Econobiology Notes: Symbiotic Pathogenesis within Economic Systems
Proximate Drivers of Modern Feudalism and Risks to Humanity
Summary
This study constructs a biological analogue of economics to gain insight into drivers of the positive polarity of political management within economic systems.
The econobiology framework posits symbiotic relationships consisting of two parasitic layers that perpetuate pathological phenomena within host economies, including pathological (i.e. politically-managed) profits and wealth.
Political management involves running a political investment business within an economic system in a symbiotic relationship between political managers and special interest client-donors/political investors typically at the expense of the masses, with pathogenic outcomes in multiple domains including human health and well-being. This business is conducted under the cover of “democratic politics” and risks producing outcomes incompatible the viable provision of regional/community management services for the residents-citizens.
Political management can serve to enrich the managers and their special interest client-donors while evading accountability, including for mass injury and loss of life. Evidence is provided of harms caused: A case study of returns to investors for deadly and injurious products and a historical account of violent suppression of labor movements (re: May Day). Other potential outcomes include the deliberate waging of war for financial gain, impoverishment of workers by income extractions including diminishing purchasing power via currency creation and debasement, asset confiscations, propaganda and psychological warfare against populations, learned helplessness and chronic dependency on the state, wealth transfers to the donor class through politically-managed funding and market manipulation, medical violence and experimentation without consent, land/resource grabs, accumulated environmental toxicity, and systemic judicial bias in favor of client-donors and supporters.
Such outcomes are not isolated, random events but rather, stem from the systemic dynamics of political management that are self-perpetuating through the positive polarity (positive feedback loop) of the system even after collapse/default. Proposed solutions towards economic management include development of decoupled parallel, self-reliant systems and diverse alternative communities as discussed in the Key Notes to Table 1 and in the Closing Remarks.
Diagram 1 gives a simplified illustration of the symbiotic parasitic mutualism dynamic. The Appendix (A1) gives a key Summary Definition of political management for an overview of the political investment business and the foundations (i.e., the toolkit) of its systemic nature underpinning modern feudalism.
Key Clarifications to this Summary:
(1) As detailed further in the study, profits, and wealth in themselves are not the object of concern and must be distinguished from pathological profits and wealth generated by means of political management (re: financial and other returns on political investments).
(2) It should be emphasized that these pathological dynamics also can extend to not-for-profit entities and foreign powers via politically-managed funding or favors for these entities in exchange for campaign donations or other benefits (re: a symbiosis of politically-managed mutually-beneficial circular flows of funds).
(3) We might also expect to see pathological wealth accumulation among an elite class of client-donor (e.g., billionaires, oligarchs, certain foundations, and others acting as fronts for other special interests), especially when their activities are instrumental in advancing the goals of politically-managed entities (from localities to other nation-states/foreign powers). Close coordination with political managers gives these elite client-donors early insider knowledge of planned (covert or other) operations from which to earn outsized pathological profits.
(4) Political investing may also be induced by political managers by extortive means. For example, on behalf of client-donors to target competitors, or solely for political manager fundraising purposes (without the involvement of a client-donor). Possible scenarios: (a) Legal threats via impending legislative action to be taken, such as new regulations or deregulation, more extractions, a product ban or "crackdown" on an industry, a pullback of future funding and support for businesses, non-profits, foreign interests, etc. (b) Special Political Operations to amplify a threat to a targeted special interest or a voting constituency "x": For example, orchestrating an "anti-x" movement (or a "pro-y" movement) that threatens the interests of "x" or a segment “x” of voters. In the case of voters, the operation may help induce them to vote for a particular candidate or party. (c) Both of the above may be executed simultaneously for maximum effect (extortive donor funding and voter support). (Also, re: McChesney 1997; donor "milking," particularly likely in election years; Tullock 1967, 1993 and Krueger 1974 on rent-seeking).
(5) Finally, it should be emphasized that a common mistake is to focus on the individual actors within the system as the source of the pathologies rather than the dynamics stemming from the system design of political management (also see the Appendix for details; re: the Toolkit).
INTRODUCTION
In this conceptual model of econobiology, we begin with the framework of political management as represented in the diagram in Kennedy (2022d), illustrated in Chart 1 below. After a simple introduction of symbiotic relationships, the principal symbiotic elements of politically-managed systems are considered.
Symbiosis describes a relationship between two or more kinds of dissimilar organisms. Mutualism involves a mutually beneficial association between different kinds of organisms. Commensalism is a generally neutral relationship where no damage or benefit results from the relationship. Contrary to common belief, symbiotic relationships are not necessarily mutually beneficial: Parasitic relationships are also symbiotic and “involve some degree of dependence between organisms and lasting exploitation of one organism by another” (Price 1980). As they evolve, parasites may develop sophisticated mechanisms for host exploitation, while losing much of their capacity for independent functioning. Re: Ayana (2022), CDC (2022), Garcia (2021), Hendrix (2022), Klimov (2013), Weinstein, Kuris (2016); Dollo’s Law.
In this conceptual model of econobiology, a politically-managed system has two principal features examined here: parasitism and parasitic mutualism. The economic system (consisting of individual economic actors) is the host in an intricate set of parasitic relationships, to be detailed below. Over time these relationships may expand the role of political management within the economic host that surpasses viable boundaries, with invasive and potentially destructive outcomes; these phenomena may reappear elsewhere if politically-managed processes are repeated in non-adjacent econo-geographic locations (re: the system also defined as an oncological phenomenon; metastasis).
Qualifications. This conceptual model should not be viewed as comprehensive or accurate but rather as a possible guide for understanding the dynamics of political management within economic systems (in combination with the previous studies on complex systems by the author (Kennedy 2022 b, c, d, e). In addition, this analysis should not be taken as a substitute for the fields of economics or biology. There may be several redundancies throughout the document due to emphasis on certain points, insufficient editing, similar conclusions arising out of separate discussions and analyses, and the later addition of the key Summary Definition section (Appendix 1 and its Notes) for reader convenience.
The document may be updated from time to time to compensate for shortcomings.
Chart 1 next is re-posted here to help review the politically-managed and economic system framework representation in Kennedy (2022d).
Chart 1. Architecture of Political Management including Monetary Subsystem
In brief, the politically-managed system consists of the positive polarity (i.e., self-reinforcing positive feedback loop) represented by the circular configuration at left, attached to the economic system (at top right) via the extractive mechanism indicated by the curved arrow, together with the central banks and banking system as appendages. The financialized economy (at bottom) is strongly influenced by the interaction between government bond issuance and asset holders of bonds and stocks by private institutions/investors and central banks. For detail on these symbiotic relationships see the Mutualism Framework (Table 2A and 2B) to be presented below and the subsequent analysis and discussion, including the Toolkit in the Summary Definition of Political Management section (Appendix 1 and its Notes 1 and 2).
Conceptual Model Development
Chart 1 above fails to detail the underlying key drivers of the positive polarity of political management which comprises the interplay between agents of the political system (political managers) and agents of the economic system who become clients of political managers (i.e., special interest clients-donors e.g., private businesses, investors and organizations including non-for-profit entities and other nations).
To compensate for this failing, this study constructs a conceptual econobiological model detailing two fundamental drivers that perform essential functions necessary to perpetuate the positive feedback loop (i.e., positive polarity) of the politically-managed system, at least until its default or inflationary collapse (Kotlikoff 2015; Mises 1931; Rickards 2017; Ropke 1936) due to the inherent unsustainable system dynamics:
The initial drivers are parasitic in nature (i.e., Parasitic Base Layer shown in Table 1 below).
Reinforcing drivers originate from a Mutualism dynamic that constitutes the secondary layer of parasitism referred to as Parasitic Mutualism (Table 2A and 2B).
A typical example of this form of symbiosis is the mutually beneficial relationship between corporate business interests* and political managers benefiting each other (i.e., mutualism) at the expense of citizens and workers operating in the economic system (economic system=” host”); this arrangement is defined as parasitic mutualism, a complex symbiotic relationship. *Note: Such special interest client-donors can extend to many types of organizations and entities including non-profits, clubs, and unions, and can include high-net worth individuals (e.g., billionaires, “oligarchs” many who may be adept at using political management to accelerate the accumulation of pathological wealth; note that critics will tend to focus on the individuals involved but this ignores the underlying systemic dynamic).
Diagram 1 next gives a simple illustration of the nature of this reinforcing dynamic that underlies the positive feedback loop represented by the circular configuration at left in Chart 1 above.
DIAGRAM 1. Symbiosis in Political Management: Parasitic Mutualism
Key Terms and Qualifications in Diagram 1
Toolkit. For the listing of the tools of the Toolkit see Appendix 1. Summary of Political Management. Details on various aspects of the managerial process are given in this study.
Symbiosis. The symbiotic relationship (parasitic) is between the clients and political managers that mutually benefit at public expense from the use of political management tools on the public.
Positive Polarity is reinforced by this symbiotic relationship between client and political managers under the cover of “democratic politics” and public “representation.” Also see the section on Reinforcing Drivers of Positive Polarity.
Returns on Political Investment (Curved Arrow). Multiple types of benefits that are delivered to the clients, not only financial but immunity from prosecution, etc. Financial returns ideally from 10-20 times the original political investment (e.g., 1 currency unit or equivalent contribution invested yields 10 to 20 currency units to the client). Circular Flows. Note that the money flows can be perpetually circular: As political managers increase funding, a portion is returned to them from the clients as campaign donations.
Variation and exception to the mutually-beneficial dynamic in the diagram: Political managers may engage in legal extortion shakedown operations against a targeted client (a) on behalf of another special interest client looking to benefit from their politically-managed investment (parasitic mutualism), or (b) solely as a self-serving means for political managers to raise extra campaign funds without necessarily acting on behalf of a client (parasitism). In the parasitic mutualism case, the client-donor and the target may both be competing entities such as businesses in the same industry, organizations vying for funding, foreign powers, etc.).
To reflect these distinctions in the diagram above, in the parasitic mutualism case the bottom box could be relabeled “legal/political extortion target” while the top box is the special interest client-donor for whom political managers are working. In the self-serving parasitic case, the top box and the middle box can be combined because political managers become their own special interest client. This legal/political extortion dynamic was briefly introduced in the clarifications to the Summary above and is detailed further in Appendix 1.
INITIAL DRIVERS OF POSITIVE POLARITY: PARASITIC BASE LAYER
Referring to Chart 1 above, the two principal tools of parasitic activity are by two principal extractive mechanisms, one is represented by the curved arrow between the political and economic systems and the second originates from central banks (approximate center, labelled “Central Banks”), responsible for potential inflationary pressures in economic systems; further details are given in the top two boxes in Chart 1 above. This base layer is shown in in the context of a simplistic structural representation of econobiology in Table 1, next (Funding-Extractive in rows #1 and #2).
Note that the last column of the table presents an economic management counterpart for comparison; notes are added below the table.
Table 1. Structural Framework
Key Notes to Table 1
Economic Systems: Features and Challenges
Note: The main discussions on economically-managed solutions in this study are located as follows: 1. In this section; 2. In the Concluding Remarks of this study; and 3. in the Appendix of this study under the Conclusion to the Summary Definition.
1.Community Types. Many types of communities are possible (coops, communes, resorts, self-governing homeless encampments, intentional communities (re: Christian, et al. 2016), private membership communities (PMAs), communities of faith or practice, tribes, master-planned communities, Common Interest Developments (CIDs: residential, mixed-use, non-mixed commercial/industrial use; re: Davis Sterling 2023),* communities with no particular focus, maritime communities, and eventually perhaps extra-terrestrial communities, etc.) with different forms of payment (which may include barter, tokens and cryptocurrencies) and delivery of management services depending on the bundle. Some communities may be entirely self-managed and self-owned and incur the management expenses themselves and the costs absorbed by the resident-owners. On the foundations of communities in the context of network states see Srinivasan (2022); also, Buterin (2023) re: start-up and pop-up cities.
2.Costs of community/regional management do not disappear but tend to be managed economically (as in negative polarity or counterbalancing/self-correcting; it should not be assumed that under economic management problems magically cease to exist, only that incentives for self-correction are built in to a negative feedback loop) to reduce the financial burden on community members (rather than the positive polarity/self-reinforcing feedback loop towards benefiting special interests through political management at taxpayer expense or via currency debasement). Since payment for these management services is directly linked to the choice of provider, or based on ownership interests*, the process of “voting” for the provider disappears; voting may take place in other contexts such as where communal decision-making on certain issues is preferred. Regarding cohousing, see Jacobs (2016) and the concept of permaculture see Holmgren (2020), Gale (2023); on self-reliance as cooperation in productive networks see Smith (2022); on opting out (Broze 2020; also re: Samuel Konkin, agorism); on history of decentralized systems see McMaken (2022,2023). On legal foundations that may apply to communities with economic management, see Kinsella (2023), Hoppe (2023); also, re: natural law/natural rights). Also see Friedman, et al. (2019) on alternative legal systems over several millennia of history.
