Bulletin N° 1028

The Wizard of OZ




An adaptation of L. Frank Baum's 1900 children's fantasy novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the film was primarily directed by Victor Fleming and stars Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley, Billie Burke and Margaret Hamilton. Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson, and Edgar Allan Woolf received credit for the screenplay, but others made uncredited contributions. The songs were written by Edgar "Yip" Harburg and composed by Harold Arlen. The musical score and incidental music were composed by Herbert Stothart.





Subject: Square Pegs into Round Holes: a reactionary attempt to manufacture a class of 21st-century serfs.




International Women’s Day, 2022



Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,


The madness of war – aside from the military science of Grand Strategy, strategy, tactics, and logistics – includes propaganda and psychological warfare. Full-spectrum dominance is nothing new in the world of labor exploitation. The classic categories of four types of wars – wars of national defense, wars of colonial liberation, imperialist wars, and civil wars -  are all conflicts that contain one common guiding principle: “the ends justify the means.”

On this International Women’s Day, the 8th of March, we might consider an alternative logic and reflect on the proposition that perhaps “the means always mitigate the end” and that this property of human behavior is of a higher order than the usual rationalization used to justify and  prolong wars.


To help us conceptualize these historic moments of tectonic shifts in social class relationships, we turn now to the Epilogue of Barrington Moore, Jr.’s major contribution to the discussion of social origins of dictatorship and democracy. He concludes his lengthy and informative comparative history, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the making of the Modern World (1966), with a discussion of some of the implications of both peasant actions and inactions, in their specific contexts of revolution, and of the class origins of “their” ideas, which present to the historian the challenge of identifying  struggles against “false consciousness,”  and the historic emergence of authentic struggles of a “class-for-itself."


Out of the Wrenches and Fractures that accompanied the making of a new society – or of efforts to prevent its emergence – similar conceptions of what a society ought to be or ought not to be come to the surface in roughly comparable situations. To discuss adequately radical and conservative critiques of society in a comparative framework would obviously require another volume. Here I shall merely comment briefly on a few themes taken from this wide range of ideas insofar as they are related to certain types of historical experience faced by the landed upper classes and the peasants. The ideas themselves are familiar enough to require no detailed exposition. As contributions to the general human conception of a free society, or as attacks upon such a conception, they belong together and display interesting relationships to each other. My observations on these ideas will not be only brief but provocative, in what I hope may be the good sense of the word, that of encouraging others to study these problems more closely. At the outset it will be helpful to make explicit the conception g of the relationship between ideas and social movements which has been reached as a result of my investigations, even if it is unlikely that I have managed to adhere to it consistently throughout this study.

     The issue has come up several times in considering the forces that aided or prevented the land upper classes from taking up commercial agriculture How much weight should one attribute to widely prevalent ideals, codes of behavior, or values in explaining the result? Thought the evidence, I think, pointed in the direction of stressing as the crucial aspect of the explanation the situation that various groups faced, the attentive reader might suspect that ideas or cultural themes, to use still another term, have crept into the explanation somehow. His suspicion would be quite correct. I do not believe that they can be omitted and hold that there is a significant residue of truth in such explanations. My objection is to the way they are put into the explanation, which in my estimation creates a strong conservative bias under the color of scientific neutrality and objectivity. That this bias is no case of deliberate dishonesty goes without saying. Among serious thinkers deliberate deception is probably rather rare and in the long run much less significant than the direction imposed upon thought from, its own structure and social milieu.

     Common observation is enough to show that human beings individually and collectively do not react to an ‘objective’ situation in the same was as one chemical reacts to another when they are put together in a test tube. This form of strict behaviorism is, I suppose, just plain wrong. There is always an interesting variable, a filter, one might say, between people and an ‘objective’ situation, made up from all sorts of wants, expectations, and other ideas derived from the past. This intervening variable, which it is convenient to call culture, screens out certain parts of the objective situation and emphasizes other parts. There are limits to the amount of variations in perception and human behavior that can come from this source. Still the residue of truth in the cultural explanation is that what looks like an opportunity or a temptation to one group of people will not necessarily seem so to another group with a different historical experience and living in a form of society. The weakness of e cultural explanation is not in the statement of such facts, though there is room for debate over their significance, but in the way they are put into the explanation. Materialist efforts to exorcise the ghost of idealism in cultural explanations are chanting at the wrong spook.

     The real spook is a conception of social inertia, taken over probably from physics. There is a widespread assumption in modern social science that social continuity requires no explanation. Supposedly it is not problematical. Change is what requires explanation. This assumption blinds the investigator to certain crucial aspects of social reality. Culture, or tradition – to use a less technical term – is not something that exists outside of or independently of individual human beings living together in society. Cultural values do not descend from heaven to influence the course of history. They are abstractions by an observer, based on the observation of certain similarities in the way groups of people behave, either in different situations or over time, or both. Even though one can often make accurate predictions about the way groups and individuals will behave over short periods of time on the basis of such abstraction, as such they do not explain the behavior. To explain behavior in terms of cultural values is to engage in circular reasoning. If we notice that a landed aristocracy resists commercial enterprise, we don’t explain this fact by stating that the aristocracy has done so in the past and even that it is the carrier of certain traditions that make it hostile to such activities: the problem is to determine out of what past the present experiences such an outlook arises and maintains itself. If culture has an empirical meaning, it is as a tendency implanted in the human mind to behave in certain specific ways ‘acquired by man as a member of society,’ to quote the last phrase of Tylor’s famous definition, which brought the term into scholarly and eventually popular usage.

     The assumption of inertia, that cultural and social continuity do not require explanation, obliterates the fact that both have to be recreated anew in each generation, often with great pain and suffering. To maintain and transmit a value system, human beings are punched, bullied, sent to jail, thrown into concentration camps, cajoled, bribed, made into heroes, encouraged to read newspapers, stood up against a wall and shot, and sometimes even taught sociology. To speak of cultural inertia is to overlook the concrete interests and privileges that are served by indoctrination, education, and the entire complicated process of transmitting culture from one generation to the next. A member of the Chinese gentry in the nineteenth century, we may agree, usually judged economic opportunities in a way very different from that of a twentieth-century American businessman farmer. But he did so because he grew up in Chinese Imperial society whose class structure, system of rewards, privileges, and sanctions, penalized certain forms of economic gain that would have destroyed the hegemony and authority of the dominant groups. Finally, to take values as a starting point of sociological explanation makes it very difficult to understand the obvious fact that values change in response to circumstances. The perversion of democratic notions of the American South is an all too familiar example, incomprehensible without cotton and slavery. We cannot do without some conception of how people perceive the world and what they do or do not want to do about whqt they see. To detach this, conception from the way people reach it, to take it out of its historical context and raise it to the status of an independent causal actor in its own right, means that the supposedly impartial investigator succumbs to the justifications that ruling groups generally offer for their most brutal conduct. That, I fear, is exactly what a great deal of academic social science does today.

     Let us now return to more concrete problems. It is out of the question here to discuss fully the intellectual contributions to the conception of a free society that are traceable to the historical experience of the landed upper classes. It is sufficient to remind the reader that English parliamentary democracy was very largely the creation of this class, which remained in charge of its workings down to the eve of the First World War and has been very influential since then. Much of the modern conception of legitimate authority and of an open society derives from the struggles between this class, which was of course very far from united, and the royal authority. Instead I shall comment upon one these, the ideals and rationalizations of what was once a dominant class an under certain circumstances become what Marxists call critical and progressive theories. This issue is worth raising because it has implications beyond the landed aristocracy. As will appear again from the discussion of the peasants, it may be dying classes that make decisive contributions to the vision of a free society.

     Though the landed aristocracy has in many countries furnished a congenial social climate in which the ideal of the amateur has grown and flourished, this ideal has of course roots that ramify much further. In one form or another it is probably characteristic of most preindustrial civilization. The main features in this cluster of ideas might be expressed in the following way. Because aristocratic status was supposed to indicate a qualitatively superior form of being, whose qualities were hereditary rather than the fruit of individually acquired merits, the aristocrat was not expected to put forth too prolonged or too earnest an effort in any single direction. He might excel, but not just in one activity as a consequence of prolonged training; that would be plebeian. The hereditary aspect, it is worth noticing, is not completely decisive. Thus the conception of the amateur and gentleman were important in both classical Greece and Imperial China, societies that in theory minimize hereditary status above a certain level such as slaves. Nevertheless in such societies too only a limited number of persons were believed capable of achieving full aristocratic status. For them the ‘real’ ruler-gentleman was a qualitatively distinct form of humanity. In these societies as well as other with a more explicit class or cast structure, the aristocrat was expected to do all things very well, but none of them, not even making love, too well. In Western society this conception largely disappeared with the triumph of industrial society. For example, in the United States the distinction between amateur and professional, with overtones of approval for the former, survives only in areas of life that he man in the street does not regard as completely serious. One can speak of an amateur athlete or an amateur actor, and in some circles even an amateur historian, but scarcely of an amateur businessman or an amateur lawyer except as a derogatory epithet.

     As might be anticipated, the traditional conception of the amateur has survived most clearly in England, where the aristocracy, using the term broadly to include a large portion of the gentry, has maintained itself with least damage. Namier has observed, ‘More intellectual work is done by aristocrats in England than anywhere else, and in turn, scientist, doctors, historians and poets have been made peers . . . but no German Gelehrter (scholar) was ever made baron or a count.’ The critical stance of the aristocracy toward any notion that wealth is a desirable end in itself has helped the aristocracy to preserve the aesthetic dimension of life. Even today a few people still believe that art, literature, philosophy, and pure science are not merely decorative adjuncts to the serious business of making a living but he supreme end of human life. That such ideas can be taken seriously is in substantial measure due to the persistence of an independent aristocracy as a group that can lend the aura of its prestige and patronage to such notions, even if no aristocracy itself has adopted them as its real working code of behavior.

