thelibertybeacon--2020-05-04--Is There a “6th Column” Trying to Subvert Russia?

First , we have to remember that Putin was extremely successful at destroying the pro-Western opposition which , while shown on a daily basis on Russian TV , represents something in the 3-5 % range of people at most .
You might ask why they are so frequent on TV , and the reason is simple : the more they talk , the more they are hated .
So far from silencing the opposition , the Kremlin not only gives it air time , it even pays opposition figures top dollars to participate in the most popular talk shows .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reputation of the pro-Western “ liberal ” ( in the Russian sense ) opposition is now roadkill in Russia .
Yes , there is a core of russophobic Russians who hate Russia with a passion ( they refer to it as “ Rashka ” ) , and their hatred for everything Russian is so obvious that they are universally despised all over the country ( the one big exception being Moscow where there is a much stronger “ liberal ” opposition , which gets the support of all those who had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and who now hate Putin for putting an end to their malfeasance ) .
As for the Duma opposition , it is an opposition only in name .
They make noises , they bitch here and there , they condemn this or that , but at the end of the day , they will not represent a credible opposition at all .
Well , look at this screenshot : The chart is in Russian , but it is also extremely simple to understand .
On the Y axis , you see the percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ mostly trust ” the six politicians , in order : Putin , Mishustin , Zhirinovskii , Ziuganov , Mironov and Medvedev .
The the X axis you see the time frame going from July 2019 to April 2020 .
The only thing which really matters is this : In spite of all the objective and subjective problems of Russia , in spite of a widely unpopular pension reform , in spite of all the western sanctions and in spite of the pandemic , Putin still sits alone in a rock-solid position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russian people .
This single cause pretty much explains everything else I will be talking about today .
As most of you probably remember , there were already several waves of anti-Putin PSYOPS in the past , but they all failed for very simple reasons : • Most Russians remember the horrors of the 1990s when the pro-Western “ liberals ” were in power .
• Second , the Russian people could observe how the West put bona fide rabidly russophobic Nazis in power in Kiev .
The liberals expressed a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Few Russians doubt that if the pro-western “ liberals ” got to power , they would turn Russia into something very similar to today ’ s Ukraine .
• Next , the Russians could follow , day after day , how the Ukraine imploded , went through a bloody civil war , underwent a almost total de-industrialization and ended up with a real buffoon as President ( Zelenskii just appointed , I kid you not , Saakashvili ( pictured ) as Vice Prime Minister of the Ukraine , that is all you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure of what kind of clueless imbecile Zelenskii is ! )
.
Not only do the liberals blame Russia for what happened to this poor country , they openly support Zelenskii .
ER : see more on this topic by the Duran , with video discussion , titled Deep State moves Saakashvili to Ukraine to block Barr-Durham ( Video ) .
4 .
Most ( all ? )
of the pro-western “ NGOs ” ( I put that in quotation marks , because these putatively non-governmental organizations were entirely financed by western governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legally forced to reveal their sources of financing and most of them got listed as “ foreign agents ” .
Others were simply kicked out of Russia .
Thus , it became impossible for the AngloZionists to trigger what appeared to be “ mass protests ” under these conditions .
5 .
There is a solid “ anti-Maidan ” movement in Russia ( including in Moscow ! )
which is ready to “ pounce ” ( politically ) in case of any Maidan-like movement in Russia .
I strongly suspect that the FSB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
6 .
The Russian internal security services ( FSB , FSO , National Guard , etc . )
saw a major revival under Putin and they are now not only more powerful than in the past , but also much better organized to deal with subversion .
As for the armed forces , they are solidly behind Putin and Shoigu .
While in the 1990s Russia was basically defenseless , Russia today is a very tough nut to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations .
7 .
Last but not least , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the class Alexander Solzhenitsyn referred to as “ “ , a word hard to translate but which roughly means “ pretend educated ” : these folks have always considered themselves very superior to the vast majority of the Russian people and they simply can not hide their contempt for the “ common man ” ( very similar to Hillary ’ s “ deporables ” ) .
The common man fully realizes that and , quite logically , profoundly distrusts and even hates “ liberals ” .
( ER : it is certain that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state-compliant group of insufferables , too . )
There came a moment when the western curators of the Russian 5th column ( ER : the Atlanticist-globalists ) realized that calling Putin names in the western press , or publicly accusing him of being a “ bloody despot ” and a “ KGB killer ” might work with the gullible and brainwashed western audience , but it got absolutely no traction whatsoever in Russia .
And then , somebody somewhere ( I don ’ t know who , or where ) came up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of not being a patriot and declare that he is a puppet in the hands of the AngloZionist Empire .
This was nothing short of brilliant , I have to admit .
First , they tried to sell the idea that Putin was about to “ sell out ” ( or “ trade ” ) Novorussia .
( ER : the Donbass region .
See orange part of map ) One theory was that Russia would stand by and let the Ukronazis invade Novorussia .
Another one was that the US and Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give ” Syria to Putin , if he “ gave ” Novorussia to the Empire .
Alternatively , there was the version that Russia would “ give ” Syria to Trump and he would “ give ” Novorussia to Putin .
The actual narrative does not matter .
What matters , A LOT , is that Putin was not presented as the “ new Hitler ” who would invade Poland and the Baltics , who would poison the Skripals , who would hack DNC servers and “ put Trump into power ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ credibility in Russia .
But Putin “ selling out ” Novorussia was much more credible , especially after it was clear that Russia did not allow the DNR/LNR forces ( ER : the pro-Russian forces ) to seize Mariupol ( sea port at the southern tip of the orange region ) .
Eventually , both the “ sellout Syria ” and the “ sellout Novorussia ” narratives lost their traction and the PSYOPS specialists in the West tried another good one : Putin became the obedient servant of Israel and , personally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Putin did not allow Syrians ( or Russians ) to shoot down Israeli aircraft over the Mediterranean or Lebanon , Putin did not use the famous S-400 to protect Syrian targets from Israeli strikes , and Putin did not land an airborne division in Syria to deal with the Takfiris .
And never mind here the fact that the officially declared Russian objectives in Syria were only to “ stabilize the legitimate authority and create conditions for a political compromise ” ( see for details ) .
The simple truth is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each square meter of Syrian land from the Takfiris nor did he promise to defend Syria against Israel !
Still , for a while the Internet was inundated with articles claiming that Putin and Netanyahu were closely coordinating their every step , and that Putin was Israel ’ s chum .
Eventually , this canard also lost a lot of credibility .
After all , most folks are smart enough to realize that if Putin wanted to help Israel , all he had to do is… … well… … exactly *nothing* : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be “ game over ” for a civilized Syria , and the Israelis would have a perfect pretext to intervene .
Still , while the first PSYOP ( Putin the new Hitler ) failed , and while the second PSYOP ( Putin the sellout ) also failed , the PSYOP specialists in the West came up with a much more potentially dangerous and effective PSYOP operation .
But first , they did something truly brilliant : they realized that their best allies in Russia would not be the ( frankly , clueless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would find a much more powerful “ ally ” in those nostalgic for the Soviet Union .
This I have to explain in some detail .
First , there is one thing about human psychology which I have observed all my life : we tend to remember the good and forget the bad .
Today , most of what I remember from boot-camp ( and even “ survival week ” ) sounds like fun times .
The truth is that , while in boot camp , I hated almost every day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Russians have developed a kind of nostalgia for the Soviet era .
I can understand that .
After all , during the 50s the USSR achieved a truly miraculous rebirth , then in the 60s and 70s there were a lot of true triumphs .
Finally , even in the hated 80s , the USSR did achieve absolutely spectacular things ( in science , technology , etc. )
.
This is all true .
What is often forgotten is that , at the same time , Soviet society was oppressive , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was mostly hated , the Russian people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had .
In truth , it was a mixed bag , but it is easy to remember only the good stuff .
Furthermore , a lot of folks who had high positions during the Soviet era did lose it all .
And now that Russia is objectively undergoing various difficult trials , these folks have “ smelled blood ” and they clearly hope that by some miracle Putin will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if only for the following very basic reasons : • The kind of state apparatus which protects Putin today can easily deal with this new , pseudo ( I will explain below why I say “ pseudo ” ) patriotic opposition .
• In the ranks of this opposition there is absolutely no credible leader ( remember the chart above ! )
• This opposition mostly complains , but offers no real solutions .
The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who absolutely hate Putin for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s call them “ new Communists ” or “ Neo-Communists ” .
And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the “ liberal ” opposition : the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right .
