars on humanity.

Their existence threatens everyone everywhere, including:

Large-scale Main Operating Bases, Forward Operation Sites (major installations but are smaller than MOBs) and Cooperative Security Locations.

The latter posts are to preposition weapons, munitions, and modest numbers of troops.

The existence of the above bases has nothing to do with providing homeland or regional security.

They’re launching pads for perpetual US aggression on invented enemies.

In cahoots with diabolical CIA actions, they’re also for toppling independent governments by coups or color revolutions, assassinating their leaders, propping up friendly despots, illicit drug trafficking, suppressing beneficial social change, and replacing democracy as it should be with vassal rule subservience to US interests.

A state of permanent war defines how the empire of lies operates at home and worldwide.

On establishing a new military command for perpetual war in Ukraine on Russia, RS quoted senior advisor to Concerned Veterans of America, Dan Caldwell, saying the following:

“This move could signal to other actors in the conflict — particularly (Ukraine and Russia) — that (hegemon USA) is planning on getting significantly more directly involved in the war itself.”

“That of course could lead to the war being prolonged and raise the risk of escalation between (US-dominated) NATO, and” the Russian Federation.

Separately, retired US Lt. Col. Daniel Davis explained the following:

“Putting a name on an operation is far more significant than merely coming up with a catchy tagline.”

“It confers an intent to provide longterm, sustained, and expensive support to one side of a war” against invented enemy Russia. 

It’s at a time of growing economic crisis conditions throughout the US/West — a reason for dominant Biden regime hardliners to want the the subject changed as a way to try staying in power.

Separately the Libertarian Institute noted what I discussed in an article last week:

Likely incoming UK prime minister, Liz Truss, replacing BoJo in early September, “declared (her willingness) to kick off thermonuclear warfare” once in power in a matter of days.

Last week, she minced no words, saying: “I’m ready to do it.”

In cahoots with Washington’s criminal class, humanity trembles with the likes of them in charge — their fingers on the nuclear trigger, their willingness to squeeze it.

Great Propaganda Tricks Of Today: Fear, Shame And Scapegoating… And Other Covert Mind Games That Violate Your Right Not to Be Treated Like Cattle By Supercilious Scum

The political “elite” clearly look on the rest of us as cattle to be herded, tagged, corralled and culled by their betters. That view of the rest of humanity justifies all manner of crimes against the herd and explains why their treatment of the  citizenry who place their trust in them is so amoral.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that justifying their egregious treatment of the citizenry by pointing out the alleged dangers of the pandemic does not hold water. These people knew damn well that the alleged pandemic, based on fraudulent tests, false stats and outright propaganda lies, was not the threat it was made out to be, not even close.

Who is responsible for inflicting unethical behavioural-science ‘nudges’ on the British people?

The state’s strategic deployment of fear, shame and peer pressure – or ‘affect, ‘ego’ and ‘norms’ in the language of behavioural science – throughout the covid-19 pandemic, as a means of ‘nudging’ people’s cohttps://www.pandata.org/mpliance with restrictions and the vaccine rollout has been widely criticised. Ethical concerns about the Government’s use of these psychological techniques in their messaging campaign arise from several aspects of this form of influence: the wilful infliction of emotional distress on the general population as a means of increasing conformity; the failure to seek informed consent from those targeted; the contentious and non-evidenced public health policies which these strategies helped to implement; and the fact that ‘nudges’ commonly exert their influence below a person’s level of consciousness, thereby fuelling the accusation that they are manipulative.

But who is primarily responsible for inflicting these morally dubious, and often damaging, behavioural-science ‘nudges’ on British citizens?

There are four groups of stakeholders who could feasibly be responsible for these egregious actions:

  1. British Psychological Society (BPS)
  2. Behavioural Insights Team (BIT)
  3. Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)
  4. Elected politicians and their civil servants

To date, all four seem to be shirking any responsibility. Indeed, when probed, the responses of these collectives resemble a duplicitous hybrid of a police officer’s, ‘Move along, nothing to see here’, and the reggae musician Shaggy denying his misdemeanours with the mantra, ‘It wasn’t me’.

Let’s consider, in turn, each group of actors who might be responsible.

  1. British Psychological Society (BPS)

The BPS is the professional organisation representing psychologists in the UK. Several of its prominent members have been actively involved in SAGE, providing psychological advice to Government about how to maximise the impact of the covid-19 messaging campaign.  One of the central roles of the BPS is to ensure that its members practice in a responsible and morally acceptable way. According to its Code of Ethics, psychologists should respect ‘consent’ and ‘self-determination’, while always ensuring ‘the avoidance of harm and the prevention of abuse or misuse of their contribution to society’. Given this remit, and the BPS’s role as the guardian of ethical psychological practice, presumably this learned organisation would thoroughly address our concerns about ‘nudging’, expressed in a letter signed by 46 psychologists and therapists, and submitted on the 6th January 2021.

But no, they were having none of it!

An initial response from Dr Debra Malpass (Director of Knowledge and Insight) questioned whether the ‘nudges’ under scrutiny were actually covert, asserted that it was ‘not appropriate’ for the BPS to respond to concerns about unnamed psychologists, and that they were ‘incredibly proud’ of the ‘fantastic work done by psychologists throughout the pandemic’. When it subsequently became apparent that our questions had not been addressed by their ethics committee, we prompted them further and on the 1st July 2021 Dr Roger Paxton (chair of the BPS Ethics Committee) responded, stridently arguing that:

  • The psychological strategies deployed were ‘indirect’ rather than covert;
  • The application of psychology in this instance fell outside the realm of individual health decisions (so the ethical requirement to obtain informed consent was not an issue);
  • Levels of fear within the general population were proportionate to the objective risk posed by the virus;
  • The psychologists’ role in the pandemic response demonstrated ‘social responsibility and the competent and responsible employment of psychological expertise’.

Dr Paxton’s claims constitute a misleading cocktail of distortion, evasion and disingenuousness.

So if the guardians of ethical psychological practice deny any wrongdoing – ‘move along, nothing to see here’ – who else might be responsible for the unethical application of behavioural science?

  1. Behavioural Insights Team (BIT)

In 2010, in the Prime Minister’s office, the BIT was spawned: ‘The world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy’. The psychological strategies deployed by the BIT have been described as providing ‘low cost, low pain ways of nudging citizens … into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act’. Many of these techniques of persuasion act – to various degrees – below people’s conscious awareness.

Since its inception, the BIT has been led by Professor David Halpern who, along with at least two other BIT members, also participated in the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B), a subgroup of SAGE that advised the Government on its covid-19 communications strategy. Over the last decade, the BIT has witnessed major expansion and now operates in many countries across the world.

Importantly, a 2010 document describing behavioural science techniques and co-written by Professor Halpern states: ‘Policymakers wishing to use these tools … need the approval of the public to do so’ (p74). More recently, in Professor Halpern’s book, Inside the Nudge Unit, he is even more emphatic about the importance of consent: ‘If Governments … wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public. Ultimately, you – the public, the citizen – need to decide what the objectives, and limits, of nudging and empirical testing should be’ (p375). As such, the leading voice of the BIT contradicts the above-mentioned Dr Paxton, chair of the BPS Ethics Committee.

The malevolent influence of the BIT in promoting deployment of fear, shame and scapegoating as weapons of influence can be detected in a (subsequently redacted) document advising front-line healthcare staff about how to effectively promote the covid-19 vaccines. The paper – the product of a collaboration between the BIT and the NHS – included recommendations to ‘leverage anticipated regret’ in older people by telling them that the ‘over 65s are three times more likely to die if you get COVID’ and to tell young people that ‘normality can only return, for you and others, with your vaccination’ [my emphasis].

In light of the abuse of behavioural science throughout the covid-19 pandemic, have members of the BIT been announcing their disapproval? One of their former founder members, Dr Simon Ruda, has recently expressed concern, stating that ‘the most egregious and far-reaching mistake made in responding to the pandemic has been the level of fear willingly conveyed on the public’ – another comment at odds with Dr Paxton’s testimony. In contrast, the current BIT practitioners have remained silent about the ethical basis of their recent work, despite their sphere of influence broadening into many areas of our day-to-day lives, including zero-carbon green messages in the media and the work of Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs (the latter involvement potentially implicated in tragic consequences for some of those targeted).

Intriguingly, on the 31st January 2022, I received an email from the BIT’s communication department denying any responsibility for the Government’s use of fear, shame and scapegoating in their covid-19 messaging. According to this spokesperson, ‘none of the examples you reference were actually our work or anything we worked on at all, and we categorically do not believe in using fear as a tactic’.

So it’s an emphatic, ‘It wasn’t me’ from the BIT.

  1. Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)

The SPI-B is one of the subgroups that provided expert advice to SAGE throughout the covid-19 pandemic. Its membership includes mainly behavioural scientists and psychologists, alongside representation from other professions such as sociology and criminology. The number of BIT members involved is at least three; it is not possible to give a definite number as four members of the SPI-B have opted to remain anonymous. Prominent figures within the BPS – including Professor Susan Michie – also participated in the work of the SPI-B.

According to its terms of reference, the SPI-B offers the government the ‘best possible behavioural science advice’ to inform the response to covid-19, by providing ‘strategies for behaviour change, to support control of and recovery from the epidemic and associated government policy’.