     Similarly the critical stance toward the technician as the desiccated brain at the service of any master derived from the aristocratic conception of the amateur. Again Namier has noticed the importance of these ideas in twentieth-century England:

We prefer to make it appear as if our ideas came to us casually – like the Empire – in a fit of absence of mind . . . . Speculation necessarily entails distortion of mind and loss of balance, and the characteristically English attempt to appear unscientific springs from a desire to remain human . . . . What is not valued in England is abstract knowledge as a profession, because the tradition of English culture is that profession should be practical and culture should be the work of the leisured classes.

At its best this ideal asserts that the educated man should attain a sufficiently accurate and informed understanding of broad issues and fundamental conceptions in the sciences and the arts to assess their social and political implications.

     Even today this is no utopian ideal. The standard objection, that there is simply too much to know, doges the main issue: what is worth knowing? The objection provides ideological cover for the technician and conceptual nihilist who fears that his own limited area of knowledge may not be able to compete with others in an open discussion of their relative significance. Thus the ancient struggle between aristocratic and plebeian, transposed into new forms, continues within academic walls.

    All these themes have strong negative aspects. The ideal of the amateur can and has served as an excuse for superficiality and incompetence. If the aristocracy has helped to preserve the independence of the aesthetic dimension, it has also exerted very strong pressures toward mere decoration and flattery. Sheer snobbishness, i.e., the drawing of social distinctions and the awarding of prestige without any rational basis, has played a tremendous part. Veblen’s snide caricature in the Theory of the Leisure Class seized essential aspects of the truth. Finally, it is necessary to recognize the very strong anti-intellectual streak in the Western European aristocracy, even in England. In many circles among the gentry and upward, any attempt at conservation beyond sports and gardens is likely to evoke pained surprise and suspicion that the speaker has ‘Bolshie’ sympathies. For every distinguished patron of the intellect, for every eccentric defender of unpopular causes, and certainly for every aristocrat who has used his independence as a stepping stone to real intellectual achievements, there are many empty and frivolous lives. For every Bertrand Russell, there are probably a score of Colonel Blimps. If the continued existence of an aristocracy has helped to preserve the life of the mind, it has in very great measure simultaneously contributed to the suffocation of the intellect. Though I know of no serious attempt to appraise the balance, it seems that only a tiny proportion of the economic and human resources appropriated by the aristocracy has found its way again into intellectual and artistic life. Hence this aristocratic contribution to the conception and realization of a free society has been purchased at terrific social cost.

     If there is some justification for regarding the conception of the amateur as a positive contribution, there are clear grounds for a negative assessment of several other ideas. Those about t to be discussed, however, arise in quite a different social context. Reactionary social theories are liable to flourish in a landed upper class that manages to hang onto political power successfully although it is losing out economically or perhaps is threatened by a new and strange source of economic power (a fear underlying some currents of thought in the American antebellum South). At several points in this book there has been occasion to notice that, where commercial relationships have begun to undermine a peasant economy, the conservative elements in society are likely to generate a rhetoric of extolling the peasant as the backbone of society. This phenomenon is not confined to modern times not to Western civilization. The key elements in the rhetoric – advocacy of the sterner virtues, militarism, contempt for ‘decadent’ foreigners, and anti-intellectualism – appear in the West at least as early as Cato the Elder (234-149 B.C.) who operated his own latifundium with slave labor. It is fitting, therefore, to label this complex of ideas with his name. A similar rhetoric, according to some authorities also in response to a threat to traditional peasant economy, had emerged in China with the Legalists, around the 4th century B.C. The function of Catonism is too obvious to require more than brief comment. It justifies a repressive social order that buttresses the position of those in power. It denies the existence of actual changes that have hurt the peasants. It denies the need for further social changes, especially revolutionary ones. Perhaps Catonism may also relieve the conscience of those most responsible for the damage – after all, military expansion destroyed the Roman peasantry.

     Modern versions of Catonism arise too out of the adoption by the landed upper classes of repressive and exploitative methods in response to the increasing intrusion of the market relationships into an agrarian economy. The main notions are prominent in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Junker circles, the Nōhōn shugi movement in Japan, the Russian Black Hundreds after the turn of the century, the extreme conservatism in France that came to the surface as window dressing for Vichy. Key elements occur among Southern apologists prior to the American Civil War. Catonism was an important component too in twentieth-century fascism in Europe and Asia, as well as Chiang Kai-shek’s programmatic pronouncements for China. Naturally all these movements differ among themselves. Nevertheless it is not difficult to perceive a certain ground plan to related ideas and predispositions that all of them share.(p.484-491)


     As far as feelings (so far as we really know them) and the causes of hatred go, there is not a great deal to choose between the radical right and the radical left in the countryside. The main distinction depends on the amount of realistic analysis of the causes of suffering on the images of a potential future. Catonism conceals the social causes and projects an image of continued submission. The radical tradition empathizes the cause and projects an image of eventual liberation. The fact that the emotions and causes are similar does not mean that the emergence of one or the other as a politically significant force depends on skills in manipulating these discontents, as repeated failures to win over radicalized pedants to conservative causes (or vice versa) through the methods of psychological warfare clearly demonstrates. These psychological and organizational skills are important, but they work only when they are in line with the everyday experiences of the peasants whom such leaders attempt to set in motion.

     Thus Catonism is not purely an upper-class mythology about the peasants, attributed to the peasants, but finds a response among the latter because it provides an explanation of sorts for their situation under the intrusion of the market. It is also quite clearly a body of notions that arises out of the life conditions of a landed aristocracy threatened by the same forces. If one glances at the major themes in the form of the aristocratic response that culminated in liberal democracy, one will notice that they also occur in Catonism – transposed to a different key. The criticism of mass democracy, the notions of legitimate authority and the importance of custom, opposition to the power of wealth and to mere technical expertise all constitute major themes in the Catonist cacophony. Again it is in the way they are combined, even more important the ultimate purpose that makes all the difference. In Catonism these notions serve the ends of strengthening repressive authority. In aristocratic liberalism they are brought together as intellectual weapons against irrational authority. Catonism, on the other hand, lacks any conception of pluralism or the desirability of checks on hierarchy and obedience.

     As noted above, modern Catonism is mainly associated with the attempt to go over to labor-repressive forms of capitalist agriculture. It is also anti-industrial and antimodern through and through. Here may lie the basic limitations to the spread and success of Catonism. There is, I would suggest, this very significant residue of truth in Veblen’s cautiously yet repeatedly expressed hope that the advance of the machines might somehow flush human irrationalities down the drain of history. The more extreme forms of labor-repressive or exploitative agriculture can be decisive adjuncts to capitalist development, as was the case in the connection between American slavery and both English and American industrial capitalism. But industrial capitalism has great difficulty establishing itself in the same area with a labor-repressive system. As part of the effort to hold down a subject population, the upper classes have to generate an antirationalist, antiurban, antimaterialist, and, more loosely, antibourgeois view of the world – one that excludes any conception of progress. And it is very difficult to see how industrialism can take firm hold without a push from people who hold a very materialist conception of progress that includes sooner or later concrete improvements in the situation of the lower classes. In contrast with advancing industrialism, Catonism, it seems, finally compromises itself out of existence to fuse with more definitely urban and capitalist forms of romantic nostalgia. These more intellectually respectable forms of the far right have become increasingly influential in the West during the past twenty years, especially in the United States. Conceivably Catonism will someday appear to future historians, if any there are, as having contributed merely the most explosive ingredients to this dangerous mixture.

     In turning from ideas derived from experience of the landed upper classes to those of the peasants, the historian at once runs into trouble because the materials are so sparse and their authenticity often doubtful. To determine just what ideas have been current among peasants is extraordinarily difficult because they have left so few records of their own and have had a great many ideas attributed to them by townsmen who had a political axe to grind.

. . .

     As the world of commerce and industry began to undermine the structure of the village community, the European peasants reacted with a form of radicalism that stressed the themes of liberty, equality, and fraternity, but in a way distinct from the way that the townsmen, more specifically the more prosperous bourgeoisie, understood these themes. Throughout Europe and Asia, the current of rural response to modernization went its own course, sometimes joining that in the towns, sometimes flowing in the opposite direction. For the peasants, the first of the three was not liberty but equality. And peasant experience provided the background for a shattering critique of the bourgeois notion of equality, as I shall try to indicate more concretely in a moment. Briefly, the peasants asked, ‘What is the meaning of your fine political arrangement when the rich can still oppress the poor? Liberty too meant getting rid of the overlord who no longer gave them protection but now used his ancient privileges to take away their land or make them work on his for nothing. Fraternity meant the village as a cooperative economic and territorial unit, little more. From the peasant, it seems, the idea may have passed to intellectuals who developed their theories about the depersonalization of modern life and the curse of bureaucratic bigness, looking backward through a romantic haze to what they thought they saw in the village community. All this would have seemed, I suspect, quite odd and incomprehensible to the peasant who had daily experience of the vicious quarrels over property and women common in his own village.  For the peasant, fraternity was more a negative notion, a form of localism. The peasant had no abstract interest in feeding the town. His organic conception of society stopped quite short of altruism. For him, ‘outsiders’ were and are mainly a source of taxes and debt. Fellow villagers, on the other hand, even if they too were often creatures to be treated warily were people with whom it was necessary to work at crucial stages in the agricultural cycle. Thus cooperation was the dominant theme within the group, hostility and distrust the dominant one toward outsiders, with many variations and shadings in concrete daily circumstances. Peasant localism, thus, is no innate trait (any more than the attachment to the soil) but the product of concrete experiences and circumstances.