The ( in my opinion ) sad reality is that , for all his immense qualities , Putin is indeed a liberal , at least an economic sense .
This manifests itself in two very different ways : • Putin has still not removed all of the 5th columnists ( aka “ Atlantic Integrationists , ” aka @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
Yes , he did ditch Medvedev , but others ( Nabiulina , Siluanov , etc . )
are still there .
• Putin inherited a very bad system where almost all the key actors were 5th columnists .
Not just a few ( in ) famous individuals , but an entire CLASS ( in a Marxist sense of the term ) of people who hate anything “ social ” and who support “ liberal ” ideas just so they can fill their pockets .
Here is the paradox : the USSR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Communist , but there STILL is a ( Soviet-style ) Nomenklatura in Russia , except for now they are often referred to as “ oligarchs ” ( which is incorrect because , say , the Ukrainian oligarch truly decide the fate of the nation whereas this new Russian Nomenklatura does not decide the fate of Russia as a whole , but they do have a major influence in the financial sector , which is what they care mostly about ) .
So we have something of a , maybe not quite “ perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looming over Russia .
How ?
Consider this : Under Putin , Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian liberals , very reluctantly , admit that he did a pretty good job .
However , the many internal , financial policies of Russia have been a disaster .
Just one example : the fact that the major Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues did not prevent millions of Russians from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of going under due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One key problem in Russia is that both the Central Bank and the major commercial banks only care about their profits .
What Russia truly needs is a state-owed DEVELOPMENT bank whose goal would not be millions and billions for the few , but would make it possible for the creativity of the Russian people to truly blossom .
Today , we see the exact opposite in Russia .
So what is my beef with this social ( if not quite “ Socialist ” ) opposition ?
They are so focused on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big picture .
Let me explain .
First , Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015 .
Yes , this war is 80 % informational , 15 % economic and only 5 % kinetic .
But it is a very real war nonetheless .
The key characteristic of a real war is that victory is only achieved by one side , the other is fully defeated .
Which means that the war between the AngloZionist Empire is an existential one : one party will win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappear and will be replaced with a qualitatively new polity/society .
The Neo-Communist Russian opposition steadfastly pretends like there is no war , like all the losses ( economic and human ) are only the result of corruption and incompetence .
They forget that during the last war between Russia and the “ United West , ” German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow .
Well , of course they know that .
But they pretend not to .
And this is why I think of them as the 6th column ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ liberal ” and pro-Western one ) .
Second , while this opposition is , in my opinion , absolutely correct in deploring Putin ’ s apparent belief that following the advice of what I would call “ IMF types ” is safer than following recommendations of what could be loosely called “ opposition economists ” ( here I think of Glaziev , whose views I personally fully support ) , they fail to realize the risks involved in crushing the “ IMF types ” .
The sad truth is that Russian banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many ways , the state can not afford to totally alienate them .
Right now , the banks support Putin only because he supports them .
But if Putin decided to follow the advice of , say , Glaziev ( pictured ) and his supporters , the Russian bankers would react with a “ total war ” against Putin .
If you study Russian history , you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with military enemies , did very averagely with diplomatic efforts ( which often negated military victories ) and did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ internal opposition ” .
So let me repeat it here : I do not consider NATO or the US as credible military threats to Russia , unless they decide to use nuclear weapons , at which point both Russia and the West would suffer terribly .
But even in this scenario , Russia would prevail ( Russia has a 10-15 year advantage against the US in both civilian and military nuclear technologies , and Russian society is a far more survivable one – if this topic is of interest to you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which explain it all better than I ever could ) .
I have always , and still do , consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal , often “ insider ” , opposition in Russia .
They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any Russian ruler , from the Czars to Stalin .
This new Neo-Communist 6th column is , however , a much more dangerous threat to the future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists .
Some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this : “ unless Putin does X , Y or Z , there is a risk of a bloody revolution ” .
Having listened to many tens of their videos , I can tell you with total security that , far from fearing a bloody revolution , these folks in reality dream of such a revolution .
Now , if you think as a true patriot of Russia , you have to realize that Russia suffered from not one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : in 1917 and 1991 ( Yeltsin pictured below ) .
In each case the consequences of these revolutions ( irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at the time ) were absolutely horrible : both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished as a country , and millions suffered terribly .
I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be worse for Russia than *any* revolution , no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the “ regime in power ” might appear to be .
Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ image ) .
These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me .
They “ warn ” about a revolution , while in reality trying to create the conditions for one .
Now let me be clear : I am absolutely convinced that NO revolution ( Neo-Communist or other ) is possible in Russia .
More accurately , while I do believe that an attempt for a revolution could happen , I believe that any coup/revolution against Putin is bound to fail .
Why ?
The graphic above .
Even if by some ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defeat/neutralize the combined power of the FSB+FSO+National Guard+Armed forces ( which I find impossible ) , this “ success ” would be limited to Moscow or , at most , the Moscow Oblast .
Beyond that , it is all “ Putin territory ” .
In terms of firepower , the Moscow Oblast has a lot of first-rate units , but it does not even come close to what the “ rest of Russia ” could engage ( just the 58th Army in the south would be unstoppable ) .
But even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly crucial thing following any coup/revolution would be the 70 % + of Russian people who , for the first time in centuries , truly believe that Putin stands for their interests and that he is “ their man ” .
These people will never accept any illegal attempt to remove Putin from power .
That is the key reason why no successful revolution is currently possible in Russia .
But while any revolution/coup would be bound to fail , it could very much result in a bloodbath way bigger than what happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly not engaged in the events ) .
Now let ’ s add it all up .
• None There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to ever get real popular support , but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the Soviet era to create a real crisis .
• None This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens the authority/reputation of Putin , which has been the main goal of the western “ alphabet soup ” ever since Putin came to power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era , will get no official support from the West , but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western “ alphabet soup ” .
• None Finally , this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power , but it might create a very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian Sovereignists .
So what is the solution ?
Putin needs to preempt any civil unrest .
Removing Medvedev and replacing him by Mishustin ( pictured ) was the correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little too late .
Frankly , I believe that it is high time for Putin to finally openly break with the “ Washington consensus types ” and listen to Glaziev who , at least , is no Communist .
Russia has always been a collectivistic society , and she needs to stop apologizing ( even just mentally ) for this .
Instead , she should openly and fully embrace her collectivistic culture and traditions and show the “ Washington consensus ” types to the door .
Yes , the Moscow elites will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to tell these folks that they don ’ t own Russia , and that while they could make a killing prostituting themselves to the Empire , most Russians don ’ t want to do that .
The bottom line is this : Putin represents something very unique and very precious : he is a true Russian patriot , but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union .
Right now , he is the only ( or one of very few ) Russian politician who can claim this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them , but by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do , in fact , agree with them ( even if they are not willing to call for a revolution ) .
Does that sound complicated or even convoluted ?
If it does , it is because it is .
But for all the nuances , we can discern a bottom line : it is not worth prevailing ( or even failing ) if that weakens/threatens Russia .
Right now , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to the stability and prosperity of Russia .
That does NOT , however , mean that these folks are always wrong .
They often are spot on , 100 % correct .
Putin needs to prove them wrong by listening to them and doing the right thing .
Difficult ?
Yes .
Doable ?
Yes .
Therefore , he has to do it .
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com

First, we have to remember that Putin was extremely successful at destroying the pro-Western opposition which, while shown on a daily basis on Russian TV, represents something in the 3-5% range of people at most. You might ask why they are so frequent on TV, and the reason is simple: the more they talk, the more they are hated.
So far from silencing the opposition, the Kremlin not only gives it air time, it even pays opposition figures top dollars to participate in the most popular talk shows. See here and here for more details
Truly, the reputation of the pro-Western “liberal” (in the Russian sense) opposition is now roadkill in Russia. Yes, there is a core of russophobic Russians who hate Russia with a passion (they refer to it as “Rashka”), and their hatred for everything Russian is so obvious that they are universally despised all over the country (the one big exception being Moscow where there is a much stronger “liberal” opposition, which gets the support of all those who had a great time pillaging Russia in the 1990s and who now hate Putin for putting an end to their malfeasance).
As for the Duma opposition, it is an opposition only in name. They make noises, they bitch here and there, they condemn this or that, but at the end of the day, they will not represent a credible opposition at all.
Why?