3. Self-Owned and Managed Communities: Ownership may also eventually be linked to private, partially digitized/digital communities and tokens, with fractionalized interests. Also see Kennedy (2022 b, c, d) for further detail.
4. On Common-Interest Developments (CIDs): See Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development (CID) Act 1985, 2013; The Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code §§ 4000-6150 in U.S.).
5.The Problem of Management Replacement Mechanisms. Consider a regional/community management entity that occupies a geographically-defined jurisdiction serving a particular community of resident-citizens (or resident-co-owners). The regional manager (including of a co-owned community) may collect periodic fees to cover the costs* of running the community; these management services are dedicated specifically to the community that it serves. To perform its functions, the managing entity then may contract with other entities to handle services such as sanitation, community security, landscaping, administration, etc.; if their performance is lacking, the manager may replace them. To replace a failing management entity, the resident-citizens must have a mechanism that is impervious to outside interference that may override their decisions. While a commonly-proposed solution is to hold democratic elections whereby the citizen-residents become voters, these processes have a “trojan horse” element to them that carry a risk of transforming the community into one that becomes politically-managed, and which generally cannot be easily replaced, as detailed next.
6. Inherent Risk of Democratic Voting Processes. As noted in the previous section, mechanisms that allow for the replacement of management is a concern. A key feature of political management is its function as a political investment entity funded by campaign donations from special interest clients. Once a democratic voting system is introduced into a community, there is a strong incentive for managers to begin “working with” special interest lobbies that can allow them to gain a foothold into the decision-making and operations of the management entity no longer as contracted entities that can be replaced due to poor performance, but as political investors/clients of the community management entity. This potential gateway to political management can be averted by having citizen-residents choose a management entity via subscribership or membership status via monthly subscription or membership fees (e.g., clearly stipulated fixed monthly fees, most likely charged to real estate property owners). Citizen-residents then can control the replacement of poorly-performing management companies by subscribing to another provider or leaving the community. Partial ownership in a community also may have a similar result, and each owner shares in the cost of community management and infrastructural development (see the note on costs below). (*) Additional note on community operating costs: Simply defined as the true operating expenses to manage the community plus capital expenditures for infrastructure development and maintenance, all specific to that community. A measure of economic cost adds in "opportunity costs" of the management entity (i.e., any net income lost by doing this activity rather than something more profitable). The question arises how the selection of a management entity corresponds to a specific geographic area. For example, if x% of the citizen-residents choose a management entity A and y% choose management entity B, can the management entities co-exist to serve residents within the same geographic area? One solution is for multiple management entities serving a community to share in the capital expenditure and infrastructural costs of the community, while reaping the income from the citizen-residents, each firm offering slightly different features and benefits to their subscription. Other communities may be limited by their governing rules to a single management entity to which citizen-residents pay clearly defined monthly/quarterly fees. The community guidelines may have built-in provisions for replacement of the management entity by some process including voting by the citizen-residents.
The following notes address a few other features of political management as introduced in Table 1 above:
7. Imputed Ownership Fee Extractions (Table 1 Line 1). Regarding re-examination of the foundational assumptions for income generation in political management (re: legalized/decriminalized chattel property; also, re: non-sovereign feudal title of real estate) as these relate to human and natural rights, see the Appendix (A1) under Toolkit, Income Generation 1: Imputed Ownership Fee Extractions and Kennedy (2022b).
8.Fines/Penalties and the Regulatory State. Another potentially non-trivial source of income for political management relates to #10 in Table 1 above under Rules/Rulemaking and the regulatory bureaucracy through administrative law (Berman 1983; also, re: the “Chevron deference,” Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council 1984). Fines assessed by regulators/regulatory agencies against the industries or companies that they ostensibly oversee is regarded as a potentially tragic feature of parasitic mutualism and is addressed further in the Mutualism Framework (Table 2A and 2B) below #2 Decriminalized Business Models, Public Sector/Other constituencies and in the related commentary on Accountability.
9. Monopoly Currency Creation. It may not be clear why monopoly currency creation is a form of parasitism. This is explained by the fact that by creation of additional currency units debases (dilutes) the existing currency (i.e. currency debasement) and thereby reduces the potential purchasing power of the monopoly currency over time; such a currency that has no tie to commodities or precious metals can give political management additional flexibility to create additional quantities of currency to be spent as desired (re: 1971 repudiation of the gold standard, Nixon administration in U.S.). Since inflationary consequences of currency debasement may not be immediately felt, it is a longer-term and non-uniform stealth form of extraction of resources from the host (the economic system and its individual actors), and when felt, the inflationary impacts are particularly hard on working people and those living on fixed incomes. The Cantillon effect describes how early recipients of freshly-created currency have a purchasing power advantage because price inflation has not expanded to the broader economy yet (re: Cantillon 1755; Mises 1912, 1931; Huerta de Soto 2012). On discussion of potential trajectories in the currency realm re: El Gato Malo (2024).
10. Legal Monopolies. To reduce the likelihood of alternatives that may compete with the existing parasitic system, legal monopolies are likely to be instituted to preserve power and the positive feedback loop of political management. A legal monopoly may be established not only over the currency (also re: legal tender laws), but over the exercise of power in a particular jurisdiction (local, regional, national) together with some degree of legal immunity from liability for the entity; all the above are elements for the successful maintenance of a parasitic relationship vis-à-vis the economic system (host).
To better visualize the reinforcing drivers of the positive feedback loop of political systems see Table 2 in the next section below (the table is split into two frames due to size) which presents the Parasitic Mutualism Framework.
REINFORCING DRIVERS OF POSITIVE POLARITY: PARASITIC MUTUALISM
The financial resources made available from the extractive base layer detailed above allow for mutually-beneficial arrangements for special interests or constituencies in the form of wealth transfer from the masses.
However, the fullest expression and expansion of the predatory power of political management driving the positive feedback loop may lie in the secondary layer of parasitism referred to as parasitic mutualism of which key elements include non-monetary tools, and a process of elections.
1.Non-Monetary Tools
In addition to using extracted financial resources to redistribute to special interests, constituencies, and supporters, non-monetary political management tools can be called upon to supply benefits. To clarify, although the tools are described as non-monetary, in some cases they may still have immense monetary value to the recipients/beneficiaries. Simple examples include non-prosecution for financial fraud, or the granting of legal monopoly status to a special interest client (part of the donor class)to increase its market access, sales, and profits at the expense of competitors. Some examples of such tools are:
Judicial Bias stems principally from a legal monopoly on adjudication, the courts and justice system to facilitate political management in the service of special interest clients. Also see Appendix (A1) regarding the role of a politically-managed justice system in the section detailing the Toolkit of Political Management including judicial protection for clients, and Tool #6 Monopoly on Adjudication (Courts/Justice System) and Tool #7 Monopoly on Regulatory Activity.
In brief, examples of bias may include non-prosecution (or light treatment) of favored individuals/entities, targeting of political rivals with frivolous lawsuits; lawfare. Judicial outcomes may be driven by political parties that received campaign donations from a defendant (if the case makes it to trial), special interest clients-donors (donor class) and certain voting blocs, special interest groups, and intelligence operations with media and political party backing. High-profile cases can present an excellent opportunity for political managers and allied judges to shift towards biased outcomes to curry favor with voting blocs and special interests regardless of the merits of the case or evidence. Corrective Action. Because of the inherent bias in politically-managed monopoly control of adjudication, there may be a need to compensate for unjust outcomes of some cases in the eyes of the public. For example, if a particular ruling involves excessive leniency there may be pressure for the judiciary to impose unreasonably excessive penalties in other unrelated cases on individuals who are effectively powerless, have lesser donor status, or to send a clear message to the public that despite the previous ruling, the system is “fair” on balance. Weaponization. Monopoly judicial systems may also be more easily weaponized to reflect the agendas, ideology or philosophy of political managers and their clients/voting blocs. This varies by society and era, but for example, defendants that are individuals or entities that are somehow associated with, or represent, “public authority” and “law and order” may tend to be given preferential treatment in judicial outcomes despite evidence of guilt, while individuals or entities associated with groups that are disfavored by the dominant political forces of the society may also tend to be disfavored despite exculpatory evidence. The political party status of legal professionals (attorneys/barristers, etc.) representing the defendants may also carry considerable weight in judicial decisions. Also, some decisions may also be driven by strategies to defund the opposition (detailed in Appendix 1 (A1) under Tool #10 of the Toolkit of Political Management). A key element of some judicial systems, the use of juries, is noted next.
Jury System. Trial by an impartial jury of randomly-chosen individuals selected to decide on guilt or innocence of one of their “peers” requiring juror unanimity of the verdict was likely conceived of as a key bulwark against conviction of innocents under questionable laws, lack of evidence and/or prosecutorial “witch-hunts” (re: jury nullification, e.g., a single dissenting juror is able to nullify a “guilty” verdict). This poses a problem for political managers wishing to modify the outcome of certain cases on behalf of their clients/constituencies. Various means can be contemplated to improve the probability of conviction or exoneration, depending on the desired outcome: Ensuring that the jurors are no longer randomly chosen from a pool of potential jurors and selecting/weeding out potential jurors according to certain views, presumably to keep the jury “impartial” but which can be abused to sway outcomes (re: voir dire); significantly reducing the number of jurors to increase the likelihood of the desired outcome; replacing juries by a panel of state-appointed judges claimed to be impartial, etc.
Recognition/Status: Preferential treatment, including political appointments, awards, hiring preference and promotions for allies and supporters both in public and private sectors.
Regulatory: Expanding regulations or deregulation/regulatory relief including tax relief (a reversal of a redistributive monetary tool). For the fundamental problems arising from imposition of fines through politically-managed regulatory mechanisms, see the discussion in Note #11 (Regulatory State and Accountability through Fines) in the Notes below Tables 2A and 2B.
Legality Status: Bans, sanctions, criminalization or decriminalization, legal exclusivity (e.g., granting of legal monopolies), tacit acceptance. For extensive detail see Decriminalized Business Models in the Parasitic Mutualism Framework (Table 2A and 2B) below and the Notes below these tables (such as section #10 and section #12 on decriminalization/criminalization).
Indoctrination/Censorship: This tool cannot be underestimated, especially if the mass media is largely under the control of or influence of political management. Suppression of information (e.g., censorship infrastructure; censorship industrial complex, “weapons of mass deletion”) aims to prevent individuals from accessing alternative viewpoints or data is also likely to play a key role in shaping public opinion. Political/public relations campaigns and rhetorical genius may be used to influence the public and even young students in the school system through the universities to heavily promote special interests and constituencies. On the dimensions of propaganda, brainwashing and perception management see more recent observations by Hopkins (2022), Pilger (2022), Johnstone (2023), Curtin (2023); also, re: Bernays (1928); Meerloo (1956) re: menticide; Jung (1957); Sargant (1961); Ellul (1962); Herman, Chomsky (2002), Nehls (2023).
An important component of indoctrination involves the severing of bonds between parent and child to be replaced with approved representatives of the new doctrine; This separation* and replacement process is designed to eliminate competing/alternative sources of information for the younger generations.
*Note that the separation also includes politically-managed third-party intervention (i.e., politically-driven social pressure on the parents) to induce conformity with the new agenda/doctrine for fear of losing their jobs or social status, even if the actions taken by the parents are against the child’s interests).
Indoctrination and public relations may also be designed to cultivate future leaders and supporters and to preserve the continuity of the system. This public messaging may be delivered under an overarching guise of justice, the common good, or other professed goal, and is likely to be repeated frequently until the premises of the narratives are no longer questioned.
Assumption of Power, Extrajudicial Actions and Physical Force. In extreme cases, law enforcement and/or the military may be called upon to intimidate, assault or imprison dissidents or real or perceived political opponents without going through judicial procedures. Weaponization of public health. A particularly dangerous aspect of political management is the use the regulatory administrative state to create the guise of a public emergency that requires “containment” measures, together with other entities (Watt 2023), special interest donor-clients seeking their financial returns (e.g., test kit makers, medical-industrial complex, contractors to build ‘public health’ facilities re: Hart 2023b; Cox 2023), and in the geopolitical realm possibly expanding to control of other nation-states. Public health may be a preferred guise of militarization, which can secure a certain measure of public approval as a safety measure. The result may be mass home or concentration camp imprisonment relabeled as quarantines and the preparation for such facilities, and violations of bodily sovereignty (re: Nuremberg Code, medical violence and experimentation, Washington 2008; Reverby 2009; McCarthy and Sharav 2022; Watt 2023; Hart 2023b; Cox 2023 re: quarantine camp facilities).
The next section addresses the issue of establishing legitimacy as a foundation for parasitic mutualism.
2.The Elections Process
Role of Legitimacy. Given the potential for vast public resources to be redistributed and special favors accorded to special interests and constituencies, public distrust in the politically-managed system may eventually arise. Therefore, under each jurisdiction of political management, a process for public representation must be established, commonly referred to as elections.
The elections process plays a fundamental role in solidifying the mutualism relationship of political management. This is specifically referred to as a “process” because of the financial stakes involved which may naturally lead to strong pressure for selections of representatives to ensure that the special interest money invested (e.g., campaign contributions) provides the expected return, also referred to as returns on political investment.