     In the forms just sketched, these ideas also appealed to the smaller artisans and journeymen in the towns, oppressed by debt and the rise of larger traders. Since some of the smaller townsmen might be able to write, it was often they or a stray from the priesthood who put the grievances down in writing and so preserved them for historians to discuss. These circumstances make it doubly difficult to disentangle the purely peasant component. Yet if one looks at the extreme leftist manifestations of the English Civil War and the French Revolution, the Diggers and ‘Gracchus’ Babeuf – the names in each  case are revealing –  as well as certain stands in pre-1917 Russian radicalism, it is not difficult to perceive their connection with peasant life and problems.(pp.494-499)

Moore concludes his epilogue on “reactionary and revolutionary imagery” with an observation of the historiography of revolution;

     Because peasant discontent has frequently expressed itself in reactionary forms, Marxist thinkers often regard peasant radicalism with a mixture of contempt and suspicion or, at best, with patronizing condescension. To smile at this blindness, to point out that Marxist successes have come out of peasant revolutions, have almost become favorite anti-Marxist pastimes, so much so as to conceal more significant issues. As one reviews the spread of modern revolution, from its starting points in the German Bauernkrieg and the Puritan Revolution in England, through its successful and abortive phases as it travels westward to the United States and eastward through France, Germany, Russia, and China, two points stand out. First, the utopian radical conceptions of one phase become the accepted institutions and philosophical platitudes of the next. Secondly, the chief social basis of radicalism has been the peasants and the smaller artisans in the towns. From these facts one may conclude that the wellsprings of human freedom lie not only where Marx saw them, in the aspirations of classes about to take power, but perhaps even more in the dying wail of a class over whom the wave of progress is about to roll. Industrialism, as it continues to spread, may in some distant future still these voices forever and make revolutionary radicalism as anachronistic as cuneiform writing.

     For a Western scholar to say a good word on behalf of revolutionary radicalism is not easy because it runs counter to deeply grooved mental reflexes. The assumption that gradual and piecemeal reform has demonstrated its superiority over violent revolution as a way to advance human freedom is so pervasive that even to question such an assumption seems strange. In closing this book I should like to draw attention for the last time to what the evidence from the comparative history of modernization may tell us about this issue. As I have reluctantly come to read this evidence, the costs of modernization have been at least as atrocious as those of revolution, perhaps a great deal more.

      Fairness demands recognition of the fact that the way nearly all history has been written imposes an overwhelming bias against revolutionary violence. Indeed this bias becomes horrifying as one comes to realize its depth. To equate the violence of those who resist oppression with the violence of the oppressors would be misleading enough. But there is a great deal more. From the days of Spartacus through Robespierre down to the present day, the use of force by the oppressed against their former masters has been the object of nearly universal condemnation. Meanwhile the day-to-day repression of ‘normal’ society hovers dimly in the background of most history books. Even those radical historians who emphasize the injustices of prerevolutionary epochs generally concentrate on a short time span preceding the immediate outbreak. In that way, too, they may unwittingly distort the record.

     That is one argument against the comforting myth of gradualism. There is an even more important one, the costs of going without a revolution. There have been the tragedies of the victims of fascism and its wars of aggression, the consequence of modernization without a real revolution. In the backward countries today, there continues the suffering of those who have not revolted. In India we have seen that this suffering has been in good measure the price of democratic slowness in the Asian context. To call the situation democratic stagnation may not stretch the truth unduly. There are also positive arguments on behalf of revolution. In the Western democratic countries revolutionary violence (and other forms as well) were part of the whole historical process that made possible subsequent peaceful change. In the communist countries too, revolutionary violence has been part of the break with a repressive past and of the effort to construct a less repressive future.

     The gradualist argument seems shattered. But precisely at this point the revolutionary argument also collapses. It is clear beyond all shadow  of a doubt that the claims of existing socialist states to represent a higher form of  freedom than Western democratic capitalism rest on promise, not on performance. There is no denying the patent fact that the Bolshevik Revolution did not bring liberation to the people of Russia. At most it may have brought the possibility of liberation. Stalinist Russia as one of the bloodiest tyrannies the world has yet seen. Though much less is known about China, the communist victory there probably meant some increase in personal security for the mass of the population after almost a century of widespread brigandage, foreign oppression and revolution, it is safe enough to assert that in China too the claims of socialism rest on promise, not performance. Indeed  communists cannot claim that the mass of the population has shouldered a lesser share of the burden of suffering under their form of industrialization than they did under the preceding forms of capitalism. On this score it is well to recollect that there is no evidence that the mass of the population anywhere has wanted an industrial society, and plenty of evidence that they did not. At bottom all forms of industrialization so far have been revolutions form above, the work of a ruthless minority.

     To this indictment communists can reply that the repressive features of their regimes have been in large measure a response to the imperative of creating their own industrial base in a tremendous hurry while surrounded by ravenous capitalist enemies. I do not think it is possible to make anything like that much of a case of what actually happened. The range and depth of the Stalinist repression and terror were far too great to find explanation, let along justification, through some conception of revolutionary necessity? In many ways the Stalinist terror probably did more to hinder than to aid revolutionary objectives, as in the decimation of the offer corps prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, very likely also in the way Stalinist rule produced a mixture of chaos and petrified rigidity all through the Soviet administrative structure, including the industrial sectors. Nor will it do to put all the blame on Stalin personally. The ugly side of the Stalinist era had institutional roots. Communism as a set of ideas and institutions cannot escape responsibility for Stalinism. In general one of the most revolting features of revolutionary dictatorships has been their use of terror against little people who were as much victims of the old order as were the revolutionaries themselves, often more so.

     There is also the argument that we are too close to communist revolutions to judge them properly: the liberating effects of past revolutions took a long time to appear. Neither this argument nor the preceding one to the effect that the horrors of communism spring out of its defense against those of capitalism are arguments to be dismissed lightly. There are nevertheless grounds for holding that they display considerable naiveté toward the past and the future. They are naïve about the past because every government blames it repressive feathers on its enemies: if the enemy would only go away, all subjects could live happily forever after. There is a sense in which all dominant élites, even when they fight one another, have a vested interest in their opponents’ existence to which the deformations of a revolution create vested interests in domination. Although the communist defense requires an act of faith about the future that involves too great a surrender of critical rationality.

     In the place of such a surrender, I would urge the view that both Western liberalism and communism (especially the Russian version) have begun to display many symptoms of historical obsolescence. As successful doctrines they have started to turn into ideologies that justify and conceal numerous forms of repression. That there are huge differences between the two goes without staying. Communist repression has been and remains so far mainly directed against its own population. The repression by liberal society, both under earlier imperialism and again now in the armed struggle against revolutionary movements in the backward areas, has been directed very heavily outward, against others. Nevertheless this common feather of repressive practice covered by talk of freedom may be the most significant one. To the extent that such is the case, the task of honest thinking is to detach itself from both sets of preconceptions, to uncover the causes of oppressive tendencies in both systems in the hope of overcoming them. Whether they can actually be overcome is dubious in the extreme. As long as powerful vested interests oppose changes that lead toward a less oppressive world, no commitment to a free society can dispense with some conception of revolutionary coercion. That, however, is an ultimate necessity, a last resort in political action, whose rational justification in time and place varies too much for any attempt at consideration here. Whether the ancient Western dream of a free and rational society will always remain a chimera, no one can know for sure. But if the men of the future are ever to break the chains of the present, they will have to understand the forces that forged them.(pp.504-508)


This book closes with an Appendix, “A Note on Statistics and Conservative Historiography, ”in which the author contextualizes his own view and explains the struggle he is necessarily engaged in as he writes this history in the US in the mid-1960s.

     Anyone who goes to the writings of other scholars in search of general instruction as well as information about specific problems is likely to notice sooner or later a conflict between generations at least as acute as that in Turgenev’s famous novel. Conservative and radical interpretations of the same set of events succeed each other in fairly regular succession. Out of the conflict there does come an increase in historical understanding, as anyone can see for himself by looking first at, say Taine or a Michelet and then at almost any standard modern account of the French Revolution. Human nature being what it is, perhaps knowledge of human affairs can grow in no other way.

     But there are a good many costs and losses in this procedure that get in the way of cumulative comprehension of the past. One loss comes from the tendency to accept uncritically the notion that the present generation has rally settled certain questions more or less permanently. Whether this tendency in the long run prevails as much on the political left as on the right is not absolutely clear. I am somewhat more aware of it on the right than on the left for two reasons. One is partly accidental. This book happened to be written during a time when the political climate was conservative and the scholarly atmosphere contained strong revisionist currents against older works that might raise apprehension about our own society. By the time the book was finished there was already a noticeable reaction against this current. The other reason is simpler: the bias of the doctrinaire left is often so crude as to be comic. Nobody has any trouble recognizing that.