Well, look at this screenshot I took from a Russian polling site :
The chart is in Russian, but it is also extremely simple to understand. On the Y axis, you see the percentage of people who “totally trust” and “mostly trust” the six politicians, in order: Putin, Mishustin, Zhirinovskii, Ziuganov, Mironov and Medvedev. The the X axis you see the time frame going from July 2019 to April 2020.
The only thing which really matters is this:
In spite of all the objective and subjective problems of Russia, in spite of a widely unpopular pension reform, in spite of all the western sanctions and in spite of the pandemic, Putin still sits alone in a rock-solid position: he has the overwhelming support of the Russian people. This single cause pretty much explains everything else I will be talking about today.
As most of you probably remember, there were already several waves of anti-Putin PSYOPS in the past, but they all failed for very simple reasons:
Most Russians remember the horrors of the 1990s when the pro-Western “liberals” were in power. Second, the Russian people could observe how the West put bona fide rabidly russophobic Nazis in power in Kiev. The liberals expressed a great deal of sympathy for the Ukronazi regime. Few Russians doubt that if the pro-western “liberals” got to power, they would turn Russia into something very similar to today’s Ukraine. Next, the Russians could follow, day after day, how the Ukraine imploded, went through a bloody civil war, underwent a almost total de-industrialization and ended up with a real buffoon as President (Zelenskii just appointed, I kid you not, Saakashvili (pictured) as Vice Prime Minister of the Ukraine, that is all you need to know to get the full measure of what kind of clueless imbecile Zelenskii is!). Not only do the liberals blame Russia for what happened to this poor country, they openly support Zelenskii.
ER: see more on this topic by the Duran, with video discussion, titled Deep State moves Saakashvili to Ukraine to block Barr-Durham (Video).
4. Most (all?) of the pro-western “NGOs” (I put that in quotation marks, because these putatively non-governmental organizations were entirely financed by western governments, mostly US and UK) were legally forced to reveal their sources of financing and most of them got listed as “foreign agents”. Others were simply kicked out of Russia. Thus, it became impossible for the AngloZionists to trigger what appeared to be “mass protests” under these conditions.
5. There is a solid “anti-Maidan” movement in Russia (including in Moscow!) which is ready to “pounce” (politically) in case of any Maidan-like movement in Russia. I strongly suspect that the FSB has a warm if unofficial collaboration with them.
6. The Russian internal security services (FSB, FSO, National Guard, etc.) saw a major revival under Putin and they are now not only more powerful than in the past, but also much better organized to deal with subversion. As for the armed forces, they are solidly behind Putin and Shoigu. While in the 1990s Russia was basically defenseless, Russia today is a very tough nut to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations.
7. Last but not least, the Russian liberals are so obviously from the class Alexander Solzhenitsyn referred to as “ obrazovanshchina “, a word hard to translate but which roughly means “pretend educated”: these folks have always considered themselves very superior to the vast majority of the Russian people and they simply cannot hide their contempt for the “common man” (very similar to Hillary’s “deporables”). The common man fully realizes that and, quite logically, profoundly distrusts and even hates “liberals”. (ER: it is certain that western societies suffer immensely from this deep state-compliant group of insufferables, too.)
There came a moment when the western curators of the Russian 5th column (ER: the Atlanticist-globalists) realized that calling Putin names in the western press, or publicly accusing him of being a “bloody despot” and a “KGB killer” might work with the gullible and brainwashed western audience, but it got absolutely no traction whatsoever in Russia.
And then, somebody somewhere (I don’t know who, or where) came up with an truly brilliant idea: accusing Putin of not being a patriot and declare that he is a puppet in the hands of the AngloZionist Empire. This was nothing short of brilliant, I have to admit.
First, they tried to sell the idea that Putin was about to “sell out” (or “trade”) Novorussia. (ER: the Donbass region. See orange part of map) One theory was that Russia would stand by and let the Ukronazis invade Novorussia. Another one was that the US and Russia would make a secret deal and “give” Syria to Putin, if he “gave” Novorussia to the Empire. Alternatively, there was the version that Russia would “give” Syria to Trump and he would “give” Novorussia to Putin. The actual narrative does not matter. What matters, A LOT, is that Putin was not presented as the “new Hitler” who would invade Poland and the Baltics, who would poison the Skripals, who would hack DNC servers and “put Trump into power”. These plain stupid fairy tales had no credibility in Russia. But Putin “selling out” Novorussia was much more credible, especially after it was clear that Russia did not allow the DNR/LNR forces (ER: the pro-Russian forces) to seize Mariupol (sea port at the southern tip of the orange region).
I remain convinced that this was the correct decision. Why? Because had the DNR/LNR forces entered Mariupol, their critical supply lines would have been cut off by an envelopment maneuver by the Ukrainian forces. Yes, the DNR/LNR forces did have the power needed to take Mariupol, but then they would have ended up being surrounded by Ukronazi forces in a “cauldron/siege” kind of situation which would then have forced Russia to openly intervene to either support these forces. That was a no brainer in military terms, but in political terms this would have been a disaster for Russia and a dream come true to the AngloZionists who could (finally!) “prove” that Russia was involved all along. The folks in the Russian General Staff are clearly much smarter than the couch-generals which were accusing Russia of treason for now letting Mariupol be liberated.
Eventually, both the “sellout Syria” and the “sellout Novorussia” narratives lost their traction and the PSYOPS specialists in the West tried another good one: Putin became the obedient servant of Israel and, personally, Netanyahu. The arguments were very similar: Putin did not allow Syrians (or Russians) to shoot down Israeli aircraft over the Mediterranean or Lebanon, Putin did not use the famous S-400 to protect Syrian targets from Israeli strikes, and Putin did not land an airborne division in Syria to deal with the Takfiris. And never mind here the fact that the officially declared Russian objectives in Syria were only to “stabilize the legitimate authority and create conditions for a political compromise” (see here for details). The simple truth is that Putin never said that he would liberate each square meter of Syrian land from the Takfiris nor did he promise to defend Syria against Israel!
Still, for a while the Internet was inundated with articles claiming that Putin and Netanyahu were closely coordinating their every step, and that Putin was Israel’s chum.
Eventually, this canard also lost a lot of credibility. After all, most folks are smart enough to realize that if Putin wanted to help Israel, all he had to do is… … well… … exactly *nothing*: the Takfiris would take Damascus, and it would be “game over” for a civilized Syria, and the Israelis would have a perfect pretext to intervene.
As I have already mentioned in a past article , these were the original Israeli goals for Syria: Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security services. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a “security zone” by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a “security zone”, but this time in Lebanon. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines. Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project. Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East. It is quite easy nowadays to prove the two following theses: 1) Israel dismally failed to achieve ANY of the above set goals, and 2) the Russian intervention is the one single most important factor which prevented Israel from achieving these goals (the 2nd most important one was the heroic support given by Iran and Hezbollah who, quite literally, “saved the day”, especially during the early phases of the Russian intervention. Only an ignorant or dishonest person could seriously claim that Russia and Israel are working together when Russia, in reality, completely defeated Israel in Syria.
Still, while the first PSYOP (Putin the new Hitler) failed, and while the second PSYOP (Putin the sellout) also failed, the PSYOP specialists in the West came up with a much more potentially dangerous and effective PSYOP operation.
But first, they did something truly brilliant: they realized that their best allies in Russia would not be the (frankly, clueless) “liberals,” but that they would find a much more powerful “ally” in those nostalgic for the Soviet Union. This I have to explain in some detail.
First, there is one thing about human psychology which I have observed all my life: we tend to remember the good and forget the bad. Today, most of what I remember from boot-camp (and even “survival week”) sounds like fun times. The truth is that, while in boot camp, I hated almost every day. In a similar way, a lot of Russians have developed a kind of nostalgia for the Soviet era. I can understand that. After all, during the 50s the USSR achieved a truly miraculous rebirth, then in the 60s and 70s there were a lot of true triumphs. Finally, even in the hated 80s, the USSR did achieve absolutely spectacular things (in science, technology, etc.). This is all true. What is often forgotten is that, at the same time, Soviet society was oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had. In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff.
Furthermore, a lot of folks who had high positions during the Soviet era did lose it all. And now that Russia is objectively undergoing various difficult trials, these folks have “smelled blood” and they clearly hope that by some miracle Putin will be overthrown. He won’t, if only for the following very basic reasons:
The kind of state apparatus which protects Putin today can easily deal with this new, pseudo (I will explain below why I say “pseudo”) patriotic opposition. In the ranks of this opposition there is absolutely no credible leader (remember the chart above!) This opposition mostly complains, but offers no real solutions.
The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let’s call them “new Communists” or “Neo-Communists”. And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the “liberal” opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right.