In regards to transparency about who holds responsibility for the decision to inflict unethical ‘nudges’ upon the British people, it is unfortunate that meetings are not routinely minuted. However, the SPI-B do publish an occasional ‘high-level summary’ of their activities and recommendations, and one of these documents suggest a substantial degree of culpability for the government’s use of fear, shame and peer pressure in their covid-19 messaging strategy.

The (now-infamous) minutes of the 22nd of March 2020 announced that ‘A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened … The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging’. In addition, the same document encouraged the victimisation of an outgroup with its recommendation that, ‘Communication strategies should provide social approval for desired behaviours’ and that ‘members of the community can be encouraged to provide it to each other’. More ominously, the ‘nudgers’ advised ministers to, ‘Consider use of social disapproval for failure to comply’. Furthermore, it seems that these behavioural-science experts were aware, even then, of the dangers of harnessing peer-to-peer censure in this way: ‘Social disapproval from one’s community can play an important role in preventing anti-social behaviour or discouraging failure to enact pro-social behaviour. However, this needs to be carefully managed to avoid victimisation, scapegoating and misdirected criticism’ (my emphasis).

Laura Dodsworth’s excellent piece of investigative journalism for her book, A State of Fear: how the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic, revealed that several participants in the SPI-B held major concerns about the group’s recommendations. One group member, educational psychologist Gavin Morgan, expressed the view that his colleagues ‘went overboard with the scary message to get compliance’ and confirmed there was no exit plan from the fear narrative. Another – who wished to remain anonymous – recalled that, in March 2020, ‘There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance & decisions were made to ramp up fear’. The same SPI-B member described their use of fear as ‘dystopian’ and ‘ethically questionable’, and went on to say that, ‘It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared’. A third group member (again anonymous) offered more generalised criticism: ‘People use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise … We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in’.

In light of the incriminating SPI-B minutes, together with the grave concerns expressed by some members of the group, it was reasonable to expect that the SPI-B co-chair – Professor Ann John – would accept some responsibility for promoting the use of unethical ‘nudges’ during the covid-19 pandemic. Such an opportunity arose when Professor John was invited to appear in front of the Government’s Science & Technology Committee on the 30th March 2022. (She had actually been scheduled to give evidence on the 2nd March but, due to unforeseen circumstances, did not attend). Perhaps, for the first time around the issue of behavioural science as deployed in the pandemic, we would hear acknowledgement of errors by an expert in a position of power. Or maybe expressions of humility, of lessons learned, an apology and a pledge to never err in this way again.

Sadly, not a bit of it.

During her interview, Professor John denied any responsibility for the unethical use of covert psychological strategies over the last two years. When challenged by MP Graham Stringer about the strategic decision to indiscriminately ramp up fear (as referenced in the SPI-B minutes of the 22nd March 2020) she responded, ‘I was not actually sitting on the SPI-B then’. When further pressed on this issue, Professor John implausibly claimed that her group advised against using scare tactics as a way of increasing compliance with covid-19 restrictions, stating ‘We never advised on upping the level of fear. I think it was presented as part of the evidence base … we absolutely advised that fear does not work’.

In an early part of the interview, Professor John contradicts her group’s terms of reference by insisting that the SPI-B was not trying to change people’s behaviour, but instead pursuing the altruistic motive of ‘ensuring that disproportionate and unintended impacts were not felt by different sectors of society’. When Graham Stringer asked which ethical framework her group was operating within, she shirks any responsibility for ensuring the morality of her group’s output, saying that, ‘although we present the advice, where policy decisions are made the Government have an advisory group on ethics’.

So it’s another resounding ‘It wasn’t me’ from the SPI-B.

  1. Elected politicians and their civil servants

One can credibly argue that the ultimate responsibility for the methods used in the Government’s covid-19 communications strategy lies with the elected politicians and their senior advisors. While expert scientists are bound by their professional codes to practice ethically, it is the government decision makers who decide what policies to unleash upon its citizens. Yet attempts to trigger some serious reflection about the Government’s use of behavioural science have, to date, been unsuccessful.

One exception to this collective inertia of our politicians has been the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) that is focusing on ‘Pandemic Response and Recovery’. I – and several others with serious misgivings about the ethics of ‘nudging’ – were invited to present our concerns to the APPG on the 28th February 2022. Members of the APPG listened with interest to our presentation and one of the co-chairs of the group – Graham Stringer – subsequently put some of our specific questions to Professor John (as discussed above).

The previous month, I had sent another letter (co-signed by 55 health professionals) to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) (a Commons select committee chaired by William Wragg MP) formally requesting an independent inquiry into the Government’s use of behavioural science. I received a prompt response from a PACAC administrator informing me that an inquiry into the Coronavirus Act 2020 was already underway, one element of their remit being to consider behavioural science, and the committee was still accepting oral evidence. I asked if I, or another psychologist with concerns about ‘nudging’, could be given the opportunity to contribute. Alas, no such invitation was forthcoming. I continued to press the PACAC for a stand-alone inquiry into state-sponsored behavioural science, but – to date – they have made no commitment to conduct such a review. Indeed, when my local MP asked the PACAC about the prospect of such an inquiry he was informed by an administrator that ‘there are no current plans to do so’.

Further indication of our elected MPs’ disinterest in exploring the ethics of ‘nudging’ came in the form of  the omission of any mention of behavioural science or propaganda in the draft terms of reference for the Inquiry into the covid-19 pandemic, published on the 10th March 2022. This glaring exclusion has been highlighted in the feedback to the inquiry; one can only hope that a behavioural science review is included in the finalised terms of reference, but it is difficult to have confidence that this will be the case.

It is plausible that Government ministers, and their senior civil servants, are reticent about the prospect of further scrutiny on this issue. Maybe the publically expressed concerns in the aftermath of Dodsworth’s book, A State of Fear, have prompted some high-level introspection regarding their strategic deployment of fear, shame and scapegoating on the British people. Whatever is occurring in the corridors of power, it is apparent that our elected representatives are – with a few exceptions – keen to convey the message, ‘Move along; nothing to see here’.

Concluding comments

Throughout the covid-19 era the world has witnessed an unprecedented campaign of propaganda ostensibly aimed at increasing compliance with lockdowns and other restrictions. In the UK, and many other countries, a prominent weapon within this crusade has been the strategic use of a range of behavioural-science techniques, including the covert (and ethically dubious) deployment of fear, shame and scapegoating. The British people have a right to know which state-funded players were responsible for the decision to resort to these distress-evoking methods of persuasion that have caused significant collateral harms.

To date, there has been a stark reluctance for any stakeholder – behavioural scientist or political official – to accept responsibility for these manipulative and damaging tactics. The BPS and the politicians in the PACAC apparently see nothing remiss in the Government’s use of ‘nudges’, while the behavioural scientists in the BIT and SPI-B insist they are in no ways culpable. In the implausible event that all these stakeholders hold no responsibility for scaring, shaming and othering citizens into submission, who else could it be? Behavioural scientists are now ubiquitous across government departments – including the Cabinet Office, the Home Office’s Research Information and Communication Unit (RICU) and the Counter Disinformation Cell – so perhaps the blame resides in one or more of these groups? Or maybe it is the commercial advertisers the Government has commissioned (at huge expense) to broadcast their covid-19 messaging?

Whoever it is, we need to know.

Great Propaganda Tricks Of Today: Fear, Shame And Scapegoating… And Other Covert Mind Games That Violate Your Right Not to Be Treated Like Cattle By Supercilious Scum

The political “elite” clearly look on the rest of us as cattle to be herded, tagged, corralled and culled by their betters. That view of the rest of humanity justifies all manner of crimes against the herd and explains why their treatment of the  citizenry who place their trust in them is so amoral.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that justifying their egregious treatment of the citizenry by pointing out the alleged dangers of the pandemic does not hold water. These people knew damn well that the alleged pandemic, based on fraudulent tests, false stats and outright propaganda lies, was not the threat it was made out to be, not even close.

The most shocking article can be found below.

Liberal’s hidden agenda: more than just your guns…

… the impending collapse of the US food supply system
will steal the food from your kids’ tables…

Watch this video below to find out the great secrets hidden by the government.

Who is responsible for inflicting unethical behavioural-science ‘nudges’ on the British people?

The state’s strategic deployment of fear, shame and peer pressure – or ‘affect, ‘ego’ and ‘norms’ in the language of behavioural science – throughout the covid-19 pandemic, as a means of ‘nudging’ people’s cohttps://www.pandata.org/mpliance with restrictions and the vaccine rollout has been widely criticised. Ethical concerns about the Government’s use of these psychological techniques in their messaging campaign arise from several aspects of this form of influence: the wilful infliction of emotional distress on the general population as a means of increasing conformity; the failure to seek informed consent from those targeted; the contentious and non-evidenced public health policies which these strategies helped to implement; and the fact that ‘nudges’ commonly exert their influence below a person’s level of consciousness, thereby fuelling the accusation that they are manipulative.

But who is primarily responsible for inflicting these morally dubious, and often damaging, behavioural-science ‘nudges’ on British citizens?

There are four groups of stakeholders who could feasibly be responsible for these egregious actions:

  1. British Psychological Society (BPS)
  2. Behavioural Insights Team (BIT)
  3. Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)
  4. Elected politicians and their civil servants

To date, all four seem to be shirking any responsibility. Indeed, when probed, the responses of these collectives resemble a duplicitous hybrid of a police officer’s, ‘Move along, nothing to see here’, and the reggae musician Shaggy denying his misdemeanours with the mantra, ‘It wasn’t me’.