     For these reasons the following remarks are addressed mainly to a certain form of conservative bias. Their purpose is to caution the curious layman and the fledging scholar against extreme versions of conservative revisionism, views which hold in effect that hardheaded modern scientific quantitative research has now ‘demolished’ older interpretations and that adherence to any important aspect of them represents no more than an ‘affirmation of religious myth,’ a remark to be encountered more frequently in oral exchanges than in the cold print that compels most authors to veer back toward safe moderation. A close look at the statistical evidence upon which such criticism rests indicates, in some important instances to be discussed in a moment, that the statistics actually support the older views. After the technical discussion itself, I shall offer some reflection on the general tenor of these arguments. At the start, however, I would like to make explicit the sprit in which my observations are put forth. Without special competence in statistics, I still have no patience with the machine-breaking mentality that rejects figures out of hand. To name this deformation of the humanist mentality after the Luddites is actually unfair to them; they were rather more intelligent. Nor is this Appendix to be read as a hidden diatribe against all conservative revisionism. Anyone who knows a specific portion of the literature on which this book is based will recognize the similarity between some of my arguments and those of distinguished revisionist works. Finally, those scholars whose work is about the be discussed do not display that complacency found among those who make tentative conclusions part of the consensus of professional opinion – in the study of man the most treacherous of all opinions.(pp.509-510)

Moore goes on to observe,

There are also some general reasons for holding that in any violent conflict the social composition of the victims will not by itself reveal much about the social and political character of the struggle. Let us suppose that a revolution breaks out in some Latin American country where the government is under the control of wealthy landlords and a few rich businessmen. Let suppose further that the army is made up mostly of peasant conscripts and that one section of the army breaks off and joins the rebels who are seeking to overthrow the government and establish a communist regime. After a few pitched battles, the statistician would no doubt find that the causalities on both sides were mainly peasants. To conclude that the main split in this case was a vertical one , to deny that class conflict was the key to the political struggles, would be patently absurd. If, on the other hand, the rebels put forth no social demands and merely sought to replace one set of landlords and business leaders with another, there would be grounds for the assertion that some sort of a perpendicular split existed. In a word, it is not only who fighters but what the fight is about that matters. This aspect raises more general issues to which we may now turn.

. . .

there are certain common themes in the statistical critique that raise questions transcending statistics. In order to being out these points I will take the liberty of reformulating the general drift of the line of argument just discussed. Implicitly the burden of this argument seem to be the following: In what were supposedly the great revolutions against oppressors it is possible to show, by counting, that there was in reality little or no raising againstt oppression. No important differences distinguished the two sides in the Puritan and French Revolution. Similarly, in what was supposed to be a revolutionary social transformation carried out by the oppressive upper class, the enclosure movement in England, it is possible to show by counting that in reality there was not much oppression. The victims grew and flourished. Hence the whole radical tradition is suffused with sentimental nonsense.

. . .

     These changes are qualitative alterations in the relations of men have with one another. They concern such differences as those between owning property and producing goods with a few simple tools and one’s own hands, and owning no property, working for someone else, and producing goods with complicated machines. To speak in very neutral and abstract terms for a moment, they are changes in the form of social patters. The distinctions in these forms and patterns do not seem to be reducible to any quantitative differences; they are incommensurable.* Yet it is precisely such differences that matter most to human beings. They are the ones where change has produced the most violent conflict, the source of the great historical issues.


*Note in this connection Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 195: “Thus beyond all question of quantity, there lie questions of pattern, which are essential for the understanding of nature. Apart from a presupposed pattern, quantity determines nothing.” Whitehead’s reservations about the procedures of the natural sciences and mathematics are to be taken very seriously because, unlike many other critics, he knew thoroughly what he was talking about.(pp.518-521)

. . .

     There is a respectable intellectual tradition which denies that objectivity is possible at all, even in principle. This denial seems to rest on confusion between the causes of historical events and their consequences or meaning. The causes of the American Civil War had run their course by the time the first shot was fired at Fort Sumner. No historian’s opinion about these causes can have the remotest effect on what they actually were .The consequences are another matter. They are with us today and may be with us as long as human history continues. This second aspect of the thesis about the permanent ambiguity of history seems to me perfectly valid.  Statements by historians about the cases of the Civil War have polemical results now no matter what their authors intend. It is in this sense that impartiality is an impossibility and an illusion. Whether he knows it or not, to continue the argument, the historian has to adopt some principle in selecting and ordering his facts. The same is true for the sociologist studying contemporary affairs. By virtue of what they include and exclude, highlight or deemphasize, these principles have political and moral consequences. Hence they are unavoidably moral principles. It is impossible to opt out of the struggle. The very act of trying to opt out, of trying to take a nonpartisan position, means taking up a form of apolitical pseudo-objectivity that in effect supports the status quo.

     The thesis that neutrality is impossible is a powerful one, convincing at any rate to me. But I do not think that it leads to a denial that objective social and historical analysis is possible. Different perspectives on the same set of events should lead to complementary and congruent interpretations, not to contradictory ones. Furthermore the denial that objective truth is possible in principle flings open the door to the worst forms of intellectual dishonesty. A crude version goes something like this; since neutrality is impossible I will take my stand with the underdog and write history to serve the underdog, helping in this way to reach a ‘higher Truth.’ In plain language this is just cheating. No matter what this unavoidable moral premises and predilections, any student of human affairs is bound sooner or later to come across evidence that is profoundly disturbing. Then he has the task of coming to terms with its honestly.

     Gradations of Truth with a capital T, rightly in my estimation arouse angry suspicion. But this does not mean that objectivity and truth with a small t lead to comfortable complacency. Objectivity is not the same thing as conventional  judiciousness. A celebration of the virtues of our own society which leaves out its ugly and cruel features, which fails to face the questioning of a connection between its attractive and its cruel ones, remains an apogee even if it is spoken in the most measured academic tones. There is a strong tendency to assume that mild-mannered statements in favor of the status quo are ‘objective’ and that anything else is a form of ‘rhetoric.’

     This type of bias, this misinterpretation of objectivity is the one most common in the West today. It confuses objectivity with triviality and meaninglessness. For reasons already mentioned, my simple straightforward truth about political institutions and events is bound to have polemical consequences. It will damage some group interests. In any society the dominant groups are the ones with the most to hide about the way society works. Very often therefore truthful analyses are bound to have a critical ring to seem like exposures rather than objective statements, as the term in conventionally used. (This will be true in communist countries too, if they ever get to the point to allowing moderately candid accounts of their own past to see the light.) For all students of human society, sympathy with the victims of historical processes and skepticism about the victor’s claims provide essential safeguards against being taken in by the dominant mythology. A scholar who tries to be objective needs these feelings as part of his ordinary working equipment.(521-523)


The 26 + items below include a selection of Anglophone articles and essays discussing different aspects of the political economy at this juncture in world history and the roles of military establishments and medical institutions in seeking resolutions for the numerous contradictions that now plague civil society. A universal authoritarian culture - stemming from historical relationships, new patterns of behavior, and newly applied technologies - is taking root in society and threatens to introduce a long period of corporate control over a reduced population, all of which serves to diminishe the traditional notion of human rights for most people.

This reactionary element has long been present in modern society, but the growth of inequalities and concomitant concentration of enormous wealth has all but secured a monopoly of political power much to the detriment of us the rest of us – workers, intellectuals, artists, students, as well as the ever increasing number of deliberately impoverished victims in this war against humanity.



Francis McCollum Feeley


Professeur honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
Ancien Directeur des Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of California-San Diego



“We are not slaves!”: Haitian garment workers strike for a fair wage.



by Frances Madeson



“A Different ‘Fight for 15’: Haiti Garment Industry Workers Strike”


by  Mamyrah Prosper



“70 miles long, and with thousands cheering it along the way, the USA Freedom Convoy has (of course) been BLACKED OUT by the media”


by Mark Crispin Miller

(video, 57:09)

Rob Williams talks to Claire Dooley and Ariana Victor, two (real) journalists traveling with the truckers (an interview that YouTube instantly took down)



“Cops want to turn cop watching into organized crime, but can they get away with it?”


by Taya Graham and Stephen Janis




“Ashton Kutcher's NGO Supplies Police with 'Free' CIA-linked Surveillance Tool to 'Protect Kids'”


by Whitney Webb





COVID Mission Accomplished as Global Treaty Looms


with James Corbett and James Even Pilato



"So This Is How Pfizer Did It"


with Russell Brand




The Defender: Children’s Health Defense

Most Read this Week- March 6, 2022






The Defender: Children’s Health Defense




The Defender: Children’s Health Defense News


Robert Kennedy, Jr.



FDA Releases 10,000 More Pfizer Vaccine Documents. What Will They Reveal?


byMichael Nevradakis, Ph.D.



"We had, perhaps, too little caution and too much optimism": Rochelle Walensky gives herself a pass for killing millions


by Mark Crispçin Miller



Over 90% Of COVID Deaths Were Jabbed In The UK's Last Week & Reverse Transcribed Into DNA







Head of the Hydra: The Rise of Robert Kadlec


by Whitney Webb



In memory of those who have "died suddenly" worldwide, February 22-28


by Mark Croispin Miller

(March 3, 2022)

The toll appears to be especially high in the UK, Ireland and Nigeria



Novel chemical-physical autopsy investigation in sudden infant death and sudden intrauterine unexplained death syndromes | Nanomedicine



Dangerous Pfizer Vaccine Fraud Fully Exposed: Digital Currency, Digital IDs and the Global Debt Problem


by Dr. Joseph Mercola



“Pfizer Vaccine Becomes DNA in Liver Cells. (In-vitro Swedish Study)”




from  Drbeen Medical Lectures




Breaking Down The Pfizer Data W/ Dr. Meryl Nass, CHD Panel


by Children’s Health Defense





Former UN Inspector Scott Ritter on What The Hell Is Happening


with Lee Camp




Ukraine War Driving Rampant Censorship At Home


with Jimmy Dore




From Crisis to Catastrophe? What is to be Done in Eastern Europe.