The (in my opinion) sad reality is that, for all his immense qualities, Putin is indeed a liberal, at least an economic sense. This manifests itself in two very different ways:
Putin has still not removed all of the 5th columnists (aka “Atlantic Integrationists,” aka “Washington consensus” types) from power. Yes, he did ditch Medvedev, but others (Nabiulina, Siluanov, etc.) are still there. Putin inherited a very bad system where almost all the key actors were 5th columnists. Not just a few (in)famous individuals, but an entire CLASS (in a Marxist sense of the term) of people who hate anything “social” and who support “liberal” ideas just so they can fill their pockets.
Here is the paradox: the USSR died in 1991-1993, Putin is an anti-Communist, but there STILL is a (Soviet-style) Nomenklatura in Russia, except for now they are often referred to as “oligarchs” (which is incorrect because, say, the Ukrainian oligarch truly decide the fate of the nation whereas this new Russian Nomenklatura does not decide the fate of Russia as a whole, but they do have a major influence in the financial sector, which is what they care mostly about).
So we have something of a, maybe not quite “perfect” but still very dangerous, storm looming over Russia. How? Consider this:
Under Putin, Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the many internal, financial policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example: the fact that the major Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues did not prevent millions of Russians from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of going under due to the very high interest rates.
One key problem in Russia is that both the Central Bank and the major commercial banks only care about their profits. What Russia truly needs is a state-owed DEVELOPMENT bank whose goal would not be millions and billions for the few, but would make it possible for the creativity of the Russian people to truly blossom. Today, we see the exact opposite in Russia.
So what is my beef with this social (if not quite “Socialist”) opposition?
They are so focused on their narrow complaints that they completely miss the big picture. Let me explain.
First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015. Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war nonetheless. The key characteristic of a real war is that victory is only achieved by one side, the other is fully defeated. Which means that the war between the AngloZionist Empire is an existential one: one party will win and survive, the other one will disappear and will be replaced with a qualitatively new polity/society. The Neo-Communist Russian opposition steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia and the “United West,” German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow.
Well, of course they know that. But they pretend not to. And this is why I think of them as the 6th column (as opposed to the 5th, openly “liberal” and pro-Western one).
Second, while this opposition is, in my opinion, absolutely correct in deploring Putin’s apparent belief that following the advice of what I would call “IMF types” is safer than following recommendations of what could be loosely called “opposition economists” (here I think of Glaziev, whose views I personally fully support), they fail to realize the risks involved in crushing the “IMF types”. The sad truth is that Russian banks are very powerful and that, in many ways, the state cannot afford to totally alienate them. Right now, the banks support Putin only because he supports them. But if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev (pictured) and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a “total war” against Putin.
If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military victories) and did terribly with what we could call the “internal opposition”.
So let me repeat it here: I do not consider NATO or the US as credible military threats to Russia, unless they decide to use nuclear weapons, at which point both Russia and the West would suffer terribly. But even in this scenario, Russia would prevail (Russia has a 10-15 year advantage against the US in both civilian and military nuclear technologies, and Russian society is a far more survivable one – if this topic is of interest to you, just read Dmitry Orlov’s books which explain it all better than I ever could). I have always, and still do, consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often “insider”, opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin.
This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: “unless Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution”. Having listened to many tens of their videos, I can tell you with total security that, far from fearing a bloody revolution, these folks in reality dream of such a revolution.
Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991 (Yeltsin pictured below). In each case the consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the “regime in power” might appear to be.
Putin is acutely aware of that (see image).
These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me.
They “warn” about a revolution, while in reality trying to create the conditions for one.
Now let me be clear: I am absolutely convinced that NO revolution (Neo-Communist or other) is possible in Russia. More accurately, while I do believe that an attempt for a revolution could happen, I believe that any coup/revolution against Putin is bound to fail. Why? The graphic above.
Even if by some (horrible) miracle, it was possible to defeat/neutralize the combined power of the FSB+FSO+National Guard+Armed forces (which I find impossible), this “success” would be limited to Moscow or, at most, the Moscow Oblast. Beyond that, it is all “Putin territory”. In terms of firepower, the Moscow Oblast has a lot of first-rate units, but it does not even come close to what the “rest of Russia” could engage (just the 58th Army in the south would be unstoppable). But even that is not truly crucial. The truly crucial thing following any coup/revolution would be the 70%+ of Russian people who, for the first time in centuries, truly believe that Putin stands for their interests and that he is “their man”. These people will never accept any illegal attempt to remove Putin from power. That is the key reason why no successful revolution is currently possible in Russia.
But while any revolution/coup would be bound to fail, it could very much result in a bloodbath way bigger than what happened in 1993 (where the military was mostly not engaged in the events).
Now let’s add it all up.
There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the Soviet era to create a real crisis.
This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been the main goal of the western “alphabet soup” ever since Putin came to power.
This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western “alphabet soup”.
Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian Sovereignists.
So what is the solution?
Putin needs to preempt any civil unrest. Removing Medvedev and replacing him by Mishustin (pictured) was the correct move, but it was also too little too late. Frankly, I believe that it is high time for Putin to finally openly break with the “Washington consensus types” and listen to Glaziev who, at least, is no Communist.
Russia has always been a collectivistic society, and she needs to stop apologizing (even just mentally) for this. Instead, she should openly and fully embrace her collectivistic culture and traditions and show the “Washington consensus” types to the door.
Yes, the Moscow elites will be furious, but it is also high time to tell these folks that they don’t own Russia, and that while they could make a killing prostituting themselves to the Empire, most Russians don’t want to do that.
The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician who can claim this quality. He needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they are not willing to call for a revolution).
Does that sound complicated or even convoluted? If it does, it is because it is. But for all the nuances, we can discern a bottom line: it is not worth prevailing (or even failing) if that weakens/threatens Russia. Right now, the Neo-Communist opposition is, objectively, a threat to the stability and prosperity of Russia. That does NOT, however, mean that these folks are always wrong. They often are spot on, 100% correct.
Putin needs to prove them wrong by listening to them and doing the right thing.
Difficult? Yes. Doable? Yes. Therefore, he has to do it.
************
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com


thelibertybeacon--2020-05-04--Behavioural Insights: The Second Team Leading the UK Government’s Covid-19 Response

In 2011 , the UK Column published an exclusive report , British Cabinet Office Collaborates With French Brainwashing Guru To Change The Way We Think , which warned that the public is to be reframed or ‘ nudged ’ into politically acceptable ‘ social norms , ’ including healthy eating , voluntary work and tax-gathering .
During the current ‘ pandemic ’ , the nudging of the public has gone into overdrive , fully facilitated by the mainstream press and media .
Traditional methods ( ‘ tools ’ or ‘ stimuli ’ ) employed to change public behaviour are legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More recently , however , we have seen how the application of numerous techniques of nudge theory ( behavioural economics and psychology ) have been used in order to modify how governments and the population at large make decisions .
The purpose of these so-called nudges is to ‘ encourage people to make better choices for themselves and society.
’ One such ‘ better choice ’ concerns the highly controversial roll-out of ‘ smart ’ energy meters .
The thinking behind this move is that ‘ households with smart meters will be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is deliverable through a range of new technology platforms , such as a web portal , email , mobile applications and social media.
’ Behaviour Change and Energy Use — a joint publication of the Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team , the Department of Energy & Climate Change , and the Department for Communities and Local Government — presents insights which ‘ complement the Government ’ s objective to reduce carbon emissions across all sectors.
’ Energy consumers are therefore being deliberately misled .
Energy companies are claiming that a ‘ smart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated bills , and that consumers also benefit by instantly being able to see how much energy they have used in pounds and pence .
But the authors of Behaviour Change and Energy Use also point out that ‘ in the context of domestic energy use , providing consumers with feedback on how their energy use compares with similar households in their neighbourhood has been shown to reduce energy consumption in higher-than-average users.
’ A further document by the Department of Energy and Climate Change highlights the fact that when ‘ smart ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can switch off people ’ s energy supplies if they deem the usage too high or if the grid is on a high load , only to be restored when usage drops or the user is more conservative with their energy consumption .
Smart Energy GB claims itself to be the ‘ voice of the smart meter roll-out.
’ The Smart Energy GB 2016 publication A smart route to change : The application of behavioural science in supporting Great Britain ’ s smart meter roll-out and changing the way we use energy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this article .
Chapter three covers ‘ Behavioural Change Models and the smart meter rollout ’ , whilst chapter four covers the ‘ The SMART Approach to applying MINDSPACE.