Political Investment Returns. Funding for candidates’ political campaigns may involve massive sums to influence election outcomes, whereby the biggest spenders in political races can reach a 90%+ success rate (Hartmann 2022). For the donors to these campaigns (e.g., special interests including businesses, public sector or other organizations) it is reasonable to assume that they wish to receive an appropriate return on their political investment. While the elections are ostensibly to reflect the popular will, the financial stakes are potentially very high of constantly losing political races that are heavily invested in. Over time there is a strong natural incentive for the outcomes to be more akin to negotiated selections, to ensure that the elected/selected candidates legislate in a way necessary for the mutualist relationships to deliver the desired returns on political investment to the donors. Returns can reach roughly twenty times the original investment depending on the industry and products involved (Clifton 2021). Also see Krueger (1974); Tullock (1967, 1993); re: rent-seeking. In other cases, the immediate return may be limited, but on a present-value basis of the future cash flow (or cost-saving) streams the returns may be sizable.
Iterations of Returns. To provide a simplistic example, consider an initial political investment of 1 million currency units. At twenty times return, this amount can be grown to 20 million after the first successful political operation, 400 million after the second, and 8 billion by the third.
Delivering Benefits to Clients. To successfully deliver promised benefits/returns to their clients, politically-managed operations are essential, likely involving three major phases: Planning/preparatory, Execution/Delivery and Winding-Down. For further detail on this critical process of political management, see the Appendix (A1), #10 Marketing Apparatus, Stages of Operations.
Political Investment Returns via the Capital Markets. Another important source of return on political investment that also comprises a potential constituency/special interest (i.e., Investors or the investment community) may be a form of payback through the equity markets. For instance, early ownership in the stock of a corporate beneficiary of mutualism that is expected to receive contract grants and strong and sustained political rhetoric in favor of its operations. Any stock price gains may be a form of compensation to these investors in return for their political support, detailed below in the Parasitic Mutualism Framework and in the Pathogenesis Case Study.
Politicization and Self-Perpetuation. Once established, politically-managed mutualism relationships become politicized and potentially backed by state power to accomplish the intended goals, subject to constitutional or other legal restraints, although these may be ignored if opposition fails to emerge (also see the commentary in Late-Stage/Extremes below). Underlying the politicization dynamic is the potential creation of divisions within communities to pull support towards one party or another and the agendas each party promotes on behalf of their special interests--although all parties may benefit from their participatory share of the political management power structure (re: power-sharing). The financial or other returns/benefits “earned” by the special interests through these mutualism arrangements can then be in part given back to political management in the form of future campaign donations and support for re-election or other means. In some cases of very tight mutualism relationships, we might expect to see the same party or candidate remaining in control for long periods of times as part of mutualism. Another political party takeover may eventually be allowed to occur, either by negotiation or organically but perhaps with the expectation that the same mutualism relationships will be allowed to continue, or restitution will be provided to the “loser” of a political shift. In effect, such managed transitions under political management may therefore be grounded in power-sharing between ostensibly rival political parties.
Late-Stage/Extreme Outcomes. In later phases of political management this politicization may lead to a variety of horrific, outcomes including coercive enforcement actions, deliberate non-enforcement policies (*Note), mass deception, psychological warfare and/or state-sponsored violence to maintain these mutualist arrangements at all costs (Boyle 2022; Desmet 2022; Dowd 2022; Hughes, et al. 2022; Kirsch 2022a, b; Malone 2022, Martin 2021a, b; Rummel 1997; Wolf 2022).
*Note: Non-enforcement (e.g., withdrawal of law and order, selective decriminalization) can confer benefits to certain special interests and political managers; see Decriminalized Business Models in the Parasitic Mutualism Framework (Table 2A and 2B) below and the detailed Notes to the tables (such as Notes #10 and, #12).
Cultivation of Dependency. A critical element of both the redistributive policies of base layer parasitism as well as parasitic mutualism is to cater to a potentially unlimited constituency of dependents whose obedience and support can in a sense be “bought” with social assistance (e.g. various forms of welfare/social payments, stimulus payments, or so-called “universal basic income”); increased dependence on these forms of assistance ensures the provisional maintenance of the status quo; also see Poverty/Dependency in the Parasitic Mutualism Framework below. . A key element of positive polarity is that politically-managed dependency is rooted in a control system for the self-perpetuation of power.Economic crises and crashes (whether engineered for the benefit of other special interests, or due to cyclical factors rooted in the monetary and banking system for example) that impoverish the population may also serve to expand power in this realm.
On manufactured dependency, see the discussion on Systemic Worker Exploitation in the Key Notes to Table 2.
However, policies to enable or expand dependence can engender inflation from excessive spending financed by the creation of currency through the granting of credit in fractional reserve banking and/or debt monetization by central banks. Therefore, a certain control grid infrastructure may be constructed to limit spending by the private sector recipients to control inflation, while allowing selected government/politically-managed spending to continue unabated and thereby preserving spending power in favor of political management. Spending limits for recipients may take various forms including compliance control and direct stimulus payments to consumer wallets (e.g., CBDCs, central bank digital currencies) as part of a system of digital dependency and control.
This type of dependency arrangement may also apply internationally to provide benefits initially for officials of foreign nations to “buy” their allegiance as part of the consolidation of existing, or formation of new alliances worldwide.
Evolution. Parasitic mutualist relationships in political management are likely to constantly evolve as part of the process of finding new constituencies and funding sources for the financing of political races; ethical boundaries may be challenged as part of the quest to establish new mutualism relationships with special interests. Artificial intelligence (AI) among other technologies (re: propaganda/advertising delivery tools for narrative control), is likely to be called upon repeatedly to assist in the perpetuation of politically-managed systems.
Tables 2A and 2B. Econobiology: Parasitic Mutualism Framework
The Mutualism Framework table next is separated into two frames (A. Left Frame and B Right Frame) due to its size and for easier viewing. Table 2A gives examples of constituencies that may be cultivated to build up this component of political management and that drives further expansion of the positive feedback loop.
This framework may also be abbreviated as Mutualism, although these symbiotic relationships of mutualism constitute a secondary layer of parasitism on top of the parasitic base layer as described above.
The full version of the framework is shown in Appendix (A2) but is displayed sideways due to size.
Parasitic Mutualism Framework Table 2A (Left Frame)
Parasitic Mutualism Framework Table 2B (Right Frame)
Key Notes to the Parasitic Mutualism Framework of Table 2A and 2B above
Underlying Concepts Summary: Mutualism refers to the mutually-beneficial relationship between political managers and their donor clients (constituencies/special interests/certain voting blocs); to the extent that they gain by extractions from the "host" (i.e., the economic system and its citizen-resident members) the overall symbiotic relationship is described as parasitic mutualism (recall that "symbiosis" can comprise both beneficial and parasitic relationships).
A. Explanations for Columns (from left to right)
Category: This column lists the general grouping ascribed to the types of constituency/special interest(s) that become clients of political managers, as detailed in the second column.
Constituency/Special Interest(s): These are the different types of "clients" (aka political investors) of political managers who make "political investments" (campaign donations and other forms of compensation, offer of voting blocs, etc.) with the expectation of benefits to be delivered to them by the political managers in return. A political investor/donor is likely to be given preference over others if they can “invest”: 1. larger sums 2. recurring 3. larger numbers of votes (by harnessing a voting bloc). Funding of special interests (directly or indirectly) by political managers (through increasing budget allocations, etc.) ensures continuity of future political investments (campaign donations and/or votes).
Political Demand/Supply: This column lists some specific benefits demanded by the client political investors (i.e., special interest/constituencies) and which may be expected to be supplied by the political managers.
Potential Actions or Inaction: To deliver the benefits to their clients, political managers need to take certain actions in some cases, or NOT take action in other cases. Some examples of actions/inaction are given, with further detail in the last column.
B. Detailed Discussion
1. This parasitic mutualism framework presents additional drivers of positive polarity in politically-managed systems. For initial drivers, refer to the extractive mechanisms (imputed ownership fees aka taxes; currency creation) of the separate Structural Framework in Table 1 above. The framework is not comprehensive; examples may be hypothetical, and if reflective of actual circumstances may vary significantly by jurisdiction.
2. Political Demand/Supply refers to specific benefits demanded by the client political investors (i.e., special interest/constituencies) and which may be expected to be supplied (or delivered) by the political managers by using various means (including coercion and violence in extreme cases). Also see #4 Payback/Incentives to political managers below. Considerable overlap may exist among constituencies and political demand/supply categories which may be packaged together.
3. Special interest favoritism may be biased towards large corporations (national/multinational/ transnational) aided by their established connections with centralized power centers. Some special interests/constituencies lack visibility and may operate as fronts for foreign state or other interests that could impact national security; also see "Hush" Constituencies.
4. Payback/Incentives to political managers for benefits received: Campaign contributions (current and recurring) and votes; other support may include special financial incentives (e.g., payments to political managers/public officials per medical treatment/injections administered; ownership interests granted in special interest businesses such as stock; real estate, etc.); also see the Pathogenesis Case Study below. This gives rise to political profit, the political side of pathological profits (see section #6 Pathological Profits in this list below). Similar to a profit-and-loss statement in business, political managers must weigh the gains of supporting certain constituencies/special interests against any losses incurred (gains measured in funding, votes, other vs. loss of funding, votes, etc.).
5. Non-Profit, non-governmental (NPOs, NGOs) and philanthropic organizations may act on behalf of profit-oriented businesses and nation-states, especially if claiming to have “global” authority; although such organizations may be categorized in "public sector" these may be closely tied to, or fronts for, Business-related categories, and in the case of wealthy investors that control these organizations, the Asset Holders/Debt Issuers category.
6. Pathological (Politically-Managed) Profits and Gains originate from the process of political management in two basic forms: a) profits that are earned without the full cost associated with them (e.g., legal liability protection for businesses that profit from products that harm consumers, interest rate cuts lowering cost of debt politically via central banks); b) the full cost is borne but profits resulting from the politically-managed raising of revenues/incoming cash flows/value of asset holdings typically with extracted resources from others (e.g. ,debt monetization-funded or taxpayer-funded): For example, the granting of lucrative government contracts, subsidies, monetary inflation, yield spread manipulation, etc.). Profit and Cost Distortion. It should be emphasized that contrary to the criticism of profits as “evil” and being at the root of the problem, it is not profits per se, but rather the system dynamics of political management that distort the profit-cost relationship. Also see Pathological Profits in the Pathogenesis Case Study below. Some constituencies in the table may enjoy similar profits but are not noted due to space limitations. For examples of the political side of such pathological profits (political profit) see (see #4 Payback/Incentives to political managers in this list above).
Drivers of Pathological Wealth Inequality.
Returns on Political Investments. Pathological profits from outsized financial returns on political investments for special interests and individuals are also a source of wealth inequality that can multiply financial returns up to 20 times for the political investor from each of their political investments. This process when repeated over time may enable an individual/asset holder to amass vast sums of pathological wealth via their ownership of corporations (and other entities they control) that benefit financially from each politically-managed operation that their political investment purchased—likely far beyond the wealth attainable by relying on (non-politically managed) market forces. An individual business can also gain financial returns for its political investments however these may be limited to increasing revenues (e.g., through the granting of government contracts) or various legislated or other means to reduce their costs. Asset Inflation also (more indirectly) helps increase the wealth of owners of these asset holdings; an important vehicle for the creation of asset inflation is the central bank monetization of debt issuance generally by national governments and state-affiliated entities to finance public spending (Kennedy 2019, 2022 d). Wealth Inequality: Key Distinction. It is common to treat wealth inequality generated by political management as no different from wealth inequality occurring from businesses operating under market forces and serving customers. This conflation may be intentional to gain political support by targeting another group (e.g., the “rich,”, “capitalists,” etc.), However, this conflation also masks the key difference between (a) non-pathological wealth and profits derived from businesses serving their customers honestly without the special benefits afforded by political managers, and (b) those who have amassed pathological wealth from their political investments, and worker exploitation, detailed next.
Systemic Worker Exploitation. Recall that parasitic mutualism involves two parties benefiting in their interaction with one another (mutualism) at the expense of other parties. A case in point involves the exploitation of workers via a complex mechanism instituted between corporations and governments that leverages corporate control over workers along with extraction of workers' earnings by governments; this process is not always fully identifiable due to its multiple elements and complexity developed over time.