by Dr. Gerald Horne



So, Are Putin and the Russians as Good as These Guys? You Decide


by L. Reichard White



Russia Warns Washington Is Sending ISIS Fighters to Ukraine


by The Cradle





Tears for Ukraine, Sanctions for Russia, Yawns for Yemen, Arms for Saudis: The West’s Grotesque Double Standard


by Ahmed Abdulkareem



As US Renews Support for Saudi War in Yemen, Civilian Death Toll Nearly Doubles


by  Ahmed Abdulkareem



Iran Nuclear Deal: Forestalling Spillover of Ukraine War in Gulf


by Nauman Sadiq





How Propaganda Shapes the Past, Present and Future 


by Lawrence Davidson



War, Censorship and Half-Truths


by Farms Not Factories



Like Father, Like Son: How the Trudeaus Manufacture Crises to Justify “Emergency Measures”


by Matthew Ehret





Meet the “Violet” Successors to the White Helmets’ Syria Propaganda Throne


by Vanessa Beeley




Assange Affirms the Existence of Another Kind of Human Nature”


by Chris Hedges





Manufacturing Savagery: US Military Training in West Africa and Beyond


by Jean-Philippe Stone



France Withdraws From Mali, But Continues to Devastate Africa’s Sahel


by  Vijay Prashad


Ukraine: Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective


by  Gerald A. Perreira



Plan Puma: When Argentina Ran Military Drills at the Behest of the US to Invade Venezuela


by Julian Cola



US sanctions on Russia over Ukraine also target Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba


by Benjamin Norton





The War on Humanity…


by Eamon McKinney



The US Military: Planet Earth's Greatest Enemy, with Abby Martin


by Lowkey



Condoleezza Rice Admits She’s A War Criminal During Ukraine Interview


with Jimmy Dore




If the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Is Subverting Democracy—Why Aren’t Some of the Left Media Calling It Out?


by  Jeremy Kuzmarov





Russia began its military operation one day before the Ukraine army was to begin the invasion and slaughter of the free Republics in the east...


by Eric A.



See (if you can stand it) what those Nazi "punisher battalions" have been doing to Ukrainians


by Mark Crispin Miller



Evidence that Ukraine Has Been Run by Nazis Since February 2014


by Eric Zuesse


Video (March 12, 2014)







 “Disgraceful”: Supreme Court sides with hiding CIA torture


by Jessica Corbett



“American Exceptionalism Is on Deadly Display in Ukraine”


with Oliver Stone

(audio, 43:28)



Calling Russia’s Attack ‘Unprovoked’ Lets U.S. Off the Hook


by Bryce Greene



Ukraine Accused Of Using White Phosphorus-Filled Shells/Human Shields & Neo-Nazi Ukrainian Military


with Ryan Cristián



“War profiteers are fueling this crisis”


with Marc Steiner and  Chris Hedges


While debates about the war in Ukraine center on the motivations of Putin and NATO powers, the merchants of death profiting from war are—literally—making a killing.


Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine


by Isaac Chotiner





The Ukraine Crisis: What You Need to Know


by James Corbett



Russia Recognizes Donbas


with Russell Bentley




Putin's rhetoric has heightened fears about potential nuclear war as anti-war activists opposed calls for a no-fly zone.


by Jessica Corbett





Oil and Gas Giants Under Fire for Fueling Russian War on Ukraine


by Jessica Corbett


About Those 600,000 Barrels...


by Eric Peters


Sleeping With The Third Reich: America’s Unspoken “Alliance” with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union


by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Nazi Germany largely depended on oil shipments from US Standard Oil.



MSNBC Needs a History Lesson: Imperial America is “Greatest Purveyor of Coups” on Earth


by Ed Rampell



History of World War II: Overview of the Nazi-Soviet War in Early 1942, Eighty Years Ago


by Shane Quinn



How to stop World War III


with Ali Abunimah






Russia-Ukraine war: The real prize is cutting Germany off from China's Eurasia plan


by Marco Carnelos



10 Questions about Russia, Ukraine and “World War 


by Mickey Z.



“Ukraine: Prelude to a War Crime”


with Chris Hedges




Western Hypocrisy Over The Ukraine-Russia War


by Robert Inlakesh



Ukraine and the New Al Qaeda


by Whitney Webb



How The CIA Built The "New Al-Qaeda" In Ukraine, The White Supremacy Trap & The Vaccine Time Bomb


with Ryan Cristián






The Orchestrated Ukraine Deception, The Broken Overton Window & Western Extremism Removes Its Mask


with Ryan Cristián




Navigating our Humanity: Ilan Pappé on the Four Lessons from Ukraine


by Ilan Pappé



“Russia, Ukraine and the Chronicle of a War Foretold”


by Chris Hedges



From the Euromaidan Revolution to Russian invasion: How Ukraine was ripped apart


by Maximillian Alvarez




The War is Actually Begun! on Declare Your Independence


with James Corbett and Ernest Hancock






Who are the aggressors in Ukraine?


by Mark Crispin Miller


Putin makes his case before a group of Russian airline personnel; and a NATO laptop, left behind (allegedly) at a Ukrainian military base, shows plans for an offensive to seize Donbas and Crimea


Mar 8                          

With the Western propaganda chorus still shrieking of atrocities by Russia (all of them exposed, so far, as fakes), and reckless fools like Lindsey Graham calling on the Russian people to assassinate their president (imagine what would happen if a Russian politician called for Biden’s murder), it matters more than ever that we do all in our power to share the information people in this country need to know—information that may serve as a life-saving antidote to the dangerously false and hateful trash cascading from the media throughout the world.

To that end, I’m sharing Putin’s off-the-cuff remarks to a group of Russian airline personnel, explaining why he felt he had no choice but to invade Ukraine. His outline of the US provocations is instructive. (If there should be a cogent refutation of his comments, I will share that, too.) And I am also sharing news of a NATO laptop, left behind, according to the Russians, in an abandoned Ukrainian military base, containing plans for an offensive to capture Donbas and Crimea. (If that news should turn out to be a propaganda fiction, I will post a correction.)

The NATO laptop story, reported on Telegram by Qtime Network:


Putin’s remarks to Russian airline personnel (press “CC” for subtitles):


Wolff Responds: Ukraine, Sanctions, and Rising Inflation


with Richard Wolff



Ukraine Neo-Nazis Infiltrate EVERY LEVEL Of Military & Government


with Jimmy Dore






Two Sides of the Same Coin? (2017)


with James Corbett






Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Outing the Iraq War White Washers


by Binoy Kampmark



How Russia Intends to “Counterpunch” US/EU Economic Sanctions. “De-dollarization”


by Pepe Escobar



The Man Who Sold Ukraine


by Mike Whitney



Ukraine, Palestine and the propaganda of war


by Ali Abunimah



Pro-War Media Caught Pushing Fake Ukraine Stories


with Jimmy Dore






News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller –March 8, 2022


“Here's some of what you may not know about Ukraine—about the US coup eight years ago, what's happened since, and what is happening right now”


by Mark Crispin Miller


First, I strongly recommend, to those who haven’t seen them, Oliver Stone’s two documentaries, Ukraine on Fire (2015) and Revealing Ukraine (2019).


(Click on above link for access to these videos.)


“What You’re Not Being Told” about Ukraine: a video on the US coup in 2014, including parts of the hacked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland, of the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, US ambassador to Ukraine:


The entire phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt:

After the recording of that phone call went up online, the Obama administration sought (with much success) to obfuscate the issue—i.e., that the US State Department had been caught planning the make-up of another country’s government—by making a Big Deal over the hack of a private phone call. The New York Times et al. obligingly made that the issue, speculating, to nobody’s surprise, that Russia was behind the hack.


Here’s Jen Psaki, who at the time was lying for the State Department, in a diverting back-and-forth with several journalists who weren’t inclined to buy her line that the hack—“a new low for Russian tradecraft,” she called it—was the real issue, as opposed to US officials “midwifing the process” of selecting

Ukraine’s government:


Moving on to the horrendous consequences of the US coup, here’s a video about the children killed by the “punisher battalions” in East Ukraine:

A Ukrainian’s view of the difference between cities now under Russian control and those held by the Ukrainian forces:   con’d  . . .  (see above link)



UN says 1 million have fled Ukraine since start of “senseless war”




“19th-century racism” at Ukraine border


by Adam Bychawski

(video, 00:30)



Critics denounce racist double standard of Western media's Ukraine coverage


by Julia Conley



It’s Different, They’re White: Media Ignore Conflicts Around the World to Focus on Ukraine


by Alan Macleod





Pro-War Media Caught Pushing Fake Ukraine Stories


with Jimmy Dore

(18 :31)


What the Media Is HIDING About Ukraine/Russia


with Jimmy  Dore



Glenn Greenwald exposes Big Tech on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight


with Glenn Greenwald



Condoleezza Rice Admits She’s A War Criminal During Ukraine Interview


with Jimmy Dore



Russia Launches Massive Military Operation

A private home outside Kyiv was destroyed in Russian shelling


by  Democracy at Work


Ukrainian forces battled Russian troops on multiple fronts, including the outskirts of Kyiv. US President Joe Biden said Russia's Vladimir Putin "is the aggressor" and would bear the consequences.