’ We will learn more about ‘ Mindspace ’ below .
The authors of A Smart Route to Change thanked the Behavioural Insights Team UK for their contribution .
The report ’ s foreword evidences that Maya Shankar , Senior Advisor for Social and Behavioural Sciences to President Barack Obama , spoke at an event hosted by Smart Energy GB .
Shankar holds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a Rhodes Scholarship , and a BA from Yale in cognitive science .
We will examine her role in the global spread of the application of behavioural insights later .
According to its own website , the Behavioural Insights Team board is chaired by Rob Taylor .
Also on the board is the ( British Government ) Cabinet Office representative Janet Baker , and the NESTA representative ( see below for more on that organisation ) is Nathan Elstub .
David Halpern is Chief Executive , and Simon Ruda , Director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sits on the board .
Dr. David Halpern is co-author of the 96-page report MINDSPACE : Influencing behaviour through public policy , published by the Cabinet Office and the Institute for Government .
‘ Nudging ’ is described in that key document as ‘ cues [ that ] act on people without their conscious knowledge : indeed , people actively resist the suggestion that their actions are being influenced.
’ The academic advisory panel of the Behavioural Insights Team includes Daniel Goldstein , Richard Thaler , Nick Chater , Peter John , Peter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Gus O ’ Donnell .
Daniel Goldstein is Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research and describes himself as ‘ an American cognitive psychologist known for the specification and testing of heuristics and models of bounded rationality in the field of judgment and decision making.
’ Richard Thaler is currently Professor of Behavioural Science and Economics at the Chicago Booth School of Business .
He is the co-author of Nudge : Improving Decisions on Health , Wealth , and Happiness , published by Yale University Press in 2008 .
Thaler ’ s website links @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the companion to his 2008 publication .
According to the blog itself , it contains examples of ‘ nudging , choice architecture , libertarian paternalism , and many other terms you won ’ t read about in standard economics books.
’ Thaler ’ s examples of a dozen mini-nudges provide a flavour of his mindset .
Between November 2010 and September 2013 , Thaler was listed as a member of the advisory council at Demos , the UK-based Marxist think-tank .
Nick Chater is Professor of Behavioural Science at Warwick Business School , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Political Science and Public Policy at University College London .
Peter Tufano is Dean of Oxford University ’ s Said Business School , which CPExposed revealed as having links to leadership training ‘ charity ’ Common Purpose , and which in turn had links with a Paris business school specialising in , amongst other things , neurolinguistic ( NLP ) training for business leaders .
Simon Burgess is Professor of Economics at the University of Bristol .
Theresa Marteau is ‘ Director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit in the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care , and Fellow and Director of Studies in Psychological and Behavioural Sciences at Christ ’ s College , Cambridge.
’ The main thrust of her research focuses on the ‘ development and evaluation of interventions to change behaviour ( principally diet , physical activity , tobacco and alcohol consumption ) .
’ She is the author of Towards environmentally sustainable human behaviour : targeting non-conscious and conscious processes for effective and acceptable policies and a contributing author to Judging nudging : can nudging improve population health ?
, published in the British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her published research papers can be consulted here .
Gus O ’ Donnell ( ‘ there is only one GOD ’ ) was Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service between 1st September 2005 and 31st December 2011 .
Since 2010 , the Behavioural Insights Team appears to be have become embedded in various government departments , the National Health Service ( NHS ) , various British police forces , The Pensions Regulator ( TPR ) , the Electoral Commission , and its influence also extends to many British local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can reveal that Dr Rupert Gill is Head of Behavioural Insights at HM Revenue & Customs ( the British tax authority ) , and is also a Common Purpose Leader .
In our second example , we discovered that Simon Buda of the Behavioural Insights team ‘ is responsible for BIT ’ s [ the Behavioural Insight Team ’ s ] work with the Home Office , Ministry of Justice , Ministry of Defence , Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID [ the Department for International Development ] , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ In 2014 , it was announced by Francis Maude , Minister for the Cabinet Office , that ‘ the government ’ s Behavioural Insights Team — also known as the Nudge Unit — [ had ] teamed up with Nesta , the UK ’ s innovation foundation , to create a new mutual joint venture.
’ It was reported that Maude had stated that ‘ as a mutual joint venture , the new company will be able to grow its business and export services across the globe.
’ Francis Maude has also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video A question of leadership : Crisis , communication and lessons from 2009 .
NESTA describes itself as ‘ an innovation foundation which works … in partnership with others , including governments , businesses and charities.
’ Its Chief Executive since 2011 has been Geoff Mulgan .
Mulgan , a former director of Marxism Today , was previously engaged as director of the Government ’ s Strategy Unit and head of policy in the Prime Minister ’ s Office .
Whilst at the Government ’ s Strategy Unit , he was co-author with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Behavioural Insights Team ) , and others , of the 2004 Cabinet Office discussion document Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour : the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy , which concluded by stating that ‘ the public have a central role to play in improving outcomes in public services and achieving environmental goals.
’ Mulgan has been Chief Executive of the Young Foundation , and director of the think-tank Demos ( which he founded alongside Julia Middleton , founder and former Chief Executive of Common Purpose ) .
Since 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a World Economic Forum group looking at innovation and entrepreneurship in the fourth industrial revolution .
NESTA is led by a 12-strong board of trustees .
Chairman of the board is Sir John Gieve .
His early career was spent at the UK Treasury as private secretary to three chancellors ( British treasury secretaries ) .
Between 2001 and 2005 , he was Permanent Secretary ( chief civil servant ) at the Home Office , and he was Deputy Governor of the Bank of England between 2006 and 2009 .
David Pitt-Watson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oxfam , and a board member of the International Corporate Governance Network .
He is also ‘ Executive Fellow at London Business School , and Chair of the UN Environment Programme ’ s Finance Initiative.
’ Simon Linnett is Executive Vice Chairman at Rothschild and ‘ has a strong personal interest in the “ green ” debate , seeking to influence discussion on auctioning emissions and chairing Rothschild ’ s Environment Committee.
’ Moira Wallace is a career civil servant who is now Provost of Oriel College , Oxford , a position she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she was appointed Permanent Secretary at the newly-formed Department of Energy and Climate Change , which she led for four years .
She has her own web page on the CSC Leaders website .
CSC Leaders is a partnership between between leadership development organisation Common Purpose and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh ’ s Commonwealth Study Conferences ( UK Fund ) .
UK Column researchers also discovered Moira Wallace being quoted on a page on the Common Purpose website Leadership programmes , University partners .
Another link between NESTA and Common Purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profile of Olly Arber , formerly Director of Digital at NESTA .
A visit to the Common Purpose website reveals Arber quoted as saying : The Behavioural Insights Team Update Report 2013–2015 tells us that : The European Commission ’ s Science & Knowledge Service ran a programme called Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy for EU civil servants at its Berlaymont headquarters in Brussels in February 2016 .
Owain Service , formerly of the Behavioural Insights Team , was in attendance .
Activities of the Joint Research Centre ( JRC ) include monitoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries and organising workshops to connect practitioners in the field .
The Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy European Report 2016 examines numerous ‘ policy initiatives across 32 European countries either implicitly or explicitly informed by behavioural insights ( BIs ) .
’ The EU Science Hub website provides links to country overviews , including one for the UK .
The UK overview points out that ‘ the BIT has also worked with the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme.
’ Examples of the spread of Behavioural Insights via the networking approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the following websites : The Organisation for European Economic Cooperation ( OEEC ) was established in 1948 to run the US-financed Marshall Plan .
OEEC ’ s founding European member states were joined by Canada and the United States and signed the new OECD Convention on 14 December 1960 .
That convention entered into force on 30th September 1951 , when the OECD was officially born .
The Paris-based OECD now has 39 member countries that account for 80 % of world trade and investment .
The OECD works with ‘ governments to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental change , and , promotes policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.
’ It is now typically thought of as the club of the world ’ s most developed economies and a platform for exchange of social policies .
The OECD claims that since 2013 , it has been at the forefront of supporting public institutions who are ‘ applying behavioural insights to improving public policy.
’ It was no surprise for us to learn , then , that the OECD supports the United Nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agenda for Sustainable Development .
This is evidenced by the OECD ’ s 12-page document Better Policies for 2030 : an OECD Action Plan on the Sustainable Development Goals .
The OECD publication Behavioural Insights and Public Policy : Lessons from Around the World contains reference to ‘ over 100 case studies showing the application of behavioural insights to public policy.