Let’s consider, in turn, each group of actors who might be responsible.

  1. British Psychological Society (BPS)

The BPS is the professional organisation representing psychologists in the UK. Several of its prominent members have been actively involved in SAGE, providing psychological advice to Government about how to maximise the impact of the covid-19 messaging campaign.  One of the central roles of the BPS is to ensure that its members practice in a responsible and morally acceptable way. According to its Code of Ethics, psychologists should respect ‘consent’ and ‘self-determination’, while always ensuring ‘the avoidance of harm and the prevention of abuse or misuse of their contribution to society’. Given this remit, and the BPS’s role as the guardian of ethical psychological practice, presumably this learned organisation would thoroughly address our concerns about ‘nudging’, expressed in a letter signed by 46 psychologists and therapists, and submitted on the 6th January 2021.

But no, they were having none of it!

An initial response from Dr Debra Malpass (Director of Knowledge and Insight) questioned whether the ‘nudges’ under scrutiny were actually covert, asserted that it was ‘not appropriate’ for the BPS to respond to concerns about unnamed psychologists, and that they were ‘incredibly proud’ of the ‘fantastic work done by psychologists throughout the pandemic’. When it subsequently became apparent that our questions had not been addressed by their ethics committee, we prompted them further and on the 1st July 2021 Dr Roger Paxton (chair of the BPS Ethics Committee) responded, stridently arguing that:

  • The psychological strategies deployed were ‘indirect’ rather than covert;
  • The application of psychology in this instance fell outside the realm of individual health decisions (so the ethical requirement to obtain informed consent was not an issue);
  • Levels of fear within the general population were proportionate to the objective risk posed by the virus;
  • The psychologists’ role in the pandemic response demonstrated ‘social responsibility and the competent and responsible employment of psychological expertise’.

Dr Paxton’s claims constitute a misleading cocktail of distortion, evasion and disingenuousness.

So if the guardians of ethical psychological practice deny any wrongdoing – ‘move along, nothing to see here’ – who else might be responsible for the unethical application of behavioural science?

  1. Behavioural Insights Team (BIT)

In 2010, in the Prime Minister’s office, the BIT was spawned: ‘The world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy’. The psychological strategies deployed by the BIT have been described as providing ‘low cost, low pain ways of nudging citizens … into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act’. Many of these techniques of persuasion act – to various degrees – below people’s conscious awareness.

Since its inception, the BIT has been led by Professor David Halpern who, along with at least two other BIT members, also participated in the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B), a subgroup of SAGE that advised the Government on its covid-19 communications strategy. Over the last decade, the BIT has witnessed major expansion and now operates in many countries across the world.

Importantly, a 2010 document describing behavioural science techniques and co-written by Professor Halpern states: ‘Policymakers wishing to use these tools … need the approval of the public to do so’ (p74). More recently, in Professor Halpern’s book, Inside the Nudge Unit, he is even more emphatic about the importance of consent: ‘If Governments … wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public. Ultimately, you – the public, the citizen – need to decide what the objectives, and limits, of nudging and empirical testing should be’ (p375). As such, the leading voice of the BIT contradicts the above-mentioned Dr Paxton, chair of the BPS Ethics Committee.

The malevolent influence of the BIT in promoting deployment of fear, shame and scapegoating as weapons of influence can be detected in a (subsequently redacted) document advising front-line healthcare staff about how to effectively promote the covid-19 vaccines. The paper – the product of a collaboration between the BIT and the NHS – included recommendations to ‘leverage anticipated regret’ in older people by telling them that the ‘over 65s are three times more likely to die if you get COVID’ and to tell young people that ‘normality can only return, for you and others, with your vaccination’ [my emphasis].

In light of the abuse of behavioural science throughout the covid-19 pandemic, have members of the BIT been announcing their disapproval? One of their former founder members, Dr Simon Ruda, has recently expressed concern, stating that ‘the most egregious and far-reaching mistake made in responding to the pandemic has been the level of fear willingly conveyed on the public’ – another comment at odds with Dr Paxton’s testimony. In contrast, the current BIT practitioners have remained silent about the ethical basis of their recent work, despite their sphere of influence broadening into many areas of our day-to-day lives, including zero-carbon green messages in the media and the work of Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs (the latter involvement potentially implicated in tragic consequences for some of those targeted).

Intriguingly, on the 31st January 2022, I received an email from the BIT’s communication department denying any responsibility for the Government’s use of fear, shame and scapegoating in their covid-19 messaging. According to this spokesperson, ‘none of the examples you reference were actually our work or anything we worked on at all, and we categorically do not believe in using fear as a tactic’.

So it’s an emphatic, ‘It wasn’t me’ from the BIT.

  1. Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)

The SPI-B is one of the subgroups that provided expert advice to SAGE throughout the covid-19 pandemic. Its membership includes mainly behavioural scientists and psychologists, alongside representation from other professions such as sociology and criminology. The number of BIT members involved is at least three; it is not possible to give a definite number as four members of the SPI-B have opted to remain anonymous. Prominent figures within the BPS – including Professor Susan Michie – also participated in the work of the SPI-B.

According to its terms of reference, the SPI-B offers the government the ‘best possible behavioural science advice’ to inform the response to covid-19, by providing ‘strategies for behaviour change, to support control of and recovery from the epidemic and associated government policy’.

In regards to transparency about who holds responsibility for the decision to inflict unethical ‘nudges’ upon the British people, it is unfortunate that meetings are not routinely minuted. However, the SPI-B do publish an occasional ‘high-level summary’ of their activities and recommendations, and one of these documents suggest a substantial degree of culpability for the government’s use of fear, shame and peer pressure in their covid-19 messaging strategy.

The (now-infamous) minutes of the 22nd of March 2020 announced that ‘A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened … The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging’. In addition, the same document encouraged the victimisation of an outgroup with its recommendation that, ‘Communication strategies should provide social approval for desired behaviours’ and that ‘members of the community can be encouraged to provide it to each other’. More ominously, the ‘nudgers’ advised ministers to, ‘Consider use of social disapproval for failure to comply’. Furthermore, it seems that these behavioural-science experts were aware, even then, of the dangers of harnessing peer-to-peer censure in this way: ‘Social disapproval from one’s community can play an important role in preventing anti-social behaviour or discouraging failure to enact pro-social behaviour. However, this needs to be carefully managed to avoid victimisation, scapegoating and misdirected criticism’ (my emphasis).

Laura Dodsworth’s excellent piece of investigative journalism for her book, A State of Fear: how the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic, revealed that several participants in the SPI-B held major concerns about the group’s recommendations. One group member, educational psychologist Gavin Morgan, expressed the view that his colleagues ‘went overboard with the scary message to get compliance’ and confirmed there was no exit plan from the fear narrative. Another – who wished to remain anonymous – recalled that, in March 2020, ‘There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance & decisions were made to ramp up fear’. The same SPI-B member described their use of fear as ‘dystopian’ and ‘ethically questionable’, and went on to say that, ‘It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared’. A third group member (again anonymous) offered more generalised criticism: ‘People use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise … We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in’.

In light of the incriminating SPI-B minutes, together with the grave concerns expressed by some members of the group, it was reasonable to expect that the SPI-B co-chair – Professor Ann John – would accept some responsibility for promoting the use of unethical ‘nudges’ during the covid-19 pandemic. Such an opportunity arose when Professor John was invited to appear in front of the Government’s Science & Technology Committee on the 30th March 2022. (She had actually been scheduled to give evidence on the 2nd March but, due to unforeseen circumstances, did not attend). Perhaps, for the first time around the issue of behavioural science as deployed in the pandemic, we would hear acknowledgement of errors by an expert in a position of power. Or maybe expressions of humility, of lessons learned, an apology and a pledge to never err in this way again.

Sadly, not a bit of it.

During her interview, Professor John denied any responsibility for the unethical use of covert psychological strategies over the last two years. When challenged by MP Graham Stringer about the strategic decision to indiscriminately ramp up fear (as referenced in the SPI-B minutes of the 22nd March 2020) she responded, ‘I was not actually sitting on the SPI-B then’. When further pressed on this issue, Professor John implausibly claimed that her group advised against using scare tactics as a way of increasing compliance with covid-19 restrictions, stating ‘We never advised on upping the level of fear. I think it was presented as part of the evidence base … we absolutely advised that fear does not work’.

In an early part of the interview, Professor John contradicts her group’s terms of reference by insisting that the SPI-B was not trying to change people’s behaviour, but instead pursuing the altruistic motive of ‘ensuring that disproportionate and unintended impacts were not felt by different sectors of society’. When Graham Stringer asked which ethical framework her group was operating within, she shirks any responsibility for ensuring the morality of her group’s output, saying that, ‘although we present the advice, where policy decisions are made the Government have an advisory group on ethics’.

So it’s another resounding ‘It wasn’t me’ from the SPI-B.

  1. Elected politicians and their civil servants

One can credibly argue that the ultimate responsibility for the methods used in the Government’s covid-19 communications strategy lies with the elected politicians and their senior advisors. While expert scientists are bound by their professional codes to practice ethically, it is the government decision makers who decide what policies to unleash upon its citizens. Yet attempts to trigger some serious reflection about the Government’s use of behavioural science have, to date, been unsuccessful.