The Ukraine catastrophe and how we got here: Chronicle of a war foretold


by Chris Hedges





“The Great Delusion”


(January 30, 2020)

by John J Mearsheimer




This year's sudden war is a distraction from the bigger war they've planned, for years, to wage against us all


by Mark Crispin Miller


Ukraine: Prelude to a War Crime


with Chris Hedges



Trucker Convoy Heading To DC. Nation's Capital Returning To POLICE STATE?"


by The Hill






"Ukraine Neo-Nazis Infiltrate EVERY LEVEL Of Military & Government"


with Jimmy Dore



"These are real Nazis": How the breakaway republics see what's happening in Ukraine


by Mark CrispinMiller



Two observers (one American, one German) know the crucial history that "our free press" continues to black out, and that We the People therefore haven't heard of





News From Underground
Tuesday, March 4, 2022
Daily digest

1.Trouble in Paradise: Melinda Gates slams Bill for palling around with the "abhorrent" Jeffrey Epstein - Mark Crispin Miller (03 Mar 2022 19:02 EST)

2.The head of the Azov Battalion sets the record straight - Mark Crispin Miller (03 Mar 2022 20:27 EST)

3.EU goes Soviet on RT, Sputnik - Mark Crispin Miller (03 Mar 2022 20:32 EST)

(Previous discussion continued)

* A message from the USA Freedom Convoy - Mark Crispin Miller (03 Mar 2022 20:45 EST)

4.Toddler's death disappears from VAERS, and CDC has no records telling why - Mark Crispin Miller (04 Mar 2022 14:16 EST)

5.Russians should not assassinate Putin, says Boris Johnson - Mark Crispin Miller (04 Mar 2022 14:28 EST)

6."In the fight of her life" (and it's a fight concerning all of us), Dr. Meryl Nass needs all our help! - Mark Crispin Miller (04 Mar 2022 17:15 EST)

7.James Corbett on the fake war news (from both sides), and the existential hazards of the zero-carbon fantasy - Mark Crispin Miller (04 Mar 2022 18:40 EST)

1.Trouble in Paradise: Melinda Gates slams Bill for palling around with the "abhorrent" Jeffrey Epstein by Mark Crispin Miller (03 Mar 2022 19:02 EST)
Reply to list

Melinda Gates Slams Ex-Husband for Friendship With “Abhorrent” Jeffrey Epstein"He was evil personified. I had nightmares about it afterwards."


Image by Getty Images/Futurism

Jeffrey Epstein’s legacy has extended far beyond his mysterious jailhouse death in 2019 — and all the way to the breakup of Bill Gates’ marriage.

In a new interview with CBS‘ Gayle King, Melinda French Gates opened up about her highly-publicized divorce from the Microsoft billionaire last spring, which she said was painful for many reasons — up to and including his friendship with the convicted sex criminal.

“It was many things,” French Gates said of the factors leading to the split. “But I did not like that he’d had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein.”

French Gates told CBS that she met with Epstein “exactly one time, because I wanted to see who this man was.”


2.The head of the Azov Battalion sets the record straight by Mark Crispin Miller (03 Mar 2022 20:27 EST)
Reply to list


Sent from ProtonMail mobile

3.EU goes Soviet on RT, Sputnik by Mark Crispin Miller (03 Mar 2022 20:32 EST)
Reply to list

From Robin Monotti, Mike Yeadon and Cory Morningstar on Telegram:

️EU bans distribution of RT and Sputnik
The truth does not need censorship, because it provides arguments

After the content of the Russian-based channels RT and Sputnik was banned in Europe, even more so completely undemocratically bypassing the EU Parliament, various platforms have deleted the channels of the outlets.

We do not take a judgmental position on the content and opinions represented in the RT and Sputnik media, but we categorically reject censorship. This has no place in a free and democratic society, which is increasingly slipping away from us anyway.

We are particularly dismayed that
GETTR also immediately censored RT's channels, since we had briefly and mistakenly seen in GETTR a forward-looking, censorship-free alternative to Twitter and streaming service providers.

Such laws require resistance.

Sent from ProtonMail mobile

4.A message from the USA Freedom Convoy by Mark Crispin Miller (03 Mar 2022 20:45 EST)
Reply to list


Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.


5.Toddler's death disappears from VAERS, and CDC has no records telling why by Mark Crispin Miller (04 Mar 2022 14:16 EST)
Reply to list



6.Russians should not assassinate Putin, says Boris Johnson by Mark Crispin Miller (04 Mar 2022 14:28 EST)
Reply to list

Johnson certainly did not mean to encourage any Russians 

to kill Putin, since that's the kind of thing that Russian leaders do.


Russians should not assassinate Vladimir Putin, says Boris Johnson

Russians should not assassinate Vladimir Putin, says Boris Johnson

Brexit on back burner due to Ukraine Anger over knighthood for Gavin Williamson NHS axes free flu jabs for over-...


7."In the fight of her life" (and it's a fight concerning all of us), Dr. Meryl Nass needs all our help! by Mark Crispin Miller (04 Mar 2022 17:15 EST)
Reply to list

​From Kristina Borjesson:

Hi Mark, I'm sure you know that Dr. Meryl Nass is in the fight of her life, her medical license having been suspended by the state of Maine because of the "misinformation" or accurate research she's been doing to expose the criminal aspects related to covid and the vaccines. She's being represented by Bobby's Children's Health Defense Fund lawyers and her fight could create a "tip of the spear" situation that finally puts down the criminalization of putting out the truth on pressing public matters like covid, the vaccines and other issues, so please urge people to donate to the Defense Fund specifically for her case.

I just interviewed her about her situation so please distribute it widely with a support request. The link and blurb describing the show contents are below:



Maine physician Dr. Meryl Nass, who has been successfully treating covid patients with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and who exposed massive corruption in the suppression of chloroquine drugs for treating covid, talks about finding herself in the Orwellian position of having her medical license suspended by the Maine’s Board of Licensure in Medicine for “public dissemination of misinformation” regarding the covid pandemic and covid vaccines and being ordered to undergo a psychological examination to ensure she is fit to continue treating patients. 


Any help you can give would be deeply appreciated.



8.James Corbett on the fake war news (from both sides), and the existential hazards of the zero-carbon fantasy by Mark Crispin Miller (04 Mar 2022 18:40 EST)
Reply to list



Support News from Underground: https://bit.ly/NFUSupport
Visit News from Underground: https://markcrispinmiller.com
For archives, please go to: https://archives.simplelists.com/nfu




News From Underground

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

Daily digest



On Mar 8, 2022 01:49, News from Underground <nobody@simplelists.com> wrote:

1.The "vaccinated" hate/despise those who've refused the jab, but the obverse is not the case, new study finds - Mark Crispin Miller (06 Mar 2022 18:58 EST)

2.Letter to the UK government - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 13:34 EST)

3.Watch the skies: Fatal plane and helicopter crashes spiking - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 13:38 EST)

4.Zelensky's rise from comedian to president is not so funny - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 13:45 EST)

5.The past is prologue: How eugenics led to genocide, World War II and the "Spanish flu" (Vera Sharav) - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 13:50 EST)

6.National Endowment for "Democracy" deletes records of funding projects in Ukraine, to shield the propaganda narrative of Putin's "unprovoked" aggression - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 16:30 EST)

7.The Fabian Society, eugenics, and what's happening now - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 16:35 EST)

8.Why isn't Ukraine laughing? - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 18:27 EST)

1.The "vaccinated" hate/despise those who've refused the jab, but the obverse is not the case, new study finds by Mark Crispin Miller (06 Mar 2022 18:58 EST)
Reply to list


PUBLISHED: 21:07 EST, 21 February 2022 | UPDATED: 02:00 EST, 22 February 2022



2.Letter to the UK government by Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 13:34 EST)
Reply to list


Margaret Anna Alice

Mar 7

The UK is attempting to rewrite its human rights laws to shift emphasis away from individual rights to the “wider society”—a.k.a. the “greater good” beloved by dictators throughout history.Here is the document outlining the proposed revisions:

Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Rights – Consultation (PDF)

The Naked Emperor first brought these revisions to my attention in this post. Kit Knightly also dug into the sinister overtones in this article.They are accepting responses through tomorrow, March 8 (London time, presumably). Please consider emailing your response to HRAReform@justice.gov.uk and including a link to this article if desired.On a related note, the UK has drafted an Online Safety Bill that strengthens its thoughtcrime laws. The online petition needs 100,000 signatures before Parliament will consider it for debate, and it’s currently just over 33,000. Please sign and share this petition widely so we can get it to 100,000.I know a lot of you may be tiring of these political letters, which have been dictated by the demands of public comment deadlines. Not to worry, I have other fresh content in the works, including an upcoming Profiles in Courage as well as a new Behind-the-Scenes newsletter only available via email to subscribers. See details after the article below.

Subscribe now

“This is the story of a duel. It is a duel between two very unequal adversaries: an exceedingly powerful, formidable, and ruthless state and an insignificant, unknown private individual. The duel does not take place in what is commonly known as the sphere of politics; the individual is by no means a politician, still less a conspirator or an enemy of the state. Throughout, he finds himself very much on the defensive. He only wishes to preserve what he considers his integrity, his private life, and his personal honor. These are under constant attack by the government of the country he lives in, and by the most brutal, but often also clumsy, means.”

—Sebastian Haffner, Defying Hitler (paperback, Kindle, audiobook)

I am writing to express grave concerns regarding the Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Rights – Consultation, which recommends extensive revisions to the Human Rights Act 1998.

I often contemplate how people who consider themselves virtuous can blithely commit acts, make decisions, and enact policies that infringe the rights; curtail the liberties; and inflict anguish and even death on incalculable individuals.

I’m not talking about the tyrants—who are nearly all psychopaths—but about the ordinary colluders, without whose cooperation the tyrants could not execute their tyranny.

Is it bribery? Blackmail? Threats? Hypnosis? Ideological capture? Social and political pressures? Lust for power? Envy? Fear? Pride? Likely miscellaneous mashups of the above depending on the participant—served with a philanthropic side of self-delusion.

Since you’ve made the effort to read this far, I’ll be charitable and assume it’s just self-delusion in your case. You probably believe these policy reforms are for the best. Unless you’re a blackguard, that’s the only way you could cope with the moral ramifications of green-lighting legal transubstantiations that unfurl the crimson carpet for totalitarianism.