’ The progamme of the OECD ’ s Behavioural Insights and New Approaches to Policy Design workshop , held in Paris on 23rd January 2014 , makes interesting reading .
The Introduction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was given by David Halpern , Chief Executive of the UK ’ s Behavioural Insights Team .
Owain Service , former Managing Director of the Behavioural Insights Team , played a part in Session 2 , Mainstreaming “ New ” Thinking into Institutions , while Session 7 , From Nudging to the Next Frontiers , was jointly facilitated by Professor Richard Thaler , Chicago Booth School of Business , via video link .
Thaler , it will be recalled , is an advisory panel member of the Behavioural Insights Team .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have taken place in Sydney , London , Singapore , and Harvard University in the United States .
For example , Behaviour Exchange Sydney 2014 was ‘ the world ’ s first global public policy behavioural insights conference.
’ Plenary speakers included David Halpern and Professor Richard Thaler .
Also present was Maya Shankar , the former Senior Advisor to the Deputy Director at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy .
Evidence contained in the Nudging in Government video Behaviour Exchange 2014 demonstrates that Maya Shankar and David Halpern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time .
In the spring of 2014 Shankar was the keynote speaker at the United Nations Psychology Day , an event focused on how psychological science can inform global sustainable development .
September 2015 saw former President Obama sign Executive Order 13707 — Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People , which institutionalised the US Government ’ s Social and Behavioral Sciences Team ( SBST ) and codified the practice of applying behavioural science insights to federal policy .
In February 2017 , Maya Shankar became Google ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maya Shankar and Dr. Lori Foster , Behavioural Science Advisors to the United Nations , are the authors of Behavioural Insights at the United Nations , Achieving Agenda 2030 .
This document tells its readers that : BEHAVE 2020 is the 6th European Conference on Behaviour and Energy Efficiency .
It is to be held on 21–23 October 2020 at the UN City Copenhagen office .
It is being run by the United Nations Environment Programme , the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs , and the Technical University of Denmark .
The main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insights for effective climate change mitigation and Users ’ behaviour in transport and mobility .
The Copenhagen venue serves as the global thematic hub for energy efficiency for the United Nations Secretary General ’ s Sustainable Energy for All ( SEforALL ) initiative .
These , then , are the people driving the government ’ s response to Covid-19 , alongside the more often discussed ‘ A-Team ’ at Imperial College .
It should perhaps come as no surprise that the message from the UK Government for several weeks now has been that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to any decisions regarding the lifting of the so-called lockdown .
What might be more surprising to many is that the types of behavioural change being demanded of us by the Behavioural Insights ‘ experts ’ in response to a global ‘ pandemic ’ fit so nicely with the aims and objectives of those pushing for global change via the Millennium Development Goals .

In 2011, the UK Column published an exclusive report, British Cabinet Office Collaborates With French Brainwashing Guru To Change The Way We Think, which warned that the public is to be reframed or ‘nudged’ into politically acceptable ‘social norms,’ including healthy eating, voluntary work and tax-gathering.
During the current ‘pandemic’, the nudging of the public has gone into overdrive, fully facilitated by the mainstream press and media.
What are behavioural insights?
Traditional methods (‘tools’ or ‘stimuli’) employed to change public behaviour are legislation, regulation, taxation and education.
More recently, however, we have seen how the application of numerous techniques of nudge theory (behavioural economics and psychology) have been used in order to modify how governments and the population at large make decisions. The purpose of these so-called nudges is to ‘encourage people to make better choices for themselves and society.’
One such ‘better choice’ concerns the highly controversial roll-out of ‘smart’ energy meters. The thinking behind this move is that ‘households with smart meters will be able to receive highly personalised behavioural feedback, which is deliverable through a range of new technology platforms, such as a web portal, email, mobile applications and social media.’
Behaviour Change and Energy Use — a joint publication of the Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team, the Department of Energy & Climate Change, and the Department for Communities and Local Government — presents insights which ‘complement the Government’s objective to reduce carbon emissions across all sectors.’
Energy consumers are therefore being deliberately misled. Energy companies are claiming that a ‘smart’ meter would mean an end to estimated bills, and that consumers also benefit by instantly being able to see how much energy they have used in pounds and pence.
But the authors of Behaviour Change and Energy Use also point out that ‘in the context of domestic energy use, providing consumers with feedback on how their energy use compares with similar households in their neighbourhood has been shown to reduce energy consumption in higher-than-average users.’
A further document by the Department of Energy and Climate Change highlights the fact that when ‘smart’ meters are installed, the energy providers can switch off people’s energy supplies if they deem the usage too high or if the grid is on a high load, only to be restored when usage drops or the user is more conservative with their energy consumption.
Smart Energy GB claims itself to be the ‘voice of the smart meter roll-out.’ The Smart Energy GB 2016 publication A smart route to change: The application of behavioural science in supporting Great Britain’s smart meter roll-out and changing the way we use energy for the better contains two chapters of relevance to this article. Chapter three covers ‘Behavioural Change Models and the smart meter rollout’, whilst chapter four covers the ‘The SMART Approach to applying MINDSPACE.’ We will learn more about ‘Mindspace’ below.
The authors of A Smart Route to Change thanked the Behavioural Insights Team UK for their contribution.
The report’s foreword evidences that Maya Shankar, Senior Advisor for Social and Behavioural Sciences to President Barack Obama, spoke at an event hosted by Smart Energy GB.
Shankar holds a PhD from Oxford, earned while on a Rhodes Scholarship, and a BA from Yale in cognitive science. We will examine her role in the global spread of the application of behavioural insights later.
Behavioural Insights Team — People
According to its own website, the Behavioural Insights Team board is chaired by Rob Taylor. Also on the board is the (British Government) Cabinet Office representative Janet Baker, and the NESTA representative (see below for more on that organisation) is Nathan Elstub. David Halpern is Chief Executive, and Simon Ruda, Director of Home Affairs and International Programmes, also sits on the board.
Dr. David Halpern is co-author of the 96-page report MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy, published by the Cabinet Office and the Institute for Government. ‘Nudging’ is described in that key document as ‘cues [that] act on people without their conscious knowledge: indeed, people actively resist the suggestion that their actions are being influenced.’
The academic advisory panel of the Behavioural Insights Team includes Daniel Goldstein, Richard Thaler, Nick Chater, Peter John, Peter Tufano, Simon Burgess, Theresa Marteau and Gus O’Donnell.
Daniel Goldstein is Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research and describes himself as ‘an American cognitive psychologist known for the specification and testing of heuristics and models of bounded rationality in the field of judgment and decision making.’
Richard Thaler is currently Professor of Behavioural Science and Economics at the Chicago Booth School of Business. He is the co-author of Nudge: Improving Decisions on Health, Wealth, and Happiness, published by Yale University Press in 2008.
Thaler’s website links to the blog nudges.org, which is the companion to his 2008 publication. According to the blog itself, it contains examples of ‘nudging, choice architecture, libertarian paternalism, and many other terms you won’t read about in standard economics books.’ Thaler’s examples of a dozen mini-nudges provide a flavour of his mindset. Between November 2010 and September 2013, Thaler was listed as a member of the advisory council at Demos, the UK-based Marxist think-tank.
Nick Chater is Professor of Behavioural Science at Warwick Business School, and, Peter John is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at University College London.
Peter Tufano is Dean of Oxford University’s Said Business School, which CPExposed revealed as having links to leadership training ‘charity’ Common Purpose, and which in turn had links with a Paris business school specialising in, amongst other things, neurolinguistic (NLP) training for business leaders.
Simon Burgess is Professor of Economics at the University of Bristol.
Theresa Marteau is ‘Director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit in the University of Cambridge Department of Public Health and Primary Care, and Fellow and Director of Studies in Psychological and Behavioural Sciences at Christ’s College, Cambridge.’
The main thrust of her research focuses on the ‘development and evaluation of interventions to change behaviour (principally diet, physical activity, tobacco and alcohol consumption).’
She is the author of Towards environmentally sustainable human behaviour: targeting non-conscious and conscious processes for effective and acceptable policies and a contributing author to Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health?, published in the British Medical Journal in 2011. Further examples of her published research papers can be consulted here.
Gus O’Donnell (‘there is only one GOD’) was Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service between 1st September 2005 and 31st December 2011.
Since 2010, the Behavioural Insights Team appears to be have become embedded in various government departments, the National Health Service (NHS), various British police forces, The Pensions Regulator (TPR), the Electoral Commission, and its influence also extends to many British local authorities.