A few of the elements of this exploitative structure is detailed here:
a) Worker Non-Representation and Suppression. Organic labor movements and worker demands for better pay and working conditions constitute threats to corporate interests and are subject to severe repercussions (Adelman 2023; re: hangings of American union activists in 1887; May Day). To deal with this, labor unions are eventually transformed into co-opted non-organic entities by political parties claiming to represent the workers while working closely with corporate interests.
b) Behavior management and control (by various means):
i) Tying jobs to health insurance benefits.
ii) Tying jobs to licensing and reimbursement systems for certain professionals to ensure that protocols are followed that benefit special interests (e.g., medical protocols and required treatments that benefit businesses that lobbied for their implementation enforced by the state; on legal monopolization of the medical industry and suppression of competition in history, see Thompson 2024).
iii) Herding independent operators and employees into corporate structures through legislation, subsidies, and reimbursement incentives (e.g., medical professionals into corporate entities)
iv) Encouraging over-indebtedness (e.g., home ownership requiring mortgages; also, re: debt slavery), materialism and conspicuous consumption that risk burdening workers with heavy debt obligations that keep them unnaturally compliant to pay back the debt.
In addition to the dynamic of high indebtedness that empowers employers and enriches lenders, politically-managed operations, whether in an engineered “bust” to drive down real estate values (see section #12 below on community destruction and policy-induced bankruptcies), or as the consequence of a politically-managed boom-bust cycles (via monetary policy and interest rate manipulation), can lead to mass defaults by borrowers on their properties whereby the lenders foreclose and liquidate their collateral (i.e., the properties) at bargain prices.
v) Information Operations. Use of mass media, education, and social media as a behavior modification tool. Some examples include inducing the public to reduce expenditures and adopt minimalist lifestyles (as a means to reduce inflationary pressures originating from currency creation/debt monetization from increased spending by political managers) or discouraging group associations to prevent organized activity among potential (organic) protesters and activists (including to de-emphasize or control potential organic labor movements). Encouragement of a dependency mindset and learned helplessness may also play a role in preservation of politically-managed control; although not necessarily intentional, this may be linked to declines in standards and essential knowledge/skills acquired in the educational system (Gatto 2017).
c) Inflation and destruction of purchasing power. Nominal wages may rise with inflation, but real wages fall due to reduced purchasing power of the wages from currency debasement as a stealth form of taxation (the debasement generally arises from currency creation in connection with funding additional government expenditures; re: debt monetization).
This rise in nominal wages triggers another extractive mechanism described next,
d) Tax Structure and Inflation. As inflation raises nominal (not real) incomes, workers are levitated into higher tax brackets (i.e., higher tax rates on their wages) which requires that a greater portion of their wages be given to the state; this process further impoverishes workers beyond the lost real purchasing power from inflation.
Notes
Debt Burdening of workers: Ironically, the banking system is structured to indebt borrowers with loans it grants while being legally permitted to "create" the loans through deposit reserves expansion (re: fractional reserve banking); in this process, the lending tends to raise the price of real estate, leading to additional amounts of indebtedness for subsequent home buyers.
Executions of Labor Activists: Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Albert Parsons, and August Spies were hanged on November 11, 1887 (before the hangings, a fifth convicted individual, Louis Lingg, was found dead in his prison cell from a dynamite cap). Background. The trial leading to the convictions “…ranks as one of the most notorious in American history. The Chicago Tribune even offered to pay money to the jury if it found the eight men guilty.” May 1 (May Day) emerged as an international Labor Day "...in memory of Haymarket martyrs and the injustice of the Haymarket Affair." (Adelman 2023). While May Day is commemorated outside the U.S. as Labor Day/International Workers Day, May Day is not officially acknowledged in the United States and May 1 was instead named Law Day.
Apologist Revisionism. Sadly, it should be added that certain historical facts regarding the violent suppression of organic labor movements may be omitted or distorted to this day, depending on the search terms and the information sources used.
Vilification of Pathological Wealth holders as a Deflection. It should also be emphasized that the public focus on individuals who have amassed pathological wealth misses the underlying problem: While these individuals have skillfully mastered politically-managed systems for financial gain, it is the politically-managed systems themselves that have been designed to allow for this dynamic to perpetuate (at least until national defaults/bankruptcies halt or interrupt this process in later stages).
Pathological Wealth Inequality: Proposed Solutions and Contradictions. It may be suggested that the problem of pathological wealth inequality can be solved by adopting another form of political management that seeks to fully equalize outcomes in society (e.g., by the banning of private property and profits, often associated with a system of political management labelled as 'communism' or perhaps 'heavy-handed socialism'). With enough force applied, some degree of equalization of outcomes is possible, together with an overall impoverishment of the citizenry if the productive capacity of the country diminishes under such systems; nevertheless, this may be initially considered desirable to create a fair society. However, possibly overlooked is whether the political managers that must execute such a societal transformation might emerge as pathologically wealthy elites of that society together with their own special interest clients (Orwell 1945; Voslensky 1984); note that their pathological wealth may be in a relative sense, that is, relative to common citizens.
It may be assumed that under a politically-managed truly egalitarian communist society without private property or recognition of profits, political managers and special interests play no role in self-serving mutually-beneficial pathological wealth creation. On the contrary, the dynamics of political management are likely to remain intact if not reinforced as evidenced by examining who benefits (both internally and externally) from the engineered impairment or destruction of the productive capacity of an economy that leads to massive scarcity for its citizens-residents. Within the country, due to this scarcity, an underground economy (black market) is likely to emerge to supply the goods that are no longer produced or available (possibly with priority given to supplying political managers first). From outside the country, businesses may also play a role as special interest clients of political managers within the country of engineered scarcity to (a) illegally supply these scarce goods, or (b) profit from the supply destruction (e.g., collapse of the target country A's agricultural production can benefit the producers of country B due to the lowered supply and higher prices for their goods internationally; in other words, despite claims of a distinction between so-called ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism’ they are mutually beneficial as a politically-managed dynamic.
In systems of engineered scarcity, a mechanism is necessary to allow for scarce goods to be supplied to the citizenry for their basic survival. The greater the economic controls imposed, the more power given to political managers to potentially profit from (semi-official or unofficial) approvals/permissions, and/or perpetuation of imposed bans and restrictions as needed. Political managers that oversee such control systems can at will relax, remove, or impose restrictions in exchange for some form of payment, fee, or political "donation" (bribes) from their special interest clients.
Proposals for Improved Politically-Managed Solutions. Recognizing the problems described in the previous paragraphs, political managers may then call for an improved form of political management involving for example, borderless global governance to prevent any single nation-state from engaging in such activities. However, this itself is likely an initiative driven by corporate special interest clients of these political managers to expand their market access globally. Tragically, state-sanctioned violence may be required to institute such an overarching form of political management and to subjugate vast populations under a single ostensibly egalitarian regime. Once established, a new class of (global) political managers now has the power to the repeat the same processes of mutually beneficial self-enrichment as before, and in this process, existing and new special interests emerge as clients of global political management, giving rise to a new elite of the pathologically wealthy and powerful whose separation from the masses in bordered and protected enclaves may be sought despite their repeated calls for a borderless, egalitarian society. In the next iteration, a new crop of aspiring political managers may see the solution to this now global pathology as being a more radical, improved form of truly egalitarian and global political management that roots out all market activity and the free flow of scarce goods to prevent any possible wealth inequality from emerging. However, if this new form of political management were to succeed, genocide by famine or other means would likely ensue on a global scale. Moreover, the political managers in control of such a process would need to create an exception for themselves by carving out special access to the flow of necessities for their own survival and must retain possession of sufficient resources/wealth to be capable of implementing their egalitarian policies upon others.
7. Engineered crashes and bubbles. To clarify, crashes can be systemic or by design. Systemically, the banking and monetary system of excessive credit creation cycles can lead to home foreclosures and business bankruptcies that create opportunities for investors who are aware of this politically-managed systemic characteristic (from row #2 Decriminalized business models in Tables 2A and 2B above, re: legalized counterfeiting of currency contributing to unsustainable economic debt-saturation. Some examples of operations that may benefit certain special interest clients or accomplish other goals are briefly discussed here: Politically-connected insiders with advance knowledge of an upcoming policy that is likely to result in a stock market crash can profit from short selling activity. A politically-managed collapse of economic activity (e.g., through lockdown policies, forced business closures, travel restrictions, deliberate policies of lawlessness/crime, etc.) can also act as an offset to price inflation by lowering demand and allowing more currency creation to be injected directly into the economy (e.g.,via stimulus payments) rather than by the intermediary of the banking system through credit creation. These lockdown policies, combined with forced business closures and restrictions on movement also can benefit special interest clients that predominantly rely on revenues from online activity (although smaller businesses bear the brunt of such policies). A secondary effect of drastically lowering demand in this way can be to lower the world prices of hydrocarbons (oil and gas) and/or commodities to punish rival nations that rely on export revenues from these resources (meanwhile forcing supply reductions domestically may help keep prices of these resources elevated for domestic producers). An engineered stock or real estate market crash can also induce panic selling to buy bonds in a so-called “flight to safety,” allowing for governments to increase expenditures financed by increased debt issuance with less pressure on bond yields (i.e., keeping them from rising as much in response to massive debt issuance).
Bubble Phase Detail. Politically-managed asset bubbles may be generated to create the impression of an economic recovery, a vibrant economy and to improve the chances of an incumbent winning re-election. The policy transmission mechanism may be the extension of credit (e.g., bank and mortgage lending facilitated by central bank interest rate cuts and fractional reserve banking, especially when required reserves are reduced to zero) or financial sector “investing” activity (e.g., “Wall Street” investment firms, brokerages/hedge funds, etc., that assist with leveraging central bank currency creation into asset markets, which as of the mid-2020s may include crypto-currencies). ). Foundations of sustainable economic growth include productive capacity to meet real demand, undistorted markets (i.e., markets that reflect real costs, including costs of production), and honest price discovery. In contrast, a politically-managed ‘bubble’ approach aims to impact spending and nominal demand (irrespective of productive capacity to meet that demand) through injections of ‘stimulus’ via currency/credit creation; this includes a presumed “wealth effect” whereby newly enriched asset holders (via asset appreciation) are induced to spend more, thereby boosting sales, and improving the official economic statistics in the short-term (ideally timed with an election year). Note: A possible addition to the policy transmission mechanism may be a digital currency system such as CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) or a commercial banking counterpart to facilitate stimulus payments at will and directly to consumers, bypassing the transmission mechanisms of credit or the financial sector as noted above.
Often, pronouncements regarding “economic growth” or “economic recovery” fail to recognize the distinction between nominal growth (driven largely by rising prices and declining purchasing power) and real growth (driven largely by falling prices and greater affordability). Confusion surrounding “growth” and inflation arises in various ways: Tautologically attributing the cause of “inflation” to rising prices (rather than to currency/credit creation and circulation dynamics); limiting the definition of “inflation” to consumer or producer prices and excluding asset price inflation (re: Snyder Index in the early 20th century incorporating asset prices into the price index). A confusion arises because of uneven impacts of prices and costs: In the early bubble phase, increased sales, orders, and contracts may precede broad price rises; also, price rises may be linked to increased business revenues (revenues as price x quantity of units sold) which may at least initially be interpreted as positive/bullish by the businesses themselves and market analysts (although it may be overlooked that unit sales are dropping and unsold inventory is rising). Adverse impacts on profitability may be felt later as costs of production rise (e.g., increases in prices of inputs), or a collapse in prices from the oversupply of markets relative to real demand based on the earlier false signal of rising nominal revenues. Also, re: Mises 1912, 1931; Ropke 1936; Grant 1996, 2008; Rothbard 2008; Huerta de Soto 2012; Stockman 2013; Smith, G. 2023; Macleod 2024 and other references in this study for more on money, credit and cycles (e.g., boom and bust/bubbles and crash cycles). For a recent exposition of deception through official economic statistics see Smith, B. 2024).
Long Bubbles. It should be added that the period leading up to an eventual catastrophic crash may be marked by a secular “bubble” consisting of politically-managed long-term stability and continuous (nominal) economic growth facilitated by sustained expansionary “easy” monetary policy and “plunge protection” policies leading to unfounded confidence in the markets and more risk-taking over time (also re: Minsky moment/Hyman Minsky; engineered stability becomes the source of increasing (future) instability).
8. Business Restitution/Rescue. Some businesses may be harmed by politically-managed operations that benefit other businesses, which may require some form of restitution to the harmed businesses in the future if the harmed group survives to donate to political managers. Restitution and business rescue may be payback for business special interest client/donors that involves giving preferential financing arrangements (government bailouts, backstops, guarantees, etc.) for politically-sensitive industries. One example may be easy financing for utilities so that their cost rises are financed, and the debt perpetually rolled over rather than passed onto consumers. The outcome is cash-flow negative companies that are kept in business through politically-managed financing support rather than financial viability (see Kennedy 2021 on such cash-flow negative corporations). Bankruptcy may extinguish the debt burden, and political managers will be called upon to rescue the financial institutions that financed the businesses.
9. Other Special Interests. Legally-imposed price and wage controls, occupational licensure and other laws and regulations under various guises may benefit not-so-obvious special interests and constituencies. Examples of beneficiaries of such policies may include: Suppliers of substitute goods for a controlled market; suppliers from outside jurisdictions that can profit from reduced supply of goods resulting from the legally-imposed price within that jurisdiction; existing businesses whose maximum prices are set high by law may benefit by being able to lock in higher profits at those prices; black market operators who gain more business supplying the legally-controlled goods and labor (see Decriminalized Business Models of the mutualism framework); and established businesses that are now legally protected from (smaller) competitors freely entering the market. In some cases, those individuals who the policies are publicly claimed to help may be harmed, in addition to the politically-generated economic dislocations caused (shortages, unemployment, etc.).