So, before you read further, I have a simple request. Try to actively resist the temptation to rationalize, to justify, to abstract away the concrete consequences of your decisions. Resolve to cease lying to yourself, as Dostoyevsky’s Father Zossima admonishes:

“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.”

―The Brothers Karamazov (paperback, Kindle, audiobook)

Take a deep, belly-filling breath. Stand up and wiggle your whole body, from your toes to your knees to your elbows to your nose. Feel the physicality of your body and notice your sensations. Don’t be afraid to feel silly. Laugh at yourself. Shake out all the lies. Blow raspberries if you like.

Then let all the truths you’ve been hiding from your conscience rise to your consciousness. At this point, you may need a cathartic cry. That’s okay. It means you’re human and thus better-equipped to make decisions about human rights policies than a sociopathic bureaucrat.

Doesn’t that feel better? Don’t you feel lighter, more open, more welcoming of ideas that stretch your thinking?

With that frame of mind, let’s examine some of those proposed reforms, starting with:

“[O]ur system must strike the proper balance of rights and responsibilities, individual liberty and the public interest, rigorous judicial interpretation, and respect for the authority of elected law-makers.”

These sound like the gilded words all authoritarian regimes deploy to persuade people to accept degradations of their individual liberties and rights in the name of the notorious “greater good.”

Reading that statement as beneficent requires a cultivated amnesia about the totalitarianism that bloodied the bleakest decades of the last century.

In his May 1983 essay Totalitarianism & the Lie, Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski writes:

“In both forms of totalitarian socialism—nationalist and internationalist—social control of production for the common good was stressed as essential.”

He continues:

“The destructive action of totalitarian machinery is usually supported by a special kind of primitive social philosophy. It proclaims not only that the common good of ‘society’ has priority over the interest of individuals, but that the very existence of individuals, as persons, is reducible to the existence of the social ‘whole’; in other words, personal existence is, in a strange sense, unreal. This is a convenient foundation for any ideology of slavery.”

See if you recognize that foundation for the ideology of slavery in these items from the Executive Summary (emphasis mine):

[#3] “We will overhaul the Human Rights Act passed by the then Labour government in 1998 and restore common sense to the application of human rights in the UK.… we will reverse the mission creep that has meant human rights law being used for more and more purposes, and often with little regard for the rights of wider society.”

[#4] “Our reforms will be a check on the expansion and inflation of rights without democratic oversight and consent, and will provide greater legal certainty.”

[#6] “The Bill of Rights will make sure a proper balance is struck between individuals’ rights, personal responsibility, and the wider public interest.”

[#9] “provide greater clarity regarding the interpretation of certain rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life, by guiding the UK courts in interpreting the rights and balancing them with the interests of our society as a whole”

[#9] “recognise that responsibilities exist alongside rights, and that these should be reflected in the approach to balancing qualified rights and the remedies available for human rights claims”

These statements unapologetically articulate the authors’ intention to roll back individual human rights for the sake of “wider society,” a sentiment repeatedly echoed throughout the document.

You know who else championed putting “the common good before the individual good”? Hitler. And Stalin. And Mussolini. And Mao. And Ceauşescu. And Castro. And his son Trudeau. And every dictator ever—including present-day masochist-fascist Rodrigo Duterte, who stated:

“Love of country, subordination of personal interests to the common good, concern and care for the helpless and the impoverished—these are among the lost and faded values that we seek to recover and revitalize as we commence our journey towards a better Philippines.”

Continue Reading

© Margaret Anna Alice, LLC

For those of you new to my blog, I have a series called Behind the Scenes that is a special perk for paid subscribers. These email-only newsletters are not archived at my blog, so you can’t access them at a later date if you miss signing up in time. This is not because I want to restrict the content but rather because these exchanges originally occurred on a private platform, and publishing the comments of others without their permission is a bit of a gray area. To be safe, I have changed the names of the participants and am only sharing these privately via email.

This Saturday, March 12, I will send the next Behind the Scenes issue, “Defining the Enemy,” featuring an exchange with a Covidian I’m calling Syme. He became rankled when I shared the the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s section on Defining the Enemy: The Excluded and pointed out the parallels with the vilification of the unvaxxed. Fireworks ensued.

Subscribe now if you’d like to access this and future issues of Behind the Scenes as well as my other paid content:

Subscribe now

If you feel the work I am doing is worthwhile and want to make it possible for me to spend more time writing and researching in my aim to unmask totalitarianism and awaken the sleeping before tyranny triumphs, please consider supporting me, whether it be by subscribing, donatingbuying me a coffee, or sharing my posts. I thank you for reading, thinking, sharing, and supporting my work in whichever ways you choose.

Subscribe now


Share Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass

Prefer to donate crypto? You can send Bitcoin using the following code:


Since crypto transfers are anonymized, I won’t know about your donation. Please drop me an email by responding to any of my newsletters if you’d like to alert me to your generous gift.

Remember, a subscription to Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass makes for an intellectually adventurous gift down the rabbit-hole!

Give a gift subscription

Note: Purchasing any items using Amazon affiliate links included in my content will further support my efforts to unmask tyranny.


Thank you for being a faithful subscriber of Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass. This post is public, so feel free to—indeed, please do—share it.
© 2022 Margaret Anna Alice, LLC Unsubscribe
221 N. Central Ave. #524, Medford, OR 97501


3.Watch the skies: Fatal plane and helicopter crashes spiking by Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 13:38 EST)
Reply to list

03/03/2022 / By JD Heyess

A blog that tracks COVID-19-related “Great Reset” incidents has reported that at least 20 people have been killed over a two-week period in February due to private plane and helicopter crashes

“The U.S. Helicopter Safety Team (USHST) reported 122 helicopter accidents, with 51 fatalities, in 2019. There were 92 accidents and 35 fatalities in the first year of COVID dystopia (2020) when aircraft were grounded for months. In fact, there was a 107-day period in 2020 with no fatal helicopter accidents, which is unusual compared to other years,” The COVID Blog reported. “Further, small, private aircraft crash relatively-frequently, even before the COVID-19/vaccine era. But the difference since 2021 – more people are dying in said crashes.”
​Click on the link for the rest

4.Zelensky's rise from comedian to president is not so funny by Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 13:45 EST)
Reply to list

How did Volodymyr Zelensky rise from a comedian acting as President in a TV show to becoming the President of Ukraine?  Who is behind his rise? These are legitimate questions particularly when Zelensky became a household name in the US for the key role he played in the first impeachment of President Trump, which was also attached to the Trump-Russia hoax and the discredited Steele Dossier.
Aristophanes Tragedy, a self-declared former heavily armed parking lot attendant, did a little digging on this rise of Volodymyr Zelensky and wrote his findings in a twitter thread.


How did Volodymyr Zelensky rise from a comedian acting as President in a TV show to becoming the President of Ukraine?  Who is behind his rise? These are legitimate questions particularly when Zelensky became a household name in the US for the key role he played in the first impeachment of President Trump, which was also attached to the Trump-Russia hoax and the discredited Steele Dossier.
Aristophanes Tragedy, a self-declared former heavily armed parking lot attendant, did a little digging on this rise of Volodymyr Zelensky and wrote his findings in a twitter thread.
This article is, in part, based on this thread.  To preserve it in the event it is removed from twitter we have attached a copy of it below.

5.The past is prologue: How eugenics led to genocide, World War II and the "Spanish flu" (Vera Sharav) by Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 13:50 EST)
Reply to list

On Day 6 of the Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples’ Court of Public Opinion, Vera Sharav testified as to the similarities between the Nazi Germany era regime and the Covid era regime. “I want address the pivotal role that eugenics – as a hierarchical, authoritarian ideology – is and it leads to genocide. That’s its endgame,” she said.
She also testified as to what really caused the Spanish flu pandemic. Dr. Eleanor McBean wrote, only those who were vaccinated perished. Sound familiar? Sharav asked and then explained, “when the war ended, the Rockefeller Institute sent the deadly meningitis concoction [vaccine] for use in civilians in England, France, Belgium, Italy and other Western European countries. Thereby spreading the epidemic worldwide.”
Vera Sharav is a public advocate for human rights is the founder and president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP).  As a Holocaust survivor she has previous first-hand experience of totalitarian regimes.
During her testimony given on Day 6 of the Grand Jury Proceedings her statement included::
“As we know, honesty is nowhere to be found within the corporate dominated government and public health agencies. So, for two years, we’ve all been subjected to the psychological weapons that the Nazis use to maintain a state of anxiety.
“The horrific scenes of police in black uniforms brutally attacking demonstrators in European cities, in Ottawa, in Australia, and in Israel. These scenes are absolute painful reminders of the Holocaust. The objective under the Nazis, and now, is actually exactly the same. It is to gain control over people’s lives by conditioning them to obey government directives no matter what.
“Eugenics was crafted and appeals to the elite segments of society. But it also appeals to the corporate oligarchs and selected government officials, and that’s more important.
“The British eugenicists provided the theoretical foundation which has then been used to justify social and economic inequality, to legitimise discrimination and apartheid, as well as violence against dissenters. But it was the American robber barons who provided the financial, the practical, means that set in motion public policies and population control legislation.
“In 1915, a joint eugenics venture was brokered by John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Alexander Graham Bell, who invented the telephone, and Mrs. E. H. Harriman, mother of the future statesman Avril Harriman.
“They funded a massive lobbying campaign for the enactment of laws to sterilise those whom they deemed unfit. Sterilisation laws were first enacted in 28 States. In the United States, their objective was to sterilise 10% of the American population. That was 15 million Americans. This was to be accomplished under the guise of improving public health and the human race.
“US sterilisation laws served as, you know, the model for the Nazi racial hygiene laws.”