One exception to this collective inertia of our politicians has been the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) that is focusing on ‘Pandemic Response and Recovery’. I – and several others with serious misgivings about the ethics of ‘nudging’ – were invited to present our concerns to the APPG on the 28th February 2022. Members of the APPG listened with interest to our presentation and one of the co-chairs of the group – Graham Stringer – subsequently put some of our specific questions to Professor John (as discussed above).

The previous month, I had sent another letter (co-signed by 55 health professionals) to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) (a Commons select committee chaired by William Wragg MP) formally requesting an independent inquiry into the Government’s use of behavioural science. I received a prompt response from a PACAC administrator informing me that an inquiry into the Coronavirus Act 2020 was already underway, one element of their remit being to consider behavioural science, and the committee was still accepting oral evidence. I asked if I, or another psychologist with concerns about ‘nudging’, could be given the opportunity to contribute. Alas, no such invitation was forthcoming. I continued to press the PACAC for a stand-alone inquiry into state-sponsored behavioural science, but – to date – they have made no commitment to conduct such a review. Indeed, when my local MP asked the PACAC about the prospect of such an inquiry he was informed by an administrator that ‘there are no current plans to do so’.

Further indication of our elected MPs’ disinterest in exploring the ethics of ‘nudging’ came in the form of  the omission of any mention of behavioural science or propaganda in the draft terms of reference for the Inquiry into the covid-19 pandemic, published on the 10th March 2022. This glaring exclusion has been highlighted in the feedback to the inquiry; one can only hope that a behavioural science review is included in the finalised terms of reference, but it is difficult to have confidence that this will be the case.

It is plausible that Government ministers, and their senior civil servants, are reticent about the prospect of further scrutiny on this issue. Maybe the publically expressed concerns in the aftermath of Dodsworth’s book, A State of Fear, have prompted some high-level introspection regarding their strategic deployment of fear, shame and scapegoating on the British people. Whatever is occurring in the corridors of power, it is apparent that our elected representatives are – with a few exceptions – keen to convey the message, ‘Move along; nothing to see here’.

Concluding comments

Throughout the covid-19 era the world has witnessed an unprecedented campaign of propaganda ostensibly aimed at increasing compliance with lockdowns and other restrictions. In the UK, and many other countries, a prominent weapon within this crusade has been the strategic use of a range of behavioural-science techniques, including the covert (and ethically dubious) deployment of fear, shame and scapegoating. The British people have a right to know which state-funded players were responsible for the decision to resort to these distress-evoking methods of persuasion that have caused significant collateral harms.

To date, there has been a stark reluctance for any stakeholder – behavioural scientist or political official – to accept responsibility for these manipulative and damaging tactics. The BPS and the politicians in the PACAC apparently see nothing remiss in the Government’s use of ‘nudges’, while the behavioural scientists in the BIT and SPI-B insist they are in no ways culpable. In the implausible event that all these stakeholders hold no responsibility for scaring, shaming and othering citizens into submission, who else could it be? Behavioural scientists are now ubiquitous across government departments – including the Cabinet Office, the Home Office’s Research Information and Communication Unit (RICU) and the Counter Disinformation Cell – so perhaps the blame resides in one or more of these groups? Or maybe it is the commercial advertisers the Government has commissioned (at huge expense) to broadcast their covid-19 messaging?

Whoever it is, we need to know.

The latest news is shocking!!!

Experts predict that an EMP strike that wipes out electricity across the nation would ultimately lead to the demise of up to 90% of the population.

However, this figure begs an important question: if we were able to live thousands of years without even the concept of electricity, why would we suddenly all die without it?

The final prophecy… Is America Turning Into a Communist Country! (In the third year of soviet rule in America, you will no longer chew gum!) First published on March 23, 1935.

This article was written by my grandfather a long time ago and I would like to share it with you!

When America go communist as a result of the difficulties and problems that your capitalist social order is unable to solve, it will discover that communism, far from being an intolerable bureaucratic tyranny and individual regimentation, will be the means of greater individual liberty and shared abundance.

Most Americans regard communism solely in the light of the experience of the Soviet Union. They fear lest Sovietism in America would produce the same material result as it has brought for the culturally backward peoples of the Soviet Union.

They fear lest communism should try to fit them to a bed of Procrustes, and they point to the bulwark of Anglo-Saxon conservatism as an insuperable obstacle even to possibly desirable reforms. They argue that Great Britain and Japan would undertake military intervention against the American soviets. They shudder lest Americans be regimented in their habits of dress and diet, be compelled to subsist on famine rations, be forced to read stereotyped official propaganda in the newspapers, be coerced to serve as rubber stamps for decisions arrived at without their active participation or be required to keep their thoughts to themselves and loudly praise their soviet leaders in public, through fear of imprisonment and exile.

They fear monetary inflation, bureaucratic tyranny and intolerable red tape in obtaining the necessities of life. They fear soulless standardization in the arts and sciences, as well as in the daily necessities of life. They fear that all political spontaneity and the presumed freedom of the press will be destroyed by the dictatorship of a monstrous bureaucracy. And they shudder at the thought of being forced into an uncomprehended glibness in Marxist dialectic and disciplined social philosophies. They fear, in a word, that Soviet America will become the counterpart of what they have been told Soviet Russia looks like.

Actually American soviets will be as different from the Russian soviets as the United States of President Roosevelt differs from the Russian Empire of Czar Nicholas II. Yet communism can come in America only through revolution, just as independence and democracy came in America. The American temperament is energetic and violent, and it will insist on breaking a good many dishes and upsetting a good many apple carts before communism is firmly established. Americans are enthusiasts and sportsmen before they are specialists and statesmen, and it would be contrary to the American tradition to make a major change without choosing sides and cracking heads.

However, the American communist revolution will be insignificant compared to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, in terms of your national wealth and population, no matter how great its comparative cost. That is because civil war of a revolutionary nature isn’t fought by the handful of men at the top — the 5 or 10 percent who own nine-tenths of American wealth; this handful could recruit its counterrevolutionary armies only from among the lower middle classes. Even so, the revolution could easily attract them to its banner by showing that support of the soviets alone offers them the prospect of salvation.

Everybody below this group is already economically prepared for communism. The depression has ravaged your working class and has dealt a crushing blow to the farmers, who had already been injured by the long agricultural decline of the postwar decade. There is no reason why these groups should counterpoise determined resistance to the revolution; they have nothing to lose, providing, of course, that the revolutionary leaders adopt a farsighted and moderate policy toward them.

Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal’s guard of billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and Rockefellers? They will cease struggling as soon as they fail to find other people to fight for them.

The American soviet government will take firm possession of the commanding heights of your business system: the banks, the key industries and the transportation and communication systems. It will then give the farmers, the small tradespeople and businessmen a good long time to think things over and see how well the nationalized section of industry is working.

Here is where the American soviets can produce real miracles. “Technocracy” can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism.

National industry will be organized along the line of the conveyor belt in your modern continuous-production automotive factories. Scientific planning can be lifted out of the individual factory and applied to your entire economic system. The results will be stupendous.
Costs of production will be cut to 20 percent, or less, of their present figure. This, in turn, would rapidly increase your farmers’ purchasing power.

To be sure, the American soviets would establish their own gigantic farm enterprises, as schools of voluntary collectivization. Your farmers could easily calculate whether it was to their individual advantage to remain as isolated links or to join the public chain.

The same method would be used to draw small businesses and industries into the national organization of industry. By soviet control of raw materials, credits and quotas of orders, these secondary industries could be kept solvent until they were gradually and without compulsion sucked into the socialized business system.

Without compulsion! The American soviets would not need to resort to the drastic measures that circumstances have often imposed upon the Russians. In the United States, through the science of publicity and advertising, you have means for winning the support of your middle class that were beyond the reach of the soviets of backward Russia with its vast majority of pauperized and illiterate peasants. This, in addition to your technical equipment and your wealth, is the greatest asset of your coming communist revolution. Your revolution will be smoother in character than ours; you will not waste your energies and resources in costly social conflicts after the main issues have been decided; and you will move ahead so much more rapidly in consequence.

Even the intensity and devotion of religious sentiment in America will not prove an obstacle to the revolution. If one assumes the perspective of soviets in America, none of the psychological brakes will prove firm enough to retard the pressure of the social crisis. This has been demonstrated more than once in history. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the Gospels themselves contain some pretty explosive aphorisms.

As to the comparatively few opponents of the soviet revolution, one can trust to American inventive genius. It may well be that you will take your unconvinced millionaires and send them to some picturesque island, rent-free for life, where they can do as they please.

You can do this safely, for you will not need to fear foreign interventions. Japan, Great Britain and the other capitalistic countries that intervened in Russia couldn’t do anything but take American communism lying down. As a matter of fact, the victory of communism in America — the stronghold of capitalism — will cause communism to spread to other countries. Japan will probably have joined the communistic ranks even before the establishment of the American soviets. The same is true of Great Britain.

In any case, it would be a crazy idea to send His Britannic Majesty’s fleet against Soviet America, even as a raid against the southern and more conservative half of your continent. It would be hopeless and would never get any farther than a second-rate military escapade.

Within a few weeks or months of the establishment of the American soviets, Pan-Americanism would be a political reality.