10. Decriminalization
10. Decriminalization
To clarify, it is not implied here that decriminalization is necessarily wrong in all cases; on the contrary, criminalization (i.e., de jure or de facto) of some economic activities may not only be unjust but can lead to increased violence and human rights abuses as there is no legal recourse for product harms and for the enforcement of contracts such as distributorship agreements for the criminalized goods. Key to this issue and often overlooked is the crucial role of voluntary consent of the parties involved in exchanges, and informed consent (Crutchfield 2018, Dopp 2021) about the risks of harm from products/substances, treatments or services that are distributed or made available for public consumption.
In addition to the necessity of voluntary and informed consent, it should be clarified that some activities are legitimately criminal not simply because of what the law says but because they violate fundamental natural rights/human rights (e.g., the right of bodily sovereignty and self-defense; re: Spooner 1882; Kinsella 2023; Njoya 2024; others referenced in the author’s studies on this topic). This is reiterated and discussed in more detail in section 12 below on decriminalization/criminalization dynamics.
Examples. Special interest clients in various industries can profit from politically-managed lawmaking/rulemaking legalizing criminality or criminalizing voluntary activities, whether de facto or de jure. Some historical and current examples in each category:
1. Decriminalization (legalization) of criminal activities (i.e., that violate natural rights, involve fraud, lack of consent, etc.): E.g., legalized counterfeiting of currency; involuntary human trafficking/servitude/slavery, legalized theft of property, administration of potentially harmful products or procedures/surgeries without informed consent--including on youth, etc.
2. Criminalization/bans (de jure or de facto) on voluntary activities/exchanges also can generate higher returns for the businesses/operators involved than otherwise possible (e.g., bans on voluntary sale/purchase of tobacco products, cannabis and other substances, alcohol (prohibition between 1919 to 1933 in the U.S.), sex (prostitution), use of alternative currencies that compete with state monopoly fiat currency, etc.); as noted elsewhere criminalization of activities involving voluntary exchange can lead to escalation of violence to maintain market share (in black markets) without the possibility of legal contracts, including establishing regional distributorships.
Institutional Incentives for Criminalization. It should be emphasized that in certain politically-managed markets decriminalization may not be in the interest of political managers or the criminalized businesses (e.g., organized gangs, companies*) because both parties mutually benefit from this politically-managed arrangement. De jure criminalization of the activity effectively “protects” the activity within the politicians’ jurisdiction while de facto or in practice, the activity is cautiously allowed to continue. A key point is that if the business activity is fully decriminalized, business profits are likely to be threatened by outside (legal) competition. As for the politician’s own power interests, the security of the existing relationship with a criminalized (de jure criminalized, de facto permitted) business organization that historically they can count on for campaign donations and other support is preferable. If the business activity is decriminalized, the politician’s power base could be threatened by a potential loss of campaign funds from the existing criminal business, but also from the influx of now-legal (decriminalized) businesses offering campaign donations and other support to political opponents. Note that de jure criminalized businesses may be conducted under fronts that pose as decriminalized businesses.
A missing piece to the mutually-beneficial relationship should be noted: A continuous source of income is necessary for residents to be able to purchase the product to provide the revenue to the business to continue donating to the campaigns. Therefore, this sustained flow of funds may depend on political managers finding ways to supply public sources of income to residents within the political manager’s jurisdiction.
New Business Development. Criminalized activity may be a driving force to raise more political donations and support by bringing in a new (criminalized) business into the jurisdiction, including possibly from external origins (including from overseas). In such a case, the complexities may require that the politician obtain assistance from a seasoned team of non-public facing political managers and handlers to broker such a deal for the new criminalized business’ entry into the jurisdiction. *Note: Criminalized foreign as well as domestic entities operating on domestic soil may pose additional threats to regional or national security. For further detail on the dynamics of criminalization/decriminalization, see section #12 below.
Currencies. Because fiat unbacked* alternative currencies exist alongside official fiat currencies, the question of how legalized (decriminalized) counterfeiting of currency arises. A principal example is a legal requirement (e.g., Constitutional) or a claim that the currency being issued is backed by, and exchangeable for, real money such as gold or silver; however, de facto there is no backing which can contribute to unconstrained public borrowing and spending, monetized by the central bank (re: debt monetization, decoupling the U.S. dollar from gold in 1971; also see Kennedy 2019, 2022d). It should be clarified that “fiat currency” issuance in the context of political management might be more closely described as a central bank’s unbacked* non-interest bearing, non-maturing obligations (e.g., in the U.S., a Federal Reserve Note), issued in the process of credit creation either through the banking system (via a fractional reserve banking system) or through debt monetization via central bank purchases of government-issued debt instruments in connection with politically-managed spending activities; note that debt of the borrower is simultaneously credit to the lender or purchaser of the debt (the creditor); in the case of debt monetization the central bank is a creditor that issues its “fiat currency” in exchange for the government debt it purchases. *Note on “unbacked”: in the case of the U.S., ‘unbacked” refers to the inability to redeem the Federal Reserve Notes for anything other than a replacement piece of paper (possibly including other government debt) or digits on a computer ledger.
A competitive private market for unbacked fiat currencies can exist, driven by user choices and features/options offered by the currency issuers. Until an official fiat currency becomes worthless, political management may push to retain dominance of the currency using various tools to limit competition from alternative currencies while retaining the ability to issue and incur debts denominated in the official (monopoly) currency with minimal restraint. This can be aided by certain compulsory legal tender laws, taxes and debts that are legally due in the official currency (“legal tender for all debts public and private”), a sufficient pool of buyers of debt denominated in the official currency (e.g. highly liquid bond markets) including foreign central banks as buyers, inflationary debasement of the currency that favors debtors who repay debts in the official currency (including the public sector/government itself as a special interest group as noted in Table 2; this may not be as easily applicable to foreign debtors without assistance from foreign central banks and/or bailout institutions at certain times of the currency’s appreciation), agreements to settle payments between international parties in the official currency, attracting foreign capital with monetary policy (e.g. interest rate hikes) to prop up the official currency, imposition of taxes on any capital gains in the course of using competing currencies deemed “unofficial” which may include constitutionally legal precious metals, and possible operations to reduce the desirability of alternative currencies (e.g. generating extreme market swings).
For concerns regarding the proposed solution of regulatory oversight of decriminalized businesses, see the next section (Note #11) on Accountability.
For further detail on the dynamics of both criminalization and decriminalization, see section #12 below.
11. Accountability
Political management can effectively obscure accountability because numerous entities and individuals may be involved to deliver/receive the return on a political investment. The combined entities involved may have considerable political power or financial resources to achieve this objective, including suppressing information about their actions via media compensation and control, or to influence the outcome of court cases or elections that will be favorable to the special interests they serve (i.e., their political “clients”). Some examples of how accountability can be managed (including through perception management) through political management are given next.
Removal of Politicians or Bureaucrats. It is often assumed that accountability can be achieved simply by removing or punishing a “bad” manager within a politically-managed entity (e.g., government or bureaucracy). The media and remaining politicians or bureaucrats may hail the action as a major step towards “long-needed reform of the system,” “starting anew,” or “cleaning house.” However, this is fundamentally an exercise in perception management; replacing or punishing the “bad” actor (while perhaps warranted depending on the acts committed) should not be viewed as constituting a resolution to the systemic nature of political management.
Medical Domain. Because responsibility is diffuse across potentially many parties that are involved in these symbiotic relationships, identifying all responsible parties may present more challenges, contributing to delays in prosecution. Front line medical professionals, who have more visibility and risk losing their licenses to practice from politically-managed institutions can be under tremendous pressure to conform to guidelines or requirements that may serve special interests and allied political managers but that are entirely inappropriate for patients, leading to iatrogenesis generally defined as illness or injury resulting from medical care, including immunosuppression; Jackson (2009); Kauffman et al. (Eds) 2007; Kohls (2024); Krishnan, Kasturi (2005); Lenzer (2012); Light, et al. 2013.
Regulatory State and Accountability through Fines. In #2 of Table 2A and 2B, Decriminalized Business Models, reference is made to role of (monopoly) regulation. Although regulatory oversight has the appearance of maintaining accountability by punishing bad behavior by businesses in the form of fines/penalties, the relationship between the monopoly regulator and the industries/business they regulate can take the form of a parasitic mutualism relationship in political management. This was touched upon briefly above (Structural Framework of Table 1 under Rules/Rulemaking and the regulatory bureaucracy through administrative law; re: Berman (1983).
Moral Hazard. The positive (self-reinforcing) feedback loop created by punishing “bad” behavior with fines can perpetuate undesirable outcomes rather than reduce or eliminate them, despite the superficial appeal of regulatory oversight as being ostensibly in the public interest. Underlying such a regulatory system is control of competitive forces—i.e., the granting of an effective monopoly over the regulatory function and the collection of fines by a single entity that by fiat enjoys the state/government seal of approval for its activities; note that this can be extended to an officially-approved oligopoly of several regulatory entities. Regulators (and possibly indirectly other political managers involving funding for political activities) in fact financially benefit from punishment by fines as this increases their funding sources; moreover, at present the public impression is generally positive that the regulator has appropriately dealt with the wrongdoing of the businesses that they regulate (to be discussed further below in Accountability Alternatives). While business offenders who are fined do incur a cost for their activities, this may be regarded as a cost of doing business while keeping their regulatory seal of approval. This is not an argument for fines simply to be increased to ensure that the offenders are more severely punished, on the contrary, this potentially worsens the problem; the reason is that under this politically-managed relationship the incentive structure for the perpetuation of harmful behavior is likely to remain intact, potentially leading to extreme outcomes whereby the ostensibly “regulated” businesses that cause fatalities are punished with massive fines but remain under the regulator’s “oversight” to potentially continue to cause harms and pay more fines to the regulator in the future or simply be ignored by the regulators in favor of other matters stated to be of more importance. Accountability Alternatives. To visualize how a non-politically managed approach may evolve, a sketch is given here: First is to consider the notion of the brand reputation of a market-based regulator in reliably performing the crucial functions of an overseeing body. Faced with competitors that could unseat the market-based regulator’s status as the most reliable overseer of its member businesses, it must maintain its own reputation versus its competitors. Regulatory fees are likely to be charged to member businesses to subscribe to the regulator after acceptance into the regulator’s network, but these fees are likely to be for fixed, regular amounts (quarterly, annually, etc.). Fines. While fines may also exist, they are likely to be for fixed amounts according to specific, clearly stipulated offenses/infractions that are known to the members (and the public)--but generally with clear limitations; consider the reputation of a market-based regulator that “polices” its members by benefiting financially from fining its members for fatally injuring consumers with their products and allowing the business to remain an approved member within the regulator’s network. As noted above, at the present time the public may be largely accepting of such actions when taken by politically-managed entities because of a general perception is that no-one is profiting from this relationship. In a market-based context, such an action would normally be viewed as highly unethical: If a member business crosses certain clearly-defined lines based on the terms and conditions of membership (such as causing harm to consumers from their products), rather than gaining financially by assessing massive fines and keeping membership status intact, the expected course of action might be cancellation of the member’s regulatory approval and membership in the network (i.e., “excommunicating” the business from the brand, in addition to possibly filing criminal charges as deemed appropriate).
12. Decriminalization/Criminalization Dynamics: Detail
Section #10 above centers on the topic of decriminalization. This section details dynamics of politically-managed business activities that involve varied forms of both decriminalization and criminalization, both domestically and across borders. The question of why this occurs is briefly covered next.
Boosting Potential Donor Support and Voting Numbers. As noted in Table 2, Action Groups category, political managers and increase donor support and “import” or boost votes by various means. Potentially large sources of donor support or votes include prison releases, decriminalization of criminal activities including decriminalization of trespassing, aka “illegal” migration; a controlled/politically-managed policy of permitting trespassing via nation-state border crossings) The focus of this section is on decriminalization of criminal activites. First, however, it is important to define the terms.
Clarifying Terminology. The terms “decriminalize” (legalize) and “criminalize” (ban, make illegal) arise largely within a politically-managed context. Some business activities that politically are deemed “criminal” by law may in fact not be, while other business activities that are deemed “legal” (decriminalized) may be clearly criminal. The danger arising from political management is the incentive to gain politically and financially from entering into client-donor arrangements with truly criminal business activities or criminalizing businesses involving voluntary exchange. Depending on the “product” and the activity involved, the most remunerative politically-managed course of action may be “decriminalization” or “criminalization” depending on the circumstances of the businesses involved and competitors. An important motive for such politically-managed decisions is noted in the following section followed by a proximate definition of a “criminal” business.
The next section briefly discusses examples of criminalization, followed by lengthy discussion on decriminalization operations.