As our first example, we can reveal that Dr Rupert Gill is Head of Behavioural Insights at HM Revenue & Customs (the British tax authority), and is also a Common Purpose Leader. In our second example, we discovered that Simon Buda of the Behavioural Insights team ‘is responsible for BIT’s [the Behavioural Insight Team’s] work with the Home Office, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID [the Department for International Development], as well as multiple police forces and other government agencies.’
In 2014, it was announced by Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, that ‘the government’s Behavioural Insights Team — also known as the Nudge Unit — [had] teamed up with Nesta, the UK’s innovation foundation, to create a new mutual joint venture.’ It was reported that Maude had stated that ‘as a mutual joint venture, the new company will be able to grow its business and export services across the globe.’ Francis Maude has also been discovered speaking in the Common Purpose video A question of leadership: Crisis, communication and lessons from 2009.
NESTA
NESTA describes itself as ‘an innovation foundation which works … in partnership with others, including governments, businesses and charities.’
Its Chief Executive since 2011 has been Geoff Mulgan.
Mulgan, a former director of Marxism Today, was previously engaged as director of the Government’s Strategy Unit and head of policy in the Prime Minister’s Office.
Whilst at the Government’s Strategy Unit, he was co-author with David Halpern (now CEO of the Behavioural Insights Team), and others, of the 2004 Cabinet Office discussion document Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour: the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy, which concluded by stating that ‘the public have a central role to play in improving outcomes in public services and achieving environmental goals.’
Mulgan has been Chief Executive of the Young Foundation, and director of the think-tank Demos (which he founded alongside Julia Middleton, founder and former Chief Executive of Common Purpose). Since 2016, he has been acting as co-chair of a World Economic Forum group looking at innovation and entrepreneurship in the fourth industrial revolution.
NESTA is led by a 12-strong board of trustees. Chairman of the board is Sir John Gieve. His early career was spent at the UK Treasury as private secretary to three chancellors (British treasury secretaries). Between 2001 and 2005, he was Permanent Secretary (chief civil servant) at the Home Office, and he was Deputy Governor of the Bank of England between 2006 and 2009.
David Pitt-Watson is Treasurer of the major British charity Oxfam, and a board member of the International Corporate Governance Network. He is also ‘Executive Fellow at London Business School, and Chair of the UN Environment Programme’s Finance Initiative.’
Simon Linnett is Executive Vice Chairman at Rothschild and ‘has a strong personal interest in the “green” debate, seeking to influence discussion on auctioning emissions and chairing Rothschild’s Environment Committee.’
Moira Wallace is a career civil servant who is now Provost of Oriel College, Oxford, a position she has held since 2013. In 2008, she was appointed Permanent Secretary at the newly-formed Department of Energy and Climate Change, which she led for four years. She has her own web page on the CSC Leaders website.
CSC Leaders is a partnership between between leadership development organisation Common Purpose and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh’s Commonwealth Study Conferences (UK Fund). UK Column researchers also discovered Moira Wallace being quoted on a page on the Common Purpose website Leadership programmes, University partners.
Another link between NESTA and Common Purpose is provided by reference to the LinkedIn profile of Olly Arber, formerly Director of Digital at NESTA. A visit to the Common Purpose website reveals Arber quoted as saying:
The course … gave me the confidence to step outside my normal ring fence and bring together wider groups to help create change. (Leading Beyond Authority)
The Behavioural Insights Team Update Report 2013–2015 tells us that:
International organisations (including the European Commission, the OECD, and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) are setting up BIT-style [Behavioural Insight Team] functions or undertaking behavioural insights projects, drawing on the growing body of BIT and associated work, together with new findings from elsewhere.
Behavioural Insights at the European Commission
The European Commission’s Science & Knowledge Service ran a programme called Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy for EU civil servants at its Berlaymont headquarters in Brussels in February 2016. Owain Service, formerly of the Behavioural Insights Team, was in attendance.
Activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) include monitoring the application of behavioural insights in European countries and organising workshops to connect practitioners in the field. The Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy European Report 2016 examines numerous ‘policy initiatives across 32 European countries either implicitly or explicitly informed by behavioural insights (BIs).’
The EU Science Hub website provides links to country overviews, including one for the UK. The UK overview points out that ‘the BIT has also worked with the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme.’ Examples of the spread of Behavioural Insights via the networking approach across Europe is found by referring to the following websites:
The OECD and Behavioural Insights
The Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) was established in 1948 to run the US-financed Marshall Plan. OEEC’s founding European member states were joined by Canada and the United States and signed the new OECD Convention on 14 December 1960. That convention entered into force on 30th September 1951, when the OECD was officially born.
The Paris-based OECD now has 39 member countries that account for 80% of world trade and investment. The OECD works with ‘governments to understand what drives economic, social and environmental change, and, promotes policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.’ It is now typically thought of as the club of the world’s most developed economies and a platform for exchange of social policies.
The OECD claims that since 2013, it has been at the forefront of supporting public institutions who are ‘applying behavioural insights to improving public policy.’
It was no surprise for us to learn, then, that the OECD supports the United Nations in ensuring the success of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This is evidenced by the OECD’s 12-page document Better Policies for 2030: an OECD Action Plan on the Sustainable Development Goals.
The OECD publication Behavioural Insights and Public Policy: Lessons from Around the World contains reference to ‘over 100 case studies showing the application of behavioural insights to public policy.’
The progamme of the OECD’s Behavioural Insights and New Approaches to Policy Design workshop, held in Paris on 23rd January 2014, makes interesting reading. The Introduction to Behavioural Insights and New Policy tools there was given by David Halpern, Chief Executive of the UK’s Behavioural Insights Team.
Owain Service, former Managing Director of the Behavioural Insights Team, played a part in Session 2, Mainstreaming “New” Thinking into Institutions, while Session 7, From Nudging to the Next Frontiers, was jointly facilitated by Professor Richard Thaler, Chicago Booth School of Business, via video link. Thaler, it will be recalled, is an advisory panel member of the Behavioural Insights Team.
Spreading Behavioural Insights Worldwide
The Behavioural Exchange series of conferences are events that have taken place in Sydney, London, Singapore, and Harvard University in the United States.
For example, Behaviour Exchange Sydney 2014 was ‘the world’s first global public policy behavioural insights conference.’ Plenary speakers included David Halpern and Professor Richard Thaler. Also present was Maya Shankar, the former Senior Advisor to the Deputy Director at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Evidence contained in the Nudging in Government video Behaviour Exchange 2014 demonstrates that Maya Shankar and David Halpern were already familiar with each other at that time.
In the spring of 2014 Shankar was the keynote speaker at the United Nations Psychology Day, an event focused on how psychological science can inform global sustainable development. September 2015 saw former President Obama sign Executive Order 13707 — Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People, which institutionalised the US Government’s Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) and codified the practice of applying behavioural science insights to federal policy. In February 2017, Maya Shankar became Google’s first Head of Behavioural Insights.
Dr. Maya Shankar and Dr. Lori Foster, Behavioural Science Advisors to the United Nations, are the authors of Behavioural Insights at the United Nations, Achieving Agenda 2030.
This document tells its readers that:
In January 2016, Secretary-General BAN Ki-moon engaged the first-ever Behavioural Science Advisor to the United Nations, as a way of bringing cutting-edge behavioural science insights to the forefront of policy and programming discussions across the UN. [Since then,] the UN Secretariat and the UNDP Innovation Facility have launched a small team of behavioural science experts — the UN Behavioural Initiative (UNBI).’
BEHAVE 2020 is the 6th European Conference on Behaviour and Energy Efficiency. It is to be held on 21–23 October 2020 at the UN City Copenhagen office.
It is being run by the United Nations Environment Programme, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Technical University of Denmark. The main topics for discussion there include: Behavioural insights for effective climate change mitigation and Users’ behaviour in transport and mobility. The Copenhagen venue serves as the global thematic hub for energy efficiency for the United Nations Secretary General’s Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) initiative.
Conclusion
These, then, are the people driving the government’s response to Covid-19, alongside the more often discussed ‘A-Team’ at Imperial College.
It should perhaps come as no surprise that the message from the UK Government for several weeks now has been that the behaviour of the public is key to any decisions regarding the lifting of the so-called lockdown.
What might be more surprising to many is that the types of behavioural change being demanded of us by the Behavioural Insights ‘experts’ in response to a global ‘pandemic’ fit so nicely with the aims and objectives of those pushing for global change via the Millennium Development Goals.