The governments of Central and South America would be pulled into your federation like iron filings to a magnet. So would Canada. The popular movements in these countries would be so strong that they would force this great unifying process within a short period and at insignificant costs. I am ready to bet that the first anniversary of the American soviets would find the Western Hemisphere transformed into the Soviet United States of North, Central and South America, with its capital at Panama. Thus for the first time the Monroe Doctrine would have a complete and positive meaning in world affairs, although not the one foreseen by its author.

In spite of the complaints of some of your arch-conservatives, Roosevelt is not preparing for a soviet transformation of the United States.

The NRA aims not to destroy but to strengthen the foundations of American capitalism by overcoming your business difficulties. Not the Blue Eagle but the difficulties that the Blue Eagle is powerless to overcome will bring about communism in America. The “radical” professors of your Brain Trust are not revolutionists: they are only frightened conservatives. Your president abhors “systems” and “generalities.” But a soviet government is the greatest of all possible systems, a gigantic generality in action.

The average man doesn’t like systems or generalities either. It is the task of your communist statesmen to make the system deliver the concrete goods that the average man desires: his food, cigars, amusements, his freedom to choose his own neckties, his own house and his own automobile. It will be easy to give him these comforts in Soviet America.

Most Americans have been misled by the fact that in the USSR we had to build whole new basic industries from the ground up. Such a thing could not happen in America, where you are already compelled to cut down on your farm area and to reduce your industrial production. As a matter of fact, your tremendous technological equipment has been paralyzed by the crisis and already clamors to be put to use. You will be able to make a rapid step-up of consumption by your people the starting point of your economic revival.

You are prepared to do this, as is no other country. Nowhere else has the study of the internal market reached such intensity as in the United States. It has been done by your banks, trusts, individual businessmen, merchants, traveling salesmen and farmers as part of their stock-in-trade. Your soviet government will simply abolish all trade secrets, will combine all the findings of these researches for individual profit and will transform them into a scientific system of economic planning. In this your government will be helped by the existence of a large class of cultured and critical consumers. By combining the nationalized key industries, your private businesses and democratic consumer cooperation, you will quickly develop a highly flexible system for serving the needs of your population.

This system will be made to work not by bureaucracy and not by policemen but by cold, hard cash.

Your almighty dollar will play a principal part in making your new soviet system work. It is a great mistake to try to mix a “planned economy” with a “managed currency.” Your money must act as regulator with which to measure the success or failure of your planning.

Your “radical” professors are dead wrong in their devotion to “managed money.” It is an academic idea that could easily wreck your entire system of distribution and production. That is the great lesson to be derived from the Soviet Union, where bitter necessity has been converted into official virtue in the monetary realm.

There the lack of a stable gold ruble is one of the main causes of our many economic troubles and catastrophes. It is impossible to regulate wages, prices and quality of goods without a firm monetary system. An unstable ruble in a Soviet system is like having variable molds in a conveyor-belt factory. It won’t work.

Only when socialism succeeds in substituting administrative control for money will it be possible to abandon a stable gold currency. Then money will become ordinary paper slips, like trolley or theater tickets. As socialism advances, these slips will also disappear, and control over individual consumption — whether by money or administration — will no longer be necessary when there is more than enough of everything for everybody!

Such a time has not yet come, though America will certainly reach it before any other country. Until then, the only way to reach such a state of development is to retain an effective regulator and measure for the working of your system. As a matter of fact, during the first few years a planned economy needs sound money even more than did old-fashioned capitalism. The professor who regulates the monetary unit with the aim of regulating the whole business system is like the man who tried to lift both his feet off the ground at the same time.

Soviet America will possess supplies of gold big enough to stabilize the dollar — a priceless asset. In Russia we have been expanding our industrial plant by 20 and 30 percent a year; but — owing to a weak ruble — we have not been able to distribute this increase effectively. This is partly because we have allowed our bureaucracy to subject our monetary system to administrative one-sidedness. You will be spared this evil. As a result you will greatly surpass us in both increased production and distribution, leading to a rapid advance in the comfort and welfare of your population.

In all this, you will not need to imitate our standardized production for our pitiable mass consumers. We have taken over from czarist Russia a pauper’s heritage, a culturally undeveloped peasantry with a low standard of living. We had to build our factories and dams at the expense of our consumers. We have had continual monetary inflation and a monstrous bureaucracy.

Soviet America will not have to imitate our bureaucratic methods. Among us the lack of the bare necessities has caused an intense scramble for an extra loaf of bread, an extra yard of cloth by everyone. In this struggle our bureaucracy steps forward as a conciliator, as an all-powerful court of arbitration. You, on the other hand, are much wealthier and would have little difficulty in supplying all of your people with all of the necessities of life. Moreover, your needs, tastes and habits would never permit your bureaucracy to divide the national income. Instead, when you organize your society to produce for human needs rather than private profits, your entire population will group itself around new trends and groups, which will struggle with one another and prevent an overweening bureaucracy from imposing itself upon them.

You can thus avoid growth of bureaucratism by the practice of soviets, that is to say, democracy — the most flexible form of government yet developed. Soviet organization cannot achieve miracles but must simply reflect the will of the people. With us the soviets have been bureaucratized as a result of the political monopoly of a single party, which has itself become a bureaucracy. This situation resulted from the exceptional difficulties of socialist pioneering in a poor and backward country.

The American soviets will be full-blooded and vigorous, without need or opportunity for such measures as circumstances imposed upon Russia. Your unregenerate capitalists will, of course, find no place for themselves in the new setup. It is hard to imagine Henry Ford as the head of the Detroit Soviet.

Yet a wide struggle between interests, groups and ideas is not only conceivable — it is inevitable. One-year, five-year, ten-year plans of business development; schemes for national education; construction of new basic lines of transportation; the transformation of the farms; the program for improving the technological and cultural equipment of Latin America; a program for stratosphere communication; eugenics — all of these will arouse controversy, vigorous electoral struggle and passionate debate in the newspapers and at public meetings.

For Soviet America will not imitate the monopoly of the press by the heads of Soviet Russia’s bureaucracy. While Soviet America would nationalize all printing plants, paper mills and means of distribution, this would be a purely negative measure. It would simply mean that private capital will no longer be allowed to decide what publications should be established, whether they should be progressive or reactionary, “wet” or “dry,” puritanical or pornographic. Soviet America will have to find a new solution for the question of how the power of the press is to function in a socialist regime. It might be done on the basis of proportional representation for the votes in each soviet election.

Thus the right of each group of citizens to use the power of the press would depend on their numerical strength — the same principle being applied to the use of meeting halls, allotment of time on the air and so forth.

Thus the management and policy of publications would be decided not by individual checkbooks but by group ideas. This may take little account of numerically small but important groups, but it simply means that each new idea will be compelled, as throughout history, to prove its right to existence.

Rich Soviet America can set aside vast funds for research and invention, discoveries and experiments in every field. You won’t neglect your bold architects and sculptors, your unconventional poets and audacious philosophers.

In fact, the Soviet Yankees of the future will give a lead to Europe in those very fields where Europe has hitherto been your master. Europeans have little conception of the power of technology to influence human destiny and have adopted an attitude of sneering superiority toward “Americanism,” particularly since the crisis. Yet Americanism marks the true dividing line between the Middle Ages and the modern world.

Hitherto America’s conquest of nature has been so violent and passionate that you have had no time to modernize your philosophies or to develop your own artistic forms. Hence you have been hostile to the doctrines of Hegel, Marx and Darwin. The burning of Darwin’s works by the Baptists of Tennessee is only a clumsy reflection of the American dislike for the doctrines of evolution. This attitude is not confined to your pulpits. It is still part of your general mental makeup.

Your atheists as well as your Quakers are determined rationalists. And your rationalism itself is weakened by empiricism and moralism. It has none of the merciless vitality of the great European rationalists. So your philosophic method is even more antiquated than your economic system and your political institutions.

Today, quite unprepared, you are being forced to face those social contradictions that grow up unsuspected in every society. You have conquered nature by means of the tools that your inventive genius has created, only to find that your tools have all but destroyed you. Contrary to all your hopes and desires, your unheard-of wealth has produced unheard-of misfortunes. You have discovered that social development does not follow a simple formula. Hence you have been thrust into the school of the dialectic — to stay.

There is no turning back from it to the mode of thinking and acting prevalent in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men — the first worthy of the name of Man.

The final prophecy… Is America Turning Into a Communist Country! (In the third year of soviet rule in America, you will no longer chew gum!) First published on March 23, 1935.

This article was written by my grandfather a long time ago and I would like to share it with you!

When America go communist as a result of the difficulties and problems that your capitalist social order is unable to solve, it will discover that communism, far from being an intolerable bureaucratic tyranny and individual regimentation, will be the means of greater individual liberty and shared abundance.

Most Americans regard communism solely in the light of the experience of the Soviet Union. They fear lest Sovietism in America would produce the same material result as it has brought for the culturally backward peoples of the Soviet Union.

They fear lest communism should try to fit them to a bed of Procrustes, and they point to the bulwark of Anglo-Saxon conservatism as an insuperable obstacle even to possibly desirable reforms. They argue that Great Britain and Japan would undertake military intervention against the American soviets. They shudder lest Americans be regimented in their habits of dress and diet, be compelled to subsist on famine rations, be forced to read stereotyped official propaganda in the newspapers, be coerced to serve as rubber stamps for decisions arrived at without their active participation or be required to keep their thoughts to themselves and loudly praise their soviet leaders in public, through fear of imprisonment and exile.