Criminalization
Criminalized Businesses and Special Interest Dynamics
In some cases, political managers may choose to criminalize businesses that involve voluntary mutual exchange (e.g., sales of cannabis, alcohol) to benefit special interest clients that intend to compete with existing (currently legal) businesses. This criminalization comes with a “special” arrangement between the political managers and the criminalized businesses.
The activities may be kept criminalized for some time because criminalization gives these special interest-clients of political managers more monopoly control in a now illegal market, while the political managers can expect a flow of donations from this criminalized client base as “protection” money from prosecution so that they can continue their “illegal” operations.
After some time, political managers may choose to return to decriminalization to gain more clients into the (to be legalized) market in addition to the business clients they had previously criminalized (e.g., U.S.: ending of the alcohol prohibition of 1919-1933, selective legalization of cannabis). However, in some political jurisdictions, decriminalizing/legalization may pose too much of an existential threat to the status quo power structure because the political manager may lose the “protection money” donations from their clients operating illegally while the political manager’s political opponents may be able to gain traction with donations from new client-donors that will be operating in a legalized market.
Harms and Violence as Possible Outcomes of Criminalization. It is crucial to note that markets that are criminalized can increase harms and violence. Harms may rise because it is generally impossible to sue for harms caused by an illegal product. Violence is also likely because the business operators no longer have a legal means to enforce distributorships (i.e., legally-binding regional contracts for the distribution of their products). Therefore, a new entrant into an illegal market can’t purchase a distributorship contract to establish a territorial claim and instead is likely to be met violent resistance including gunfire.
On the rise in violence and death stemming from criminalization and associated drug wars see Lindo and Padilla-Romo 2015.
Criminalization of ordinary citizens is discussed in the section on Community Destruction Operations further below.
Decriminalized Criminal Businesses as Special Interests: Definitions
At times political managers may opt to decriminalize criminal businesses for them to become special interest client-donors; this includes the operations of political management itself: These are “business” activities that would normally be regarded as criminal regardless of whether the law decriminalizes them. Therefore, decriminalizing a criminal act is itself a crime and implicates the machinery of political management as a criminal entity. However, it should not be assumed that all the tools enabled by politically-managed decriminalization will necessarily always be deployed on the public (also see the Toolkit of Political Management in Appendix 1). Moreover, it should not be implied that political managers would necessarily choose to take on truly criminal special interest client-donors--only that there can be strong incentives to do so for campaign fundraising, especially if the businesses operate under legitimate-appearing fronts, to be discussed further below. A final point is that while the criminal acts may be recognized as crimes in the law (de jure), the decriminalization of crimes may involve redefining the crimes as non-crimes by changing the law, or by simply ignoring the commission of the crimes and treating them as non-crimes (de facto decriminalization).
In brief, examples of decriminalized businesses, including that involving the state machinery and political management itself, may include the following:
Theft of property (e.g., organized vehicle or retail theft, asset confiscation/civil forfeiture, imputed ownership in the proceeds of human labor; also see slavery below).
Implicit theft (fraud). These are businesses based on acquiring resources by deception and defrauding others; this includes dissemination of propaganda and counterfeiting of currency (also see the separate discussions on politically-managed (decriminalized) legalized counterfeiting elsewhere in this study).
Involuntary arrangements/coercion (e.g., extortion, * violation of bodily autonomy including by uninformed consent or weaponized psychological means (coerced administration of drugs and injections), trespassing on private property (home invasions), violation of the right of self-ownership such as slavery (imputed ownership in human chattel), false imprisonment (e.g., lockdowns, jailing/imprisonment, house arrest for non-crimes), involuntary human trafficking crime rings / kidnapping (also including conscription), murders/assassinations-for-hire, decriminalized violence (including decriminalized killing in state-sponsored wars and conflicts) etc.).
(*) Note on extortion: This also may apply to de facto decriminalized legal extortion by political managers as part of political investment business operations (campaign fundraising) to extract income from targeted special interests with threats of legislative action, etc. See Appendix 1 under Legal Extortion: Shakedown Operations by Political Managers for further discussion
Serving Criminal Business Special Interest Clients (e.g., organized vehicle/retail theft, or as detailed above human trafficking of involuntary migrants). If these operators can find ways to become special interest clients as campaign donors (possibly operating as legitimate-appearing fronts) these activities may be given special permissions by political managers in a variety of ways, de facto or de jure decriminalizing them by changes in local laws to minimize or remove penalties, withdraw law enforcement, install local prosecutors who release the individuals associated with (or ”working for”) special interest clients, or instituting lenient or selective bail arrangements for offenders. This can potentially continue for as long as this “decriminalized” criminal income is recycled into recurring political contributions to keep the activity from being interfered with. This potentially lucrative politically-managed process can be extended to bring in international actors (e.g., international drug cartels) although depending on the activities involved some additional intervention may be necessary including from clandestine organizations and negotiations with other competing special interest clients to carve out geographic areas for their activities.
Decriminalized Trespassing Operations (aka “illegal migration” policy)
Trespassing across borders, if de facto permitted by political managers, may be indicative of a tacit policy of decriminalization of trespassing despite laws (de jure) against illegal border crossings. Misnomer. A key and unfair deception involves labelling such migrants as “illegals” when political management de facto has decriminalized the acts! However, a disturbing exception occurs when the decriminalized trespassing involves individuals who are being trafficked against their will (involuntary migrants); in such a case, these individuals are being victimized not only by being labelling as “illegals” without legal recourse in the receiving country but also by their captors who are trafficking them, and decriminalization by political managers could suggest complicity, whether intentional or not.
On the question of trespassing on public property vs. private property, it could be argued that public property is subject to the decisions of those who are tasked with managing the public property. If we accept this as valid and set aside internal/national security concerns of invasion and potential harms to citizens, it is still reasonable to consider that officials reserve the right to refuse entry and that any unauthorized border crossing remains subject to a trespassing charge. Therefore, the term “decriminalized trespassing” is employed for this discussion and is also seen as a more accurate description than “illegal” migration when border crossings are being permitted by political managers to occur.
Migration across borders may be decriminalized by political managers to assist their special interest clients and possibly in hopes of securing future votes for the “pro-immigration” faction of political management. Because the control of future votes may be difficult, mass indoctrination, especially in the school systems may be sought, but selection of an anti-immigration opposition faction (party/candidate) may be most effective to secure immediate support for the pro-immigration party.
Political managers of either faction that de facto permits the decriminalized border crossings may be able to assist a wide variety of special interest clients in doing so; a few examples are provided next.
Businesses that require labor (especially in agriculture, manufacturing, etc., for which the domestic labor pool may be limited). When nation-states begin to face financial difficulties, bureaucratic special interests such as the provincial/state or national Treasury may enjoin political managers to help them shore up the finances. A portion of the migrant wages are likely to be reduced to be paid to the Treasury in the form of withholdings (e.g., for taxes, pensions, medical, depending on the country), and within a year additional tax payments may be due. Moreover, since the individuals are from abroad, some number may eventually return to their home countries by choice or by subsequent deportation by the authorities, any pension payments received remain with political management entity and will never be paid to them. From this financial standpoint, it is likely that decriminalized entry (“illegal” migration) is preferable to making stimulus payments or universal basic income (UBI) to citizens because those payouts may result in less return of the funds to the political management. Another possible special interest client of political managers (perhaps more at the local level) would be real estate developers and contractors for the construction of new facilities and housing developments to accommodate the influx of migrants. Another possible special interest client, the hospitality industry (hotels, motels, etc.) may also receive funds to house migrants, at least temporarily. Other special interests may be tech companies for the issuance of special forms of ID (digital, or cards) and the issuance of electronic devices such as smartphones, paid for by politically-managed (public) funds.
Exploitation of Migrants. As noted above, an important objective of mass de facto decriminalized migration may be to reduce labor costs for employers in the target country, raise revenues for governments from deductions, and to offset price inflation pressures in the target country. Tragically, many politically decriminalized migrants may face a precarious future: Despite false assurances of a “better life” many may discover a society with a high cost of living and crime. Employment opportunities may be limited to dangerous or substandard working conditions for exceedingly low pay and benefits which they cannot complain about for fear of reprisals and lacking the legal protections of citizens.
Controlled Marginalization and Division to Prevent Grassroots Unity and Mobilization. To maintain and tightly control the exploitative dynamics, another objective may be to marginalize the migrants to keep them from unifying with other workers and rising up for better working conditions and wages from the corporate clients of political managers. This might be done by causing public distrust and suspicion of all migrants as "invaders" and "criminals" (a perception which may be reinforced by high-profile cases of lax prosecution or non-deportation for heinous crimes committed by migrants—turning the public against all migrants as a collective rather than the politically-managed process that facilitates criminality; see the separate discussions on collectivist logic and collectivism). In turn, honest, hard-working migrants may tend to avoid citizens due to constant fear of being targeted for deportation due to the legal grey area created by this de facto decriminalization policy. Any mobilization by migrants for workers' rights against exploitation is to be directed not by unifying with organic movements among common citizens but by political managers who may opt to weaponize this new constituency against the citizenry to consolidate power. The migrants will likely the focus of public anger rather than the politically-managed process of orchestrating discord and division.
Border Policy in Politically-Managed Systems. The discussion of “open borders” generally relates to systems of political management rather than of economically-managed communities. In the present politically-managed context, see arguments by Stockman (2024a) against border-closure policies to boost the number of working-age individuals and GDP of nation-states, and by McMaken (2024a) on critical problems caused by unrestricted open border policies in multiple politically-managed scenarios worldwide. Demographic warfare on citizen-residents of a nation may be initiated by an external force or a nation-state’s own leadership to build a new power structure for itself (or a mix of the two as part of a vassal state alliance). This form of warfare involves intentionally flooding the nation with people of highly dissimilar backgrounds, or that are representatives of the internal or external conquering forces. A power grab is made possible by exploiting the chaos and conflict created as a pretext to escalate police or military intervention, or by promoting the new arrivals into positions of power as part of a self-orchestrated coup.
On the notion of ‘borders’ in economic management, see the Closing Remarks of this study and the Key Notes to Table 1, and the Appendix, Conclusion to the Summary Definition. Part B.
The next section focuses on another kind of potential special interest client: Human traffickers.
Human Trafficking: Traffickers as Special Interest Clients
Human trafficking is treated as a possible subcategory of Decriminalized Trespassing Operations because human trafficking may occur in connection with trespassing activity. Human trafficking is divided here into two categories (with possible sub-categories) as follows: Voluntary and Involuntary.
A very dangerous potential outcome of politically-managed border control and the blanket decriminalization of trespassing concerns criminal business operations such as involuntary human trafficking. If this is part of a politically-managed client arrangement with the traffickers, this could suggest complicity by political managers. In addition to the crimes against the involuntary victims, ordinary citizens within the nation’s borders may also be placed at risk.
(1) Voluntary. Human trafficking of voluntary decriminalized trespassers. Aspiring migrants pay a fee to the traffickers who in turn donate to the campaigns of political managers in hopes of finding work or a better life in the target country. Political managers may allow this activity to be effectively decriminalized by policy to serve certain special interest clients as noted above, and other special interest clients, discussed further below. By flooding an economy with the migrants they have permitted to enter, political managers not only may benefit special interest clients seeking cheap labor but can impoverish citizens of the country due to inordinate wage competition and job loss. Moreover, depending on the political dynamics, massive illegal immigration policies can succeed in gaining voting blocs from the pool of migrants while simultaneously “defunding” and disenfranchising the working classes who political elites may perceive as an ‘enemy’ or as their political opposition.
Role of humanitarian organizations (whether real or as fronts) may also be special interest clients of political managers that receive funding in exchange for campaign donations and possibly other forms of support. They may compete with human trafficking operations, and although these organizations also effectively perform a trafficking role, they may have been given special politically-managed permissions under the stated mission of bringing in voluntary decriminalized trespassers/migrants into countries to assist in their safe passage.
(2) Involuntary. Human trafficking of involuntary decriminalized trespassers/migrants (e.g., sex slavery, forced labor) including unaccompanied children/minors. Where large numbers of politically-managed decriminalized border crossings are concerned, together with disorganization and lack of accountability, it is possible for this criminal form of trafficking to occur largely unnoticed because it can be mixed in with the trafficking of voluntary decriminalized trespasser/migrants. While the obvious suspects for such activity may be gangs or cartels, it should be highlighted that unfortunately, humanitarian assistance may also unwittingly serve as a convenient cover for such activities. Political managers may unknowingly be helping to fund organizations that are operating under the guise of humanitarian, philanthropic or religious purposes to facilitate the transport of involuntarily trafficked individuals within, and from outside of, a country. For example, during transit there exists a risk of handoffs of the victims to individuals, organizations (or even through certain actors within social service agencies) that in turn may traffic these victims to generate additional income for themselves and with kickbacks paid to their “suppliers.” Tragically, through politically-managed social services involving minors, financial incentives may exist for the redirection of custody of minors--both citizens and the migrant children-- for trafficking under the guise of ‘protective care.’