************


thelibertybeacon--2020-05-04--How the banking cartels profit from engineered crises

In a nutshell : the most brilliant scam in history It has become evident that the coronavirus epidemic is a psyop of colossal dimensions .
It is worth looking at who gains from the shutting down and self-inflicted wounds of the economy .
Well , it is obvious that the pharmaceutical corporations gain , especially if they can achieve their objective of ushering in compulsory vaccination , complete with booby traps in the form of microchips and toxic elements such a mercury and aluminium that will make people ill enough to require more pharmaceutical drugs .
They and other factions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos and dismay caused by the cave-in of once prosperous economies .
Combine this with the fear created by the “ spread ” of a fake epidemic and the sense engendered in many people by this psyop that they are living in some sort of apocalyptic scenario they have seen in the movies .
Then the globalist crime overlords will come along with their “ only solution ” of a world government complete with surrender of our freedoms and human rights “ for our own good ” .
But there is something else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has been going on now for a couple of hundred years , has concentrated more and more wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands , has established in essence a power echelon senior to governments and which empowers the globalists and their operations , particularly in terms of the manipulation of the flow and supply of money and debt .
To understand this scam in a nutshell , please see this article , which briefly gives you the bare bones of it .
If you wish to understand it in more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth and development , I produced a book that explains the whole thing called The Worm in the Apple .
If you contact me , I ’ ll email you a FREE digital copy of it .
To summarise what these two works explain in more detail , suffice to say this : We have been duped into crashing our own economies through the insanity of the lockdown .
As a result , business will struggle or fail and people will be short of money .
Very short .
Thus BORROWING will increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather dim governments with which we are cursed have offered to “ help us through this crisis ” by giving us money provided by The State to the tune of billions of pounds or dollars .
This is very nice of them .
But where will the money come from ?
The government will borrow it to the tune of many billions.There is a massive smoke screen of complexity that hides the rather simple essence of all this from view but in order to lend these billions to the government , – or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borrow through our credit cards , loans and so on – the banking cartels will : ( a ) CREATE THE MONEY .
This is done simply by entering numbers into computers , .
The money doesn ’ t come from anywhere .
It didn ’ t exist before it was loaned out .
In other words , the banking cartels lend money they just created out of thin air .
( b ) LEND THE NEWLY CREATED MONEY to me , you or the government AT INTEREST .
( c ) Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the banks ALONG WITH THE INTEREST .
So the banks make a tidy profit off of money they created out of nothing and which required little more work than tapping numbers into computers .
This of course in an absolutely brilliant scam with too many ramifications to detail here .
Suffice to say that an engineered crisis such as a war or a fake epidemic that crashes economies , creates a shortage of money and stimulates borrowing .
Meanwhile , the money the government so generously doles out has to be repaid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or whatever given out becomes 12 billion or whatever the rate in interest happens to be ) .
And where will the government get the money it needs to repay the ten billion it gave us ?
From us , of course , through our taxes .
So it has in effect generously loaned us our own money which we have to pay back with interest added and this then flows to the banking cartels and makes them even richer than they already were .
And all they had to “ produce ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fake virus that scared the crap out of us .
You could say that this pandemic caper has enabled the bankers to hoover money out of our wallets , aided and abetted by our government .
This also puts the government in the position of being a middle man or broker for the banksters , drumming up business for them and doing the necessary salesmanship and paperwork .
As an aside , another aspect of this is : when the economy crashes , shares will take a nose-dive .
And guess who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buy up shares in myriad companies at bargain-basement prices .
There is a better way of doing this .
The first option of course is not to buy into this pandemic caper and shut down the economy in the first place .
But if government really must dole out billions of pounds to the people in order to keep them afloat , it can just create the money itself and dole it out , without interest and only rake some of it back in through taxes if an when the combined effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflation .
“ Oh the government can ’ t just print money !
” I hear you say .
Well , if the banks can do it ( and they do it every hour of every day ) and then lend it out for profit by charging interest ( essentially a heavy tax for the privilege of having a circulating means of exchange ) then the government sure as hell can do it as a not-for-profit public service to the community and just skip having the banks create it and the interest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is being run on this planet at this time .
This article is from UKReloaded The author ’ s website is here

In a nutshell: the most brilliant scam in history
by Steve Cook
It has become evident that the coronavirus epidemic is a psyop of colossal dimensions.
It is worth looking at who gains from the shutting down and self-inflicted wounds of the economy.
Well, it is obvious that the pharmaceutical corporations gain, especially if they can achieve their objective of ushering in compulsory vaccination, complete with booby traps in the form of microchips and toxic elements such a mercury and aluminium that will make people ill enough to require more pharmaceutical drugs.
They and other factions of authoritarian disposition will gain from the chaos and dismay caused by the cave-in of once prosperous economies. Combine this with the fear created by the “spread” of a fake epidemic and the sense engendered in many people by this psyop that they are living in some sort of apocalyptic scenario they have seen in the movies. Then the globalist crime overlords will come along with their “only solution” of a world government complete with surrender of our freedoms and human rights “for our own good”.
But there is something else that underlies all this, a scam that has been going on now for a couple of hundred years, has concentrated more and more wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands, has established in essence a power echelon senior to governments and which empowers the globalists and their operations, particularly in terms of the manipulation of the flow and supply of money and debt.
To understand this scam in a nutshell, please see this article, which briefly gives you the bare bones of it.
If you wish to understand it in more depth and know the history of its growth and development, I produced a book that explains the whole thing called The Worm in the Apple. If you contact me, I’ll email you a FREE digital copy of it.
To summarise what these two works explain in more detail, suffice to say this:
We have been duped into crashing our own economies through the insanity of the lockdown. As a result, business will struggle or fail and people will be short of money. Very short. Thus BORROWING will increase through loans credit cards etc.
The rather dim governments with which we are cursed have offered to “help us through this crisis” by giving us money provided by The State to the tune of billions of pounds or dollars.
This is very nice of them. But where will the money come from?
The government will borrow it to the tune of many billions.There is a massive smoke screen of complexity that hides the rather simple essence of all this from view but in order to lend these billions to the government, – or indeed to lend us the money we borrow through our credit cards, loans and so on – the banking cartels will:
(a) CREATE THE MONEY. This is done simply by entering numbers into computers,. The money doesn’t come from anywhere. It didn’t exist before it was loaned out. In other words, the banking cartels lend money they just created out of thin air.
(b) LEND THE NEWLY CREATED MONEY to me, you or the government AT INTEREST.
(c) Over time, we then repay that money to the banks ALONG WITH THE INTEREST.
So the banks make a tidy profit off of money they created out of nothing and which required little more work than tapping numbers into computers.
This of course in an absolutely brilliant scam with too many ramifications to detail here.
Suffice to say that an engineered crisis such as a war or a fake epidemic that crashes economies, creates a shortage of money and stimulates borrowing.
Meanwhile, the money the government so generously doles out has to be repaid at interest (so the 10 billion or whatever given out becomes 12 billion or whatever the rate in interest happens to be).
And where will the government get the money it needs to repay the ten billion it gave us?
From us, of course, through our taxes. So it has in effect generously loaned us our own money which we have to pay back with interest added and this then flows to the banking cartels and makes them even richer than they already were. And all they had to “produce” in exchange for our money was a fake virus that scared the crap out of us.
You could say that this pandemic caper has enabled the bankers to hoover money out of our wallets, aided and abetted by our government.
This also puts the government in the position of being a middle man or broker for the banksters, drumming up business for them and doing the necessary salesmanship and paperwork.
As an aside, another aspect of this is: when the economy crashes, shares will take a nose-dive. And guess who will be on hand with plenty of money to buy up shares in myriad companies at bargain-basement prices.
There is a better way of doing this.
The first option of course is not to buy into this pandemic caper and shut down the economy in the first place.
But if government really must dole out billions of pounds to the people in order to keep them afloat, it can just create the money itself and dole it out, without interest and only rake some of it back in through taxes if an when the combined effects of lowered production and increased money produce inflation .
“Oh the government can’t just print money!” I hear you say.
Well, if the banks can do it (and they do it every hour of every day) and then lend it out for profit by charging interest (essentially a heavy tax for the privilege of having a circulating means of exchange) then the government sure as hell can do it as a not-for-profit public service to the community and just skip having the banks create it and the interest.
And that scam is the core of what is being run on this planet at this time.
This article is from UKReloaded
••••
Visit Steve’s websites (click on image to visit website):
The Daily Scare:
Steve Cook:
UK Reloaded (Steve is the TLB Director of this website):
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.