They fear monetary inflation, bureaucratic tyranny and intolerable red tape in obtaining the necessities of life. They fear soulless standardization in the arts and sciences, as well as in the daily necessities of life. They fear that all political spontaneity and the presumed freedom of the press will be destroyed by the dictatorship of a monstrous bureaucracy. And they shudder at the thought of being forced into an uncomprehended glibness in Marxist dialectic and disciplined social philosophies. They fear, in a word, that Soviet America will become the counterpart of what they have been told Soviet Russia looks like.

Actually American soviets will be as different from the Russian soviets as the United States of President Roosevelt differs from the Russian Empire of Czar Nicholas II. Yet communism can come in America only through revolution, just as independence and democracy came in America. The American temperament is energetic and violent, and it will insist on breaking a good many dishes and upsetting a good many apple carts before communism is firmly established. Americans are enthusiasts and sportsmen before they are specialists and statesmen, and it would be contrary to the American tradition to make a major change without choosing sides and cracking heads.

However, the American communist revolution will be insignificant compared to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, in terms of your national wealth and population, no matter how great its comparative cost. That is because civil war of a revolutionary nature isn’t fought by the handful of men at the top — the 5 or 10 percent who own nine-tenths of American wealth; this handful could recruit its counterrevolutionary armies only from among the lower middle classes. Even so, the revolution could easily attract them to its banner by showing that support of the soviets alone offers them the prospect of salvation.

Everybody below this group is already economically prepared for communism. The depression has ravaged your working class and has dealt a crushing blow to the farmers, who had already been injured by the long agricultural decline of the postwar decade. There is no reason why these groups should counterpoise determined resistance to the revolution; they have nothing to lose, providing, of course, that the revolutionary leaders adopt a farsighted and moderate policy toward them.

Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal’s guard of billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and Rockefellers? They will cease struggling as soon as they fail to find other people to fight for them.

The American soviet government will take firm possession of the commanding heights of your business system: the banks, the key industries and the transportation and communication systems. It will then give the farmers, the small tradespeople and businessmen a good long time to think things over and see how well the nationalized section of industry is working.

Here is where the American soviets can produce real miracles. “Technocracy” can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism.

National industry will be organized along the line of the conveyor belt in your modern continuous-production automotive factories. Scientific planning can be lifted out of the individual factory and applied to your entire economic system. The results will be stupendous.
Costs of production will be cut to 20 percent, or less, of their present figure. This, in turn, would rapidly increase your farmers’ purchasing power.

To be sure, the American soviets would establish their own gigantic farm enterprises, as schools of voluntary collectivization. Your farmers could easily calculate whether it was to their individual advantage to remain as isolated links or to join the public chain.

The same method would be used to draw small businesses and industries into the national organization of industry. By soviet control of raw materials, credits and quotas of orders, these secondary industries could be kept solvent until they were gradually and without compulsion sucked into the socialized business system.

Without compulsion! The American soviets would not need to resort to the drastic measures that circumstances have often imposed upon the Russians. In the United States, through the science of publicity and advertising, you have means for winning the support of your middle class that were beyond the reach of the soviets of backward Russia with its vast majority of pauperized and illiterate peasants. This, in addition to your technical equipment and your wealth, is the greatest asset of your coming communist revolution. Your revolution will be smoother in character than ours; you will not waste your energies and resources in costly social conflicts after the main issues have been decided; and you will move ahead so much more rapidly in consequence.

Even the intensity and devotion of religious sentiment in America will not prove an obstacle to the revolution. If one assumes the perspective of soviets in America, none of the psychological brakes will prove firm enough to retard the pressure of the social crisis. This has been demonstrated more than once in history. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the Gospels themselves contain some pretty explosive aphorisms.

As to the comparatively few opponents of the soviet revolution, one can trust to American inventive genius. It may well be that you will take your unconvinced millionaires and send them to some picturesque island, rent-free for life, where they can do as they please.

You can do this safely, for you will not need to fear foreign interventions. Japan, Great Britain and the other capitalistic countries that intervened in Russia couldn’t do anything but take American communism lying down. As a matter of fact, the victory of communism in America — the stronghold of capitalism — will cause communism to spread to other countries. Japan will probably have joined the communistic ranks even before the establishment of the American soviets. The same is true of Great Britain.

In any case, it would be a crazy idea to send His Britannic Majesty’s fleet against Soviet America, even as a raid against the southern and more conservative half of your continent. It would be hopeless and would never get any farther than a second-rate military escapade.

Within a few weeks or months of the establishment of the American soviets, Pan-Americanism would be a political reality.

The governments of Central and South America would be pulled into your federation like iron filings to a magnet. So would Canada. The popular movements in these countries would be so strong that they would force this great unifying process within a short period and at insignificant costs. I am ready to bet that the first anniversary of the American soviets would find the Western Hemisphere transformed into the Soviet United States of North, Central and South America, with its capital at Panama. Thus for the first time the Monroe Doctrine would have a complete and positive meaning in world affairs, although not the one foreseen by its author.

In spite of the complaints of some of your arch-conservatives, Roosevelt is not preparing for a soviet transformation of the United States.

The NRA aims not to destroy but to strengthen the foundations of American capitalism by overcoming your business difficulties. Not the Blue Eagle but the difficulties that the Blue Eagle is powerless to overcome will bring about communism in America. The “radical” professors of your Brain Trust are not revolutionists: they are only frightened conservatives. Your president abhors “systems” and “generalities.” But a soviet government is the greatest of all possible systems, a gigantic generality in action.

The average man doesn’t like systems or generalities either. It is the task of your communist statesmen to make the system deliver the concrete goods that the average man desires: his food, cigars, amusements, his freedom to choose his own neckties, his own house and his own automobile. It will be easy to give him these comforts in Soviet America.

Most Americans have been misled by the fact that in the USSR we had to build whole new basic industries from the ground up. Such a thing could not happen in America, where you are already compelled to cut down on your farm area and to reduce your industrial production. As a matter of fact, your tremendous technological equipment has been paralyzed by the crisis and already clamors to be put to use. You will be able to make a rapid step-up of consumption by your people the starting point of your economic revival.

You are prepared to do this, as is no other country. Nowhere else has the study of the internal market reached such intensity as in the United States. It has been done by your banks, trusts, individual businessmen, merchants, traveling salesmen and farmers as part of their stock-in-trade. Your soviet government will simply abolish all trade secrets, will combine all the findings of these researches for individual profit and will transform them into a scientific system of economic planning. In this your government will be helped by the existence of a large class of cultured and critical consumers. By combining the nationalized key industries, your private businesses and democratic consumer cooperation, you will quickly develop a highly flexible system for serving the needs of your population.

This system will be made to work not by bureaucracy and not by policemen but by cold, hard cash.

Your almighty dollar will play a principal part in making your new soviet system work. It is a great mistake to try to mix a “planned economy” with a “managed currency.” Your money must act as regulator with which to measure the success or failure of your planning.

Your “radical” professors are dead wrong in their devotion to “managed money.” It is an academic idea that could easily wreck your entire system of distribution and production. That is the great lesson to be derived from the Soviet Union, where bitter necessity has been converted into official virtue in the monetary realm.

There the lack of a stable gold ruble is one of the main causes of our many economic troubles and catastrophes. It is impossible to regulate wages, prices and quality of goods without a firm monetary system. An unstable ruble in a Soviet system is like having variable molds in a conveyor-belt factory. It won’t work.

Only when socialism succeeds in substituting administrative control for money will it be possible to abandon a stable gold currency. Then money will become ordinary paper slips, like trolley or theater tickets. As socialism advances, these slips will also disappear, and control over individual consumption — whether by money or administration — will no longer be necessary when there is more than enough of everything for everybody!

Such a time has not yet come, though America will certainly reach it before any other country. Until then, the only way to reach such a state of development is to retain an effective regulator and measure for the working of your system. As a matter of fact, during the first few years a planned economy needs sound money even more than did old-fashioned capitalism. The professor who regulates the monetary unit with the aim of regulating the whole business system is like the man who tried to lift both his feet off the ground at the same time.

Soviet America will possess supplies of gold big enough to stabilize the dollar — a priceless asset. In Russia we have been expanding our industrial plant by 20 and 30 percent a year; but — owing to a weak ruble — we have not been able to distribute this increase effectively. This is partly because we have allowed our bureaucracy to subject our monetary system to administrative one-sidedness. You will be spared this evil. As a result you will greatly surpass us in both increased production and distribution, leading to a rapid advance in the comfort and welfare of your population.

In all this, you will not need to imitate our standardized production for our pitiable mass consumers. We have taken over from czarist Russia a pauper’s heritage, a culturally undeveloped peasantry with a low standard of living. We had to build our factories and dams at the expense of our consumers. We have had continual monetary inflation and a monstrous bureaucracy.

Soviet America will not have to imitate our bureaucratic methods. Among us the lack of the bare necessities has caused an intense scramble for an extra loaf of bread, an extra yard of cloth by everyone. In this struggle our bureaucracy steps forward as a conciliator, as an all-powerful court of arbitration. You, on the other hand, are much wealthier and would have little difficulty in supplying all of your people with all of the necessities of life. Moreover, your needs, tastes and habits would never permit your bureaucracy to divide the national income. Instead, when you organize your society to produce for human needs rather than private profits, your entire population will group itself around new trends and groups, which will struggle with one another and prevent an overweening bureaucracy from imposing itself upon them.