Other Special Interests
It is also possible for various actors in this chain of custody that benefit financially from this activity to become special interest clients of certain political managers donating funds as a form of “protection money” should this activity be discovered by law enforcement at some point.
Community Destruction Operations: Land/Property Grabs
Decriminalization of Criminal Activities. Criminal activities may be de facto decriminalized in a community as part of a broader politically-managed operation to benefit another type of special interest client and donor to political managers: real estate investors and developers, for the purpose of low-cost property acquisition. Note that there is a potential criminalization component of such operations, as detailed below.
Steps to Community Destruction. Political management can help foster a “lawless” environment beginning with early violent criminal and other releases, decriminalization of retail theft (which may include organized theft rings), impunity and lax treatment in the courts and bail system, and orchestrated withdrawal of basic law enforcement protections. This lawlessness can help accelerate the destruction of communities/municipalities.
How does this benefit special interest clients and political managers? Property values can more effectively be driven down when residents flee, and businesses fail or move out of the area due to massive theft, financial losses, physical danger, and fear of crime. Property acquisition through policy-induced bankruptcy. A highly profitable outcome of such community destruction policies is the acquisition of properties in bankruptcy, roughly in the following manner: Urban flight reduces foot traffic and customers, precipitating business failures that leave commercial properties vacant. Combined with other policies such as eviction moratoriums on residential real estate, the lack of lease or rental income deprives the property owners of the cash flow to service their debt on those properties, leading to defaults and bankruptcies. Financial institutions liquidate the properties to recover their loans, potentially at severely reduced “fire sale” prices in auction. When property values have been sufficiently knocked down, real estate investors and developers can then purchase the properties at bargain prices in anticipation of higher returns on their investments.
These politically-managed operations may also require some forms of criminalization of ordinary citizens, as discussed next.
Accelerating Out-Migration and Bankruptcies
Other Contributing Policies. Whether intended or not, other politically-managed operations can help accelerate the evacuation of and sale or (forced) transfer of properties, either with the above-described policies, or separately. These policies may apply not only to land and real estate grabs, but to acquisition of resources.
A few possible examples are noted here:
1. Lockdowns and forced business closures under the guise of public health policy can create immense financial hardships for businesses and individuals that precipitate both business and personal defaults, bankruptcies, and a rise in vacant commercial and residential properties available to be acquired at fire sale (low) prices by special interest clients such as real estate investors and developers. When combined with the lawless and criminality policies described in the above sections, a so-called “public health emergency” enabling economic shutdowns may help further accelerate the process of property transfers. In a sense, lockdown policies treat ordinary citizens as “criminals” (criminalization) to be locked up in their homes. Also note that many small businesses may be disproportionately harmed by such policies while larger business operations such as big-box stores and large online retailers may benefit from their client relationships with political managers that allow them to stay open, etc.
2. Engineered natural disasters such as wildfires that destroy communities and force evacuations, or by employing (current/future) technologies capable of causing abnormal weather, seismic or other events (re: geoengineering; Wigington 2017) for purposes of land acquisition or pathological profits (also see section #15 below on New Business Models).
3. Engineered environmental disasters such as chemical spills, chemical fire of unknown origin* turn tracts of land into toxic waste areas (e.g., dioxin). The contamination leads to orders for evacuation and take-over under pre-set regulatory or other guidelines for clean-up or restoration (e.g., superfund sites); later, the decontaminated properties are transferred to special interest clients at low pre-negotiated prices or under below-market leasing rates. Special interest clients may real estate developers or businesses that are looking for sites upon which to build their factories or other facilities. (*) Note on “unknown cause”: Lack of Investigation. If the environmental disaster is part of a politically-managed operation to deliver land to special interest client-donors, investigations into the cause of the “accident” may never move forward. Possible scenario: Land transfer via Regulatory Means including regulatory reversals. Initially, regulatory standards are modified to permit human sewage to be used as fertilizer on farms (re: biosolids) as part of a politically-managed arrangement for certain businesses or entities; farmers then begin to use this newly authorized type of sewage-based “fertilizer” (which also may be cheaper that standard fertilizers). Subsequently, the regulatory authorities declare the properties hazardous/unsafe due to contamination of the farms from the use of this sewage “fertilizer” (e.g., per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, PFAS), microplastics, other types of contamination) and order the farms to be shut down, designating them as superfund sites. Properties may then be confiscated, to be cleaned up by contracted environmental cleanup firms. Following cleanup, the properties are transferred to large agribusiness firms, real estate investors or other businesses for development. It should be highlighted that at each stage of this process, it is possible for a variety of businesses including those noted in this scenario to be special interest client-donors of political managers.
4. Regulatory harms. Political managers (coupled with administrative state bureaucracies) can raise costs to prohibitive levels on individuals, farms, and other businesses in the process of catering to their special interest clients. Landowners/homeowners may be forced to sell, regular would-be buyers may refrain from buying when regulations adversely raise the costs of property ownership or of running their farms or businesses. In combination with other politically-managed operations, this can serve to weaken prices of real estate and land and increase their attractiveness for selected property investors who are clients of political managers aiming to acquire property cheaply.
5. Central Banking and Monetary Policy. While central banks may not be seen as politically-managed entities, it is possible for certain special interests to factor into their decision-making, even if not directly. Property values and businesses can come under pressure when the monetary authorities embark upon a more restrictive monetary policy including the raising of interest rates. Higher rates increase borrowing costs/debt service and can discourage debt-financed property and/or business purchases.
A related point is that when businesses and homeowners are bankrupted from any or all the above-mentioned policies, financial institutions that had loans outstanding to these bankrupted borrowers may face problems with non-performing loans. Facing losses on their loan portfolios, banks may pull back on lending, reducing their net interest income, including after accounting for loan losses. Moreover, a rising interest rate environment can adversely impact their bond portfolio values. A confluence of such factors can increase the risk of banking system failure.
Criminalizing Ordinary Citizens/Sowing Discord. It is likely that preceding and during such politically-managed operations, campaigns to prevent criticism of engineered lawlessness and decriminalization of criminal activity would be necessary. An example might be to accuse all critics of these policies of acts of discrimination, hatred, oppression against members of that community (e.g., by religion, ethnicity, race, national origin, income class, or a combination, etc.), backed with criminalization of speech by redefinition of crime to include (critical) speech. Tragically, to maintain a narrative of the community being victimized only by outside observers/critics of the lawless policies, political managers and the media may tend to ignore or suppress information and reporting about the sustained violence against members of the community by other members of the same community. If intentional, this would suggest complicity by political management and their controlled media.
Other forms of criminalization may serve to accelerate the out-migration of residents and induce them to sell their properties. Together with the engineered withdrawal of law enforcement as noted above, political managers may also need to threaten ordinary residents with disarmament and/or criminalization and/or severe punishment for acts of self-defense against violent criminals that have been released into their communities.
In sum, a well-orchestrated combination of policies--decriminalization (of criminal activities) and criminalization (including of ordinary citizens) -- as described above may be effective in hastening the departure/out-migration of residents and the sale of their properties without them fully realizing that this is part of a politically-managed operation to transfer wealth to special interest client-donors, as is detailed in the next section on policy reversals.
Policy Reversal Phase
For detail on the next key phase involving low-cost financing of those properties, return to Note 5 just above on Central Banking and Monetary Policy, and see the commentary below on Monetary policy pivot.
Return of Law-and-Order. At some point after the real estate purchases are made (or options exercised), political management engineers a shift towards restoring “law and order” to bring confidence back in the community, and thereby raise property values. If successfully orchestrated, political managers can deliver substantial pathological profits for the property investors and developers; this process may vary and go by different names (“disaster capitalism”, “urban gentrification” “community LBOs”--leveraged buy-outs). Additional pathological profits can be earned from other politically-managed means: For example, if the orchestrated “riot” and looting operations involve total property destruction/massive fires, this can lower the cost to investors of demolishing older properties; also, gains can be multiplied by investments in politically-managed tax-advantaged Opportunity Zones (Austin-Fitts 2023) or perhaps certain Special Economic Zones (SEZs).
The return of law & order may also be linked to a shift to a so-called police or surveillance state (e.g., militarization, checkpoints, random bag and body checks, biometric ID, etc.); after a prolonged period of politically-managed lawlessness such a shift may be more likely to be welcomed by some citizens. In addition to the real estate investors and developers that gain from rising property values, multiple client-donors can expect to benefit from this law-and-order shift including the tech industry that stands to obtain contracts for the rollout of an enhanced security state infrastructure.
Monetary policy pivot and completion of wealth transfer to special interest clients. In an attempt to shore up a weakened financial system, monetary authorities may initiate interest rate cuts and bailouts (of financial institutions, failing municipalities or other jurisdictions, etc.), but at the cost of significant inflationary pressures if the bailouts are conducted with large quantities of currency created by the central banks, leading to greater cost-of-living hardships on common citizens. Continuing from the section above on community destruction strategies and acquisition of properties by policy-induced bankruptcy (including via over indebtedness/debt slavery), strategically timing these property acquisitions with a monetary policy pivot to cutting interest rates, real estate investors have not only acquired the properties at low prices, but they are able to cheaply finance these properties as well. As inflation and a politically-managed policy shift back to “law and order” help bring back confidence and a property value recovery, these special interest clients of political managers are now a new class of wealthy real estate owners--their political investment has paid off. However, common citizens who do not participate in this politically-managed wealth transfer are impoverished by declining purchasing power from sustained inflation, and pathological wealth inequality widens further.
Note on Community Destruction Policies. This politically-managed process of destroying (local) economies to reduce asset prices may be confused with "creative destruction" (re: Schumpeter 1950; Tremblay 2024), but the politically-managed community destruction operation described here is distinct from the process of new business start-ups/enterprises acquiring market share from established businesses that may be lacking innovation and responsiveness to changes in market demand.
Additional Notes to #12. For additional discussion on migration policy, see Appendix 1 of Kennedy 2022e on Open Borders for Targeted Nations.
In closing this section, a few other important points are added:
Note 1. Hypothetical Scenario: Organized Crime Client Relationship Development. This section briefly illustrates how a politically-managed operation might bring criminal business operations into a jurisdiction (as noted above this dynamic can equally apply to both international and local actors). Similar to the initial phases of political investing, as donors, these groups make their initial political investment with some “requests” attached to their donations (as well as to ensure the continuation of such donations in the future). Coordination. As part of a decriminalization of criminal activity policy is concerned, political managers might need to work with the heads of police forces to make their political-managed planned operations/“deals” work more smoothly, which may include withdrawal of law enforcement. Although in politically-managed entities law enforcement can be a significant special interest client itself, this is not to suggest that law enforcement would necessarily receive donations/ proceeds directly from such criminal business activities or future investment gains from engineered community destruction operations. Rather, political managers may as an intermediary arrange to offer law enforcement other types of compensation/benefits for their cooperation in coordinated politically-managed operations including promises of future budget increases. Notably, increased funding is more likely to be forthcoming if politically-managed lawlessness is successful in securing support from a fearful and subjugated public begging for a safe community once again (for more on the dangerous monopoly origins of this dynamic see Tool #8 of the political management Toolkit in Appendix 1 on the Monopoly Provision of Security). Meanwhile, because of their cooperation in withdrawing from basic law and order functions, law enforcement entities run the risk of being found liable for dereliction of duty, property, life, and other damages caused to the community during the politically-managed community destruction operations. Therefore, it may also be advantageous for law enforcement as a special interest to support and donate to the campaigns of political managers as a form of insurance/protection money against any future claims for damages against the department or its police personnel. Fronts and Deals. Decriminalized criminal business activities are likely to be fronted by superficially legitimate businesses, and therefore knowingly or not, political managers may welcome not only the additional and continued campaign donations but also the revenues derived from these new income sources and support from any other criminal constituencies (even if the end result is to the detriment of the overall jurisdiction, resulting in net losses and deficits for the politically-managed entity due to out-migration and overall declining revenues; note, however, that forcing out-migration also may increase the proportion of special interest clients/constituents that support the political manager among the remaining citizen-residents of the jurisdiction! What is likely to be most important is the continuation of the financial and other support for the political managers to remain in power at all costs.
Building New Clients (Criminal Entrepreneurs). A more complex scenario arises when a new operator wishes to enter a criminalized or decriminalized market that is already supplied by other gangs/cartels. Here it may be necessary for political managers to engage in complex negotiations to carve out a geographic area for their new client. To do this, the political manager may need to offer “incentives” to the existing operators who will lose market share to the new market entrant.
Recall the permissions that political managers may need to arrange for, including by changes in local laws to minimize or remove penalties, withdraw law enforcement, install local prosecutors who release the individuals associated with (or” working for”) special interest clients, or instituting lenient or selective bail arrangements for offenders.
Successful delivery of benefits to these criminal clients may yield some percentage of the proceeds of the stolen goods being contributed to the political managers for their subsequent campaigns, though this may not be apparent due to the use of numerous business fronts: For example, for every 100 currency units of resold stolen goods (e.g., vehicles, merchandise from retail outlets), in a criminal operation at the national scale, if just 1% of total annual stolen proceeds totaling in the billions of currency units can be donated back to the political managers the increase in campaign donations could reach the tens of millions.