6.National Endowment for "Democracy" deletes records of funding projects in Ukraine, to shield the propaganda narrative of Putin's "unprovoked" aggression by Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 16:30 EST)
Reply to list

By Jeremy Kuzmarov
 March 7, 2022 
[Source: ned.org]Deletion needed to preserve big lie of an unprovoked Russian invasion
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—a CIA offshoot founded in the early 1980s to advance “democracy promotion” initiatives around the world—has deleted all records of funding projects in Ukraine from their searchable “Awarded Grants Search” database.
The archived webpage captured February 25, 2022 from 14:53 shows that NED granted $22,394,281 in the form of 334 awards to Ukraine between 2014 to the present. The capture at 23:10 the same day shows “No results found” for Ukraine. As of right now, there are still “No results found” for Ukraine.
Searching using “Ukraine” as a keyword (as opposed to a “Project Country” in the original captures) yields “No results found.” Searching for the titles of the funded projects listed in the last “intact” web capture yields no results.
Additionally, the current database search criteria have been restricted, previously funding from 2014 to present could be searched, currently only 2017 to present is searchable per the drop-down menus. There are multiple news reports before February 25 corroborating this $22,394,281 amount.

7.The Fabian Society, eugenics, and what's happening now by Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 16:35 EST)
Reply to list


The Fabian Society, Eugenics and the Historic Forces Behind Today’s Systemic Breakdown

Matthew Ehret


February 28, 2022

© Photo: Wikimedia


Might the current freedom movements force a shift in the elements of the political class that have not lost their humanity to a commitment to assimilate everything into a unipolar transhumanist priesthood?

The financial system is clearly careening towards a point of dissolution.

It isn’t an exaggeration to say that the collapse itself has already happened and we simply have not yet felt the full brutal force of the shockwave accelerating toward us. This process is comparable to a tectonic snap deep in the crust under the ocean. The snap happens and a tsunami has begun. It will hit the beach front with devastating consequences and only by breaking the habit of living in the myopic “moment” might those on the beach have a chance to get to safer ground before it is too late.

The question isn’t “will the system collapse”, but rather when will the full tsunami hit?

Additionally, WHAT will be the operating system that is brought online to replace the chaos of supply chain meltdowns, hyperinflation, scarcity and violence that will ensue?

Two Systems Clash

Already we can clearly see two opposing patterns that have taken form, illustrated in the remarks recently made by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres who said:

“I fear our world is creeping towards two different sets of economic, trade, financial, and technology rules, two divergent approaches in the development of artificial intelligence—and ultimately two different military and geo-political strategies. This is a recipe for trouble. It would be far less predictable and far more dangerous than the Cold War.”

Guterres is speaking of two divergent paradigms, so what are they?

On the one hand, there is the ideology that Guterres himself devoutly supports which has taken on the title in recent years of “The Davos Agenda”, or “The Great Reset”.

Guterres even went so far as to sign UN-WEF integration treaty in June 2020 uniting both globalist bodies into one Borg-like operating system, announcing: “The Great Reset is a welcome recognition that this human tragedy must be a wake-up call. We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.”

While the Great Reset professes to use the current pandemic to push through a complete overhaul of human society under a technocratic world government, the opposing system driven by those nations not invited to the recent “Global Democracy summit” and labelled “authoritarians” by Soros and the Davos clique wish to avoid being sacrificed.

Where one system is premised on a scientifically managed depopulation agenda from the top, the other system asserts the right of sovereign nations to continue as the only legitimate basis for international law and scientific progress to be the basis of economic ideology. The terms of the new system were recently re-emphasized throughout the 5000 word Russia-China Joint Statement on the terms of the New Era now emerging.

Putin himself recently laid out these terms stating: “Only sovereign states can effectively respond to the challenges of the times and the demands of the citizens. Accordingly, any effective international order should take into account the interests and capabilities of the state and proceed on that basis, and not try to prove that they should not exist. Furthermore, it is impossible to impose anything on anyone, be it the principles underlying the sociopolitical structure or values that someone, for their own reasons, has called “universal”. After all, it is clear that when a real crisis strikes, there is only one universal value left and that is human life, which each state decides for itself how best to protect based on its abilities, culture and traditions.”

What a breath of fresh air!

Compare that to Klaus Schwab’s infamous “you’ll own nothing and be happy”.

From where did the dystopic world order of the Davos Crowd emerge?

H.G. Wells’ Open Conspiracy

It might surprise you, but to answer that question, we will need to jump back nearly one century into the past and meet an ageing misanthropic social engineer named Herbert George Wells who wrote a 1928 opus called The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for a World Revolution calling for world government, and depopulation saying:

“The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of human territory.”

Wells was a member of an organization called The Fabian Society which itself was established in 1884 by a coterie of British eugenicists and Malthusians in order to promote a new social order designed to mold society into a new mechanized order run by a managerial elite of “social scientists” from above.

The choice of title “Fabian” was derived from the Roman general Fabius Maximus who was renowned for his strategy of defeating his enemies by superhuman patience and slow attrition. The Fabian philosophy was displayed in an infamous stained-glass piece of art featuring Fabian leaders George B. Shaw and Sidney Webb as blacksmiths hammering the world into their own secular image and featuring a shield of the Fabian logo of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Unlike the conventional “brute force” approach of conservative British imperialists who often opted for scorched earth methods of destroying their victims, the Fabians prided themselves on playing a more “peaceful”, subtle and deadly long game. Rather than push big wars which often had the effect of risking heavy losses on the oligarchy itself, the Fabians understood that it were better to promote slow attrition and infiltration using Jesuitical techniques of permeation. Historian Stephen O’Neil wrote of the Fabian Society’s guiding principle of Permeation theory:

“Despite their traditional political image, the Fabians, under the impetus of Sidney Webb, thought that they had a new and unique weapon in the policy of permeation. It was through the utilization of this tactic, according to Webb, that the Fabians, in the spirit of the Trojans and their legendary horse, would enter the ranks and minds of the politically influential by providing them with programs, ideas, opinion, and research heavily documented with statistics which could be conveniently drafted into public policy”. (1)

Throughout the 20th century, the Fabian Society would penetrate all branches of government, military, academia, media and even private corporate boards around the world creating global systems of fifth columns operating within cells, hierarchically unified by a central command within the highest echelons of British Intelligence.

From below, plebs and laborers would be attracted by “words” promoted by Fabians like equality, social justice, and re-distribution of wealth utilizing Marxist terms while never realizing that those words were just a sweet illusion with no claim to reality.

Like Jesuitical and Masonic orders, many Fabians would never have a clue what the machine truly was that they were merely parts of. This is why the British Labor Party (aka: The Fabian Party of Britain) was so often occupied by well-intended members who never had a clue what the game was truly about. The official Fabian School that became an ideological control hub and recruiting grounds for next generation talent (paralleling the Rhodes/Milner Round Table’s Oxford University) was the London School of Economics.

In fact, over the 20th century, these two oligarchical operations often interfaced closely, with the Fabian Lord Mackinder working with the Round Table’s Lord Milner to craft a strategy for North America in 1908 or the Canadian Fabian Society’s founding by five Rhodes Scholars in 1932.

George Bernard Shaw outlined the pro-eugenics Fabian philosophy clearly in 1934 when he said; “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”(2)

One can hear this cold-hearted figure describing his views in his own words in the following short video:

​Click on the link for the rest.

8.Why isn't Ukraine laughing? by Mark Crispin Miller (07 Mar 2022 18:27 EST)
Reply to list


Reposted by Gonzalo Lira


Reminds me of the documentary The Five Horsemen, which begins with an analysis of signs that are indicative of a civilization about to fall.

Four Horsemen - Feature Documentary - Official Version - YouTube


Barbara Widhalm, Ph.D.

Faculty: Bachelors of Leadership, Masters of Leadership, Doctorate of Educational Leadership Programs

Kalmanovitz School of Education

St. Mary's College of California


Support News from Underground: https://bit.ly/NFUSupport 
Visit News from Underground: https://markcrispinmiller.com
For archives, please go to: https://archives.simplelists.com/nfu





Palestine in Pictures: February 2022


by The Electronic Intifada



Why should Palestine be taboo for a UK art gallery?


by Kit Klarenberg



To Maintain Jewish Demographic Control, Israel Cloaks Family Unification Law in Security Concerns


by Jessica Buxbaum



International silence fuels Israeli persecution


by Maureen Clare Murphy



How Ukraine’s Jewish President Made Peace With Neo-Nazi Paramilitaries


by Alexander Rubinstein and Max Blumenthal





Consortium News – Volume 27, Number 66 — Monday, March 7, 2022




Jimmy Dore: The Establishment Are Sh**ting Their Pants"


with Jimmy Dore




Ukraine: Black Agenda Report Special Issue


by Black Agenda Report





by Global Research



Tucker Carlson: The Elite Pedigree of a Brilliant Cosplaying “Populist”


by Alan Macleod


Tucker Carlson has made a fortune pretending to be a populist everyman, but his incredibly sketchy past includes ties to neocons, the CIA, and multiple trips to Nicaragua as a “freedom-fighter” with the Contras.




Open Letter to the Canadian Truckers

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-the-canadian-truckers?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNzI1ODE3MSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDg1NTczMjQsIl8iOiJudU5zeCIsImlhdCI6MTY0NDU2NTY0MywiZXhwIjoxNjQ0NTY5MjQzLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTgzMjAwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.DK335IC3HjxYZawNgIDhJajvnZBl2LgOABP5jePyess&s=rby Robert W Malone MD, MS



Suggested alternative treatments with foods and supplements for Covid and “Plandemic” Injections


by Dr. Joseph Mercola


Thu Dec 23, 2021 - 10:38 am EST