You can thus avoid growth of bureaucratism by the practice of soviets, that is to say, democracy — the most flexible form of government yet developed. Soviet organization cannot achieve miracles but must simply reflect the will of the people. With us the soviets have been bureaucratized as a result of the political monopoly of a single party, which has itself become a bureaucracy. This situation resulted from the exceptional difficulties of socialist pioneering in a poor and backward country.

The American soviets will be full-blooded and vigorous, without need or opportunity for such measures as circumstances imposed upon Russia. Your unregenerate capitalists will, of course, find no place for themselves in the new setup. It is hard to imagine Henry Ford as the head of the Detroit Soviet.

Yet a wide struggle between interests, groups and ideas is not only conceivable — it is inevitable. One-year, five-year, ten-year plans of business development; schemes for national education; construction of new basic lines of transportation; the transformation of the farms; the program for improving the technological and cultural equipment of Latin America; a program for stratosphere communication; eugenics — all of these will arouse controversy, vigorous electoral struggle and passionate debate in the newspapers and at public meetings.

For Soviet America will not imitate the monopoly of the press by the heads of Soviet Russia’s bureaucracy. While Soviet America would nationalize all printing plants, paper mills and means of distribution, this would be a purely negative measure. It would simply mean that private capital will no longer be allowed to decide what publications should be established, whether they should be progressive or reactionary, “wet” or “dry,” puritanical or pornographic. Soviet America will have to find a new solution for the question of how the power of the press is to function in a socialist regime. It might be done on the basis of proportional representation for the votes in each soviet election.

Thus the right of each group of citizens to use the power of the press would depend on their numerical strength — the same principle being applied to the use of meeting halls, allotment of time on the air and so forth.

Thus the management and policy of publications would be decided not by individual checkbooks but by group ideas. This may take little account of numerically small but important groups, but it simply means that each new idea will be compelled, as throughout history, to prove its right to existence.

Rich Soviet America can set aside vast funds for research and invention, discoveries and experiments in every field. You won’t neglect your bold architects and sculptors, your unconventional poets and audacious philosophers.

In fact, the Soviet Yankees of the future will give a lead to Europe in those very fields where Europe has hitherto been your master. Europeans have little conception of the power of technology to influence human destiny and have adopted an attitude of sneering superiority toward “Americanism,” particularly since the crisis. Yet Americanism marks the true dividing line between the Middle Ages and the modern world.

Hitherto America’s conquest of nature has been so violent and passionate that you have had no time to modernize your philosophies or to develop your own artistic forms. Hence you have been hostile to the doctrines of Hegel, Marx and Darwin. The burning of Darwin’s works by the Baptists of Tennessee is only a clumsy reflection of the American dislike for the doctrines of evolution. This attitude is not confined to your pulpits. It is still part of your general mental makeup.

Your atheists as well as your Quakers are determined rationalists. And your rationalism itself is weakened by empiricism and moralism. It has none of the merciless vitality of the great European rationalists. So your philosophic method is even more antiquated than your economic system and your political institutions.

Today, quite unprepared, you are being forced to face those social contradictions that grow up unsuspected in every society. You have conquered nature by means of the tools that your inventive genius has created, only to find that your tools have all but destroyed you. Contrary to all your hopes and desires, your unheard-of wealth has produced unheard-of misfortunes. You have discovered that social development does not follow a simple formula. Hence you have been thrust into the school of the dialectic — to stay.

There is no turning back from it to the mode of thinking and acting prevalent in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men — the first worthy of the name of Man.

The Satanic Ritual Abuse Is A Stark Reality: Which Results In All The Pedophilia, War, Manipulation And Deception We See Around Us

Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) is a stark reality for some children who are born into Illuminati bloodline families, or military families, or families with connections to mind control, or families with connections to the New World Order manipulators running the world today. Satanic ritual abuse seems to run in families, with each generation passing it along to the next.

Psychologists have known for a long time that every perpetrator is also a victim; what makes someone into a purveyor of aggression or violence is normally a deep wounding or trauma they experienced in the past. Satanic ritual abuse is also carried out against children who are kidnapped, then molded into slaves through the trauma of the abuse.

As sad and horrific as this subject is, it is central to an understanding of the worldwide conspiracy and the New World Order. What binds these criminal NWO manipulators together the most is not race, religion or family ties, but an adherence to Satanism, a willingness to invoke dark forces in ritual and an allowance to let those dark forces control their thoughts and actions – which results in all the pedophilia, war, manipulation and deception we see around us.

The Late Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Exposed Much Satanic Ritual Abuse

Ted Gunderson, who died in 2011, had a 27-year FBI career and claims he was in charge of 14 million people at one point. He began to investigate Satanic ritual abuse after he stumbled upon it in various cases. With decades of thorough investigation, Gunderson concluded that the world was ruled by a Satanic cult forming a powerful network and operating an international child trafficking and pedophilia ring. This included selling children into slavery and flying them to Washington DC to be used in sex orgies by politicians. With upwards of 100,000 kids missing every year in the US, Gunderson stated that the FBI was fully complicit in the coverup. On many occasions Gunderson stressed that this cult was composed of people of many professions – judges, athletes, law enforcement, celebrities, politicians, lawyers and more.

In many presentations such as this one, Gunderson presents proof of Satanic ritual abuse, including animal bones and satanic symbols in the dirt, and human sacrifice. The truth is that Satanists get a dark “high” from drinking the blood of their tortured victims, which contains emotional neurochemicals released into the blood at the time of their death. Former Satanic insiders such as Zachary King have also stated that these black magicians love raping young children because they can “steal their energy” during ritual sex. Some former mind control victims like Cathy O’Brien have even bravely stepped forward to publicly show the unspeakable horror of what they went through (vaginal mutilation at the hands of Satanist, psychological warfare specialist and NSA agent Michael Aquino). This is a ghastly topic, but if we want to stop it, we need to accept the reality that it operates all over the US and the world as an organized conspiracy.

The Story of Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor Kathy Collins

There are many Satanic ritual abuse and mind control survivors who have come forward to tell their story, such as Brice Taylor, Cisco Wheeler, Arizona Wilder, Svali and Cathy O’Brien, to name just a few. However, the purpose of this article is to show that, although Satanic ritual abuse is a very real phenomenon, it can be healed. For proof of this, we turn to Kathy Collins, who was interviewed by Bill Ryan (Project Avalon) a few months ago.

What makes Kathy’s story so remarkable is that she underwent horrible experiences that would cause massive trauma in almost anyone. This included being brought, as a child, into Project Monarch, a sub-project of the MK Ultra CIA mind control program. She was also brought to places like Bohemian Grove. At a young age, Kathy was carted away in potato sacks by her father, went through a Satanic initiation ritual at age 3 (being forced to drink blood), suffered sexual abuse (from both men and women), was made into child prostitute and was experimented upon with drugs, electroshock and strobe lights. She recalls being at Bohemian Grove at age 5, tied naked to a stone altar, surrounded by 3 hooded figures who were trying to steal her soul but who were saying “we can’t break her”. Kathy was forced to watch a child sacrifice at Bohemian Grove, and in the end, only got out of the mind control and abuse because her father died.

(Incidentally, Kathy also recalls being hunted like an animal at Bohemian Grove. Cathy O’Brien has also alluded to this. Both were given a short amount of time to run and hide before being followed by huntsmen with guns. It seems that the 1924 story entitled The Most Dangerous Game was not fiction.)

Healing the Deep Trauma and Pain from Satanic Ritual Abuse

So how on earth did Kathy manage to heal herself after going through such harrowing ordeals? She realized she was thinking, identifying and acting like a victim. Although this is natural, it is an energetic truth of life that we create the kind of reality that we broadcast out to the Universe. Often we re-create the familiar. Identifying as a victim means subconsciously recreating trauma, even though we don’t consciously want to. This is because trauma victims have learnt to create serotonin through trauma and drama, and we need serotonin to live. For Kathy, the path to healing was to learn how to get serotonin in ways which were not traumatic (in her case sunsets and butterflies).

Kathy emphasizes that healing trauma is not about getting to a particular place. It is not goal-oriented or linear. Evolution is cyclical. Instead of being impatient to achieve “full healing”, whatever you define that as, she recommends that you learn techniques to deal with suppressed memories as they arise. For Kathy, it’s about mastering the moment, mastering your reaction as old memories arise, making pain a friend, seeing it as a messenger and attempting to understand what it is trying to tell you. Denying it only makes it continue. Also, for healing, a sense of humor is essential. There are many people who have healed serious disease like cancer through laughter. Additionally, it’s about listening to your body, which may feel something (e.g. fear or pain) before the mind knows it; in this way the body can teach the mind.

Ultimately, Kathy explains, a shift will happen when you take responsibility for your own actions. Transformation occurs when you move into forgiveness, i.e. looking back at the past without any judgement attached to it. You will always remember what happened – but you may be able to do so in a more detached manner, without any emotional charge attached to the memory. After many years of working through the issues, Kathy has actually gotten to the point where she sees the abuse as a gift. Why? Because it enabled her to grow, and to know how truly powerful and divine she was – and how truly powerful and divine everyone is. In this way, the scenario is like the comic story of a superhero who needed a challenge or a bad guy to know how strong and courageous he or she was.

There is no more empowering way to face the entire New World Order conspiracy than to see it as a challenge to prompt all of us into becoming better people.