Note 2. Multiplying Clients: Securing financial resources to assist with sales for initial clients. Political managers cannot adequately serve a business client (that supplies a legal criminalized or decriminalized product or service) if members of the community don’t have sufficient financial resources to buy the product being offered. Therefore, the business client may have an incentive to request that political manager provide additional funding for the community to help pay for the products. Therefore, to complete the circle, political managers may end up needing to serve two different special interest clients in this process: #1. The business operators who initially became their clients #2. Those receiving social assistance to ensure the continued flow of funds into the community. Note that the businesses involved are not necessarily limited to “criminal” operations; large established corporations as special interest clients also have an incentive to increase their (food, drink, other) sales via social assistance budget increases with the help of their political managers. #3. The politically-managed jurisdiction itself (localities such as municipalities, provinces/states) by pursuing these and other policies than deplete the financial base of the managed area leading to default may need to become a special interest client of a another jurisdiction (province/state, national) for a rescue package (bail-out) to cover financial losses. This may continue indefinitely until public funding runs out, or central-bank currency-induced inflation becomes impossible to continue and the funds abruptly stop.
Note 3. Political shifts and deal-making: Despite earlier gains made with new clients and /constituencies that have been formed, political managers may later need to (partially or entirely) reverse the process and sacrifice their (previously gained) clients supporters, and even some of their own party members and elected officials, to make negotiated gains in future political deals with the opposition party/ies partially or fully. A type of such a reversal was touched upon in the section above on “General lawlessness” and Land Grab Operations concerning an engineered shift to “law and order” to raise property values for real estate investors and developers.
13. Group Identity Formation (Identity Politics) and Privileged Class Status is also shown in Table 2 under Action Groups, consisting of in-groups* and out-groups which may both be exploited effectively as part of this ingenious politically-managed power dynamic. However, both locally and internationally this process can pose a mortal risk to societies due to its potential connection to future acts of violence, including military aggression and genocide, to be explained further below.
Distinction. It should be clarified, however, that the distinction should be made between (a) identity as a political tool to be weaponized and (b) identity as an expression of the individual. The consequences of politicization and weaponization are of concern here.
*Note on In-Groups: In-groups may be identity groups or business special interests or both, depending on the type of political operation. An example might be well-organized political operations including the “riot industry” in political management; while the threat of police brutality is real and should not be minimized, special interest clients can include violent rioters, vandals or looters who claim to have been mistreated or injured by law enforcement during their activities and may engage in lawfare (Ngo 2022). Political managers and their appointees can improve their re-election chances by bypassing judicial mechanisms for determination of wrongdoing and opting to give such groups taxpayer-funded compensation/payouts for their grievances, whether justified or not.
Politicization Steps: Special Interest Clients and Identity Groups. The reason for identity group formation in political management is not only to grow another voting bloc and funding for political parties, but ideally also to serve special business interests that contribute to their campaigns for financial benefits (returns on their political investments). A basic example would be politicized cultivation of group identity by religion, race, ethnicity, income class, citizens of one’s own country as in-group vs. citizens of a country identified as the enemy as the out-group, etc.) A more complex example might be politicized cultivation of a specialized identity group that seeks a path to salvation from the practice of consuming a particular kind of substance and of undergoing a particular kind of body alteration/marking(s); the special interests that benefit from this politically-managed symbiotic relationship are manufacturers of the substance, and facilities that specialize in these types of alterations or markings (that contribute to political parties for financial returns on their political investments). Moreover, members of the in-group itself is likely to be an ardent supporter of the party that claims to be their protector against the stated enemy. In later stages, taxpayer funding may also be sought to pay for the procedures and increase revenues for the special interest business. In the case of identity politics in connection with national politicization, a military expenditure build-up would be considered justified to define the group’s culture/identity, etc. against its opponents.
(*) Note on declaration of identity in the context of political management: A serious concern is the role of political managers helping their special interest clients gain access to individuals including via the media, the school systems and psychological operations to “assist” with their self-identification, particularly if minors are involved. For example, if someone identifies as an animal, the question arises whether undergoing chemical alterations, surgical procedures, or genetic therapy to “become” that animal contradicts their affirmation as “being” that animal without interventions; this suggests that politically-managed operations are being conducted on behalf of special interest clients that perform the necessary interventions, and possibly supplemented with politically-managed (public) funding.
Formation and Set-up. Political managers may decide that a specialized identity group formation may be an effective way to deliver financial returns to their campaign contributors, possibly with the aid of public relations firms and marketing professionals. Methods may differ for formation success but may tend to have the following elements to be more effective:
a) Victimhood/grievance narrative based either on a real* or fabricated act of injustice against a member(s) of the identity group that causes the in-group to feel victimized or wronged by the out-group(s), however defined; this can contribute to acts of violence as detailed further below. A potential benefit of a claim of victimhood (whether for individuals or nation-states alike) is that it can be used as a shield against being held accountable.
*Note on Injustice. It is crucial to understand the origin(s) of a real act of injustice: For example, to consider whether law enforcement and/or the justice system failed to act to bring the true perpetrator(s) to justice (Crowe 2018) or prosecuted the wrong person(s). If this injustice originated from a politically-managed process (intentional bias/inaction, including perception management by blame-shifting, guilt-by-association discussed in (b) next, then intentional creation of injustice could have been the first step in the set-up process, not (a) the grievance narrative that arose from the injustice. This could be a variation on the stealth strategy of intentionally creating a problem for which a politically-managed solution has been arranged in advance to be eventually implemented.
This grievance narrative from (a) above is combined with:
b) Perception Management through guilt-by-association or blame-shifting such that all people who share a similar group identity or resemblance with the real (or fabricated) perpetrators (e.g., the same religion, race, ethnicity, income class, political party, nationality, etc.) are defined as the collective enemy (the out-group) that members of the identity in-group can rally against. (also re: collective punishment, Geneva Convention violations).
It should also be added that blame-shifting may be intended to deflect away from the culpable parties, including by nation-states to cover up historical acts of state-sponsored violence (e.g., via indoctrination through public education systems).
c) the granting of privileged status to members of the identity group--particularly potent is the granting of judicial leniency/impunity (which may include no bail or preferential bail status). When members become aware that they have this special prosecutorial (or bail) status, some members (not all) may become emboldened to commit acts of violence that they otherwise would have refrained from. Once this foundation is established and propagated, the potential for violent radicalization rises.
d) Severing of communications. Create an environment that ensures that there is no dialog or discussion to rationally work out differences of opinion or to set limits and boundaries, including rejecting diplomacy; this can include censorship of alternative views, ridicule or dismissing of those attempting to detail the reasoning and historical context for their viewpoints, or demonization of alternative sources of information (so that the favored identity group members will be unwilling to listen to other voices).
e) Redefining violence. The grievance narrative detailed above (leading to strong feelings of victimization by the in-group) can contribute to dehumanization and justification for violence against the perceived out-group(s). The definition of violence may become amorphous in terms of actions but clearer in terms of assigning in-group and out-group accountability. Therefore, violence by the out-group may be broadened to encompass non-physical acts including staring, micro-expressions, complaining, speaking out, or even remaining silent; the offense may be perceived as more violent if the spoken words are not in agreement with the in-group’s accepted doctrine (e.g., verbal violence). Acts of aggression/violence also may be redefined to extend to a real or perceived state of “being” of the out-group (for example, simply being of a particular religion, nationality, race, income class, wearing a particular type of clothing, political party supporter, having a particular viewpoint, etc.) and therefore acts of self-defense by the out-group may be seen as categorically unjustified. The characterization of multiple types of human actions as being equally violent enables in-group perpetrators of violent acts to be viewed as reasonably justified. For example, a person making an unacceptable statement can justifiably be physically assaulted in retaliation for their “equivalent” act of verbal violence as a form of justifiable in-group self-defense against the out-group. However, a member of the out-group that acts in self-defense against someone from the in-group may be categorically viewed as being a violent aggressor regardless of the evidence.
Also note that in some cases a similar redefinition of speech as violence may be used by political managers/prosecutors to target and arrest individuals for speech that runs counter to the in-group doctrine of supporters/special interests, as part of maintaining power as protector (also see the section titled Detail on Role of “Protector” below), and to deliver financial benefits to special interests.
Unjust Consequences. In addition to the suffering of victims of violence and their families, public opinion (the out-group) may turn against an identity group and blame may be placed on all members of the in-group for any wrongdoings of a few, casting all members in a bad light (see blame-shifting and guilt-by-association noted above). This is unfair because what may be overlooked is the underlying role of democratic politics in this process and the politically-managed formation set-up as described above – especially judicial impunity—that can help create the foundations for violent radicalization and a few bad actors to commit crimes for which all members may be unfairly blamed. Resentment over a two-tiered justice system and the continual feeding of an atmosphere of distrust, misunderstanding and animosity can lead to escalating group mobilization and polarization which, if successful, can be leveraged to gain power for one or more political parties taking sides on the group identity issue, together with their special interests--summarized next. In geopolitics, group-identity politics can trigger escalation of conflict to deliver a financial return to special interests through increased military expenditures, resulting in pathological profits for the arms industry (Clifton 2021). Note: Return to section #6 above for introductory discussion of pathological (politically-managed) profits and returns on political investments.
Engineered Polarization and Power. Because the dynamics are complex it may be difficult to visualize the underlying role of this politically-managed process of polarization for political and financial gain. Redirection of Aggression. To avoid blame being assigned to those responsible for instigating the divisions and conflict escalation, it may be necessary to divert attention and hostilities elsewhere, aided by propaganda and a captured media. * Consequently, blame for the tensions and strife caused may be redirected strategically towards other group(s) or individuals given various labels that highlight their “enemy” status. If successful, the managers that orchestrate this dynamic can avoid accountability for their own actions, and stand to gain political support, power, and funding as the claimed protector* of identity groups while potentially enriching special interest clients. This politically-managed dynamic may result in irreparably fracturing societies, destroying economies and perpetuating violence and fatalities. This can occur both domestically or internationally including via the installation of puppet regimes and the waging of war under various pretexts.
Key Notes to Item #13 Group Identity Formation
(*) Note 1: Detail on Role of “Protector.” It should be emphasized that in a politically-managed context the role of “protector” can be highly deceptive and even dangerous for the “protected” (i.e., those that the protector claims to be protecting) in a dynamic that may be akin to a hostage situation (i.e., the “protected” as unknowingly being held hostage by their protectors). The deception arises when the “protector” essentially hides among the “protected” as being not only there to “support and protect” them, but also as being one of them as a form of camouflage. Once the “protector” has gained the trust of the “protected,” the “protector” may be able to harm those it claims to protect to benefit special interest clients and themselves at the expense of the “protected.” Moreover, due to the camouflage as noted above, outsiders may conflate the two distinct groups (both protector and protected) as being one and the same, and the protected may end up being targeted or blamed for horrific acts committed by the protector and may help the “protector” evade accountability for its acts of violence.
(*) Note 2: Role of propaganda and perception management: Successful politically-managed outcomes are more likely if the public does not perceive that they are being propagandized (Johnstone 2023). The invisibility of propaganda involves multiple tactics including the deliberate omission or repetition of selected information (e.g., non-reporting of injury and death associated with a proxy war, a new drug/injection, etc., while frequently reporting of studies that unconditionally support the drug/injection’s “safety and effectiveness” (possibly without disclosing conflicts of interest and funding sources). Another tactic is carefully scripted framing combined with controlled corporate media to hide accountability and cast blame elsewhere. For example, aggressor nation A provokes, funds and wages a war with nation or entity C using a proxy nation or entity B. Even though A is clearly responsible for initiating and continuing the conflict, the reporting is strictly confined to “conflict between B and C,” or “the B and C war” as if aggressor nation A plays (almost) no role, other than passively “monitoring the situation” --or if active, acting solely in a “peace-making” capacity, based on publicly-announced rhetoric that media outlets will report on (but are less likely to report on the current and historical actions of nation A). As the battle deaths of youth of A’s proxy B begin to mount, aggressor nation A’s media reports that these tragic deaths are due to rival C’s “unhinged aggression,” etc. It should be added that in addition to casting blame on C, if things go badly, A may also opt to cast blame on its proxy B. Scapegoats and Blame-Shifting. Another form of deception is to have scapegoats ready to blame for the actions of the real aggressor (e.g., nation A in the example above). Some potential scapegoats in fact are bad actors (e.g., either strongly suspected of, or known to have committed heinous, barbaric acts); this very fact can be used to an aggressor’s advantage because bad actors are more credible targets to pin the blame on for things they didn't do (re: orchestrated “false flag” attacks). A more insidious variation on this is when the scapegoated bad actor is actually *controlled opposition* of the aggressor (or of the aggressor’s puppet leadership) that also can be used to divert attention away from the aggressor.
(*) Note 3: Waging War for Politically-Managed Profit. Both conscripted recruits and