Kathy’s Story is a Message of Hope for All Victims of Abuse

Kathy’s story is an inspiration not just for those who recovering from mind control, or coming out of Satanic ritual abuse, but for all victims of abuse, and for everyone who has suffered some degree of trauma. If you think about it, there’s probably not a single person alive on the face of the earth who has not felt like they have lost part of their soul, enthusiasm or creativity due some past emotional hurt, wound or trauma. We’ve all been through situations that have dimmed our spirit’s brightness. Indeed, most of us have been carrying it around for decades without ever managing to heal it.

The truth is that it is possible to reclaim your full humanity even if you have been through dark trauma. We can make our past into pain or power, depending on what we choose in the present. If you are a Satanic ritual abuse victim, you are not alone; there are many people out there who have gone through it and who can help you with it, if you reach out to them.

What Happens When the Government Becomes Your Worst Enemy (Published In 2019 But With Very Important Data Regarding What Is Happening Now.)

Chile has struggled to become a thriving democracy. Once a dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet, the country has gone through considerable turmoil since his death. Capitalism has not treated everyone fairly in this country, even though Pinochet was once lauded for the dynamic free-market economy he created, once cited as the “model for the developing world.”

By no means has Chile been the only country which has struggled to become a free-market democracy. Russia is still struggling, decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Iraq really hasn’t accepted democracy as a political model, even after enormous amounts of investment by the US government. Other countries have struggled as well, but not with the same results.

Much of the problem that Chile has been experiencing has been due to the vast income inequality that exists in that country. While there are portions of the population which are thriving, many others are still suffering, especially those who are dependent on retirements that were established under the Pinochet regime. Many schoolteachers are still working into their 80’s, because they can’t survive on their $300 a month pension.

For those working in non-skilled jobs, public transit to take them to and from their work costs as much as 21% of their weekly wages. Thus, when the government announced a 30 peso rise in the cost of the metro, it was met with anger. A student-led protest, called evasión swarmed the metro, jumping the turnstiles to avoid paying the increased fare. Workers took advantage of the opportunity to save a little money and joined the protest.

Important below:

Today I’d like to share with you a 3-second survival hack you can use to skyrocket your chances of protecting your loved ones during ANY crisis.
This technique is so powerful it can give you almost superhuman powers during the ugliest nightmares imaginable….
From natural disasters like earthquakes or tornadoes…
To explosive situations like mass shootings or even nationwide martial law.
And It doesn’t matter if you’re out of shape…
Or have no equipment…
Or even if you’re disabled living in a wheelchair.
This technique has been tested and proven by elite soldiers and real world “miracle” survivors from around the world.

While protests are nothing new in Chile, these seem to have gained traction. A demonstration which started in the capital has now spread to many of the major cities, with continued evasión of fares and widespread protests in the streets.

It appears that socialist organizers and anarchists have joined in the protests, working to turn it to their political ends. As in many such cases, word coming out of Chile is a bit confused, with each side accusing the other of what they themselves are doing. Much of the reporting is tainted by the political leanings of the reporters who are on the scene. But one thing is certain, the government’s response doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

The Government’s Response

President Sebastián Piñera has declared that his country is “at war.” But if it is, it’s a war between the government and the citizens. While some government response is required to the violent acts of the protesters, that should be a police response, arresting the worst of the offenders and those who are inciting others to commit illegal acts. Protests, as our own government has learned, are not the reason to call out military forces armed and equipped to use deadly force.

What Happens When the Government Becomes Your Worst Enemy

We’ve seen that before in this country; at Kent State University in 1970. National Guard troops were called out in response to a protest. Although the National Guard does receive some training in how to respond to a riot, they are first and foremost soldiers, equipped and trained to kill, not to arrest people. In this case, the results were four dead college students and another nine who were injured.

The soldiers on the streets of Chile reminded many of the older citizens of the years of Chilean dictatorship, when such sights were common; a parallel that was lost on the students who started the protest. For the older citizens, that sight struck fear in their hearts.

The government has admitted to eight people being killed in the protests, but information leaking out of the country claims over 20 killed. There are also widespread reports of police and military brutality against the population, including against people who were not protesting, but merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Martial law was declared by the President, early on in the protests, allowing for the use of military forces and imposing ever more restrictive curfews on the people. Interestingly enough, whenever the protesters have gotten the upper hand, troops have retreated to wealthy areas of the cities, focusing on protecting the wealth centers. It seems clear from that action alone, that the leadership of the country is only interested in protecting their financial standing, not protecting the people.

Under martial law, police and military forces have beaten hundreds or perhaps even thousands of innocent people, often plucking them off the streets in civilian clothes, in an attempt to hide their identity. Civil rights are being trampled daily, as the government attempts to regain control.

Could that Happen Here?

Regardless of where you stand politically, Americans have grown afraid of politicians on the other side, especially as the political divide has grown. Each side assumes that the other is likely to declare martial law, on the thinnest of pretexts, imprisoning those who have declared themselves aligned with the other side. Yet that sort of thing has never happened in this country. For that matter, we haven’t seen people rounded up and put in any sort of detention camps since World War II.

Those on the left decry the “oligarchy” regularly, declaring that this country is actually run by them. But I’d like to propose a different viewpoint on that. That is, every government that has ever existed has been an oligarchy of one sort or another. Even monarchies are oligarchies, as the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the royalty.

Successful merchants could buy themselves titles under such a regime, gaining political respectability. But that’s not all they bought; they bought access to the throne, the seat of power. That’s what their titles and their money did for them, just like the oligarchy we have today.

Why is this important? Because in reality it has always been the oligarchy, the elite, who have been in control. I don’t care if you’re talking about the Rothchilds, the Bilderberg group, George Soros or our own political parties, they have kept the power to themselves. Much of the reason why they hate President Trump, is that he has defied their rule and has been working to do whatever he can to overthrow it.

What Happens When the Government Becomes Your Worst Enemy

As we’ve seen in the last few years, these power-brokers will do whatever they have to, in order to keep their power. Rumors have existed for years about how the Clintons have done away with anyone who could be a whistleblower on their nefarious actions. The same sort of rumors existed about Obama when he was in office. I’m sure if we searched around the world, we would find many more examples.

The accumulation of power and money is the central focus of these people’s lives. As such, they will do whatever it takes to retain that money and power. They don’t mind if we “little people” accumulate wealth or even some local power; but they aren’t sharing theirs with us. They will use whatever they have to, in order to keep control. Whatever they have to includes military forces.

These power brokers have control of large portions of our government, just like they do in other countries. As long as things go their way, they will allow us the illusion of our freedom. But if things don’t go their way, you can be sure they will take the necessary action to retain power.

What that Means for Us

One big difference between the United States and Chile is the Second Amendment. Even though there are those who are constantly chipping away, trying to take that right, the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. There is no such equivalent in Chile.

That’s not to say that the Chilean people can’t own firearms. They can; but there are huge hurdles to overcome in order to get a permit to own one. Even bigger hurdles exist to having a permit to carry that gun outside your home. On top of that, private ownership of semi-automatic arms is prohibited.

Should martial law ever be declared in the United States, you can almost guarantee that it will be accompanied by widespread gun confiscation. This happened in New Orleans, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Probably the only thing that kept that from turning ugly and kept armed citizens from defending their right to keep and bear arms, was that there were so few of them still in the city; government forces had them outnumbered.

Many have declared that widespread gun confiscations would result in civil war. I tend to agree with that. While there are many gun owners who would give up their guns, albeit reluctantly, rather than fight government troops, there are enough of us who would stand up for our rights. How that war would end is anyone’s guess.

Recently, the new Democrat majority in Virginia’s state legislature passed a number of very restrictive gun control laws, without taking into account public opinion. They ended up being forced to retract those laws, when citizens got up in arms about it and law enforcement officers declared that they would not enforce those laws.

The same thing has happened in other parts of the country, as Democrat controlled state legislatures have tried over and over again to tamper with our Second Amendment rights. But in each and every case, while there have been some who have complied like good little sheeple, the majority refused.

This means that any protests against government overreach here in the United States have the potential of becoming much more violent than they do in other countries. While those of us on the right, who own most of the guns, are not the kind to take violent action, there are always a few who don’t see it that way. All it takes is one or two of them to start the ball rolling, and things could turn ugly, real quickly.

A second American Civil War would be even bloodier than the first. Not only are there more privately owned guns in the hands of citizens, than there are citizens, but the level of military technology has increased by several orders of magnitude. Hunters alone have our military grossly outnumbered. On the other side, the military has all the tanks, planes and artillery. As I said, it would be bloody.

This is probably why there are those in government service who are so bent on disarming the population. It also explains why the AR-15 is the main target of these people. You can’t win a war with pistols and even trying to win it without semi-automatic rifles would be difficult. Those who want to control us don’t want us to be able to fight back.

Throughout the last century, there have been numerous examples of what happens when the government disarms the civilian population. What we’re seeing in Chile today is nothing new; it has been done time and time again. Those who want to be despotic dictators (regardless of what political name they hide behind) know they must disarm the people first. It’s much easier to get sheep to submit, than it is to get sheep dogs too. The sheep dogs have teeth.

If anything, Chile serves as one more reminder as to why we need to defend our Second Amendment rights. Otherwise, it’s much too easy for those who would take away what remains of our liberty, the freedom to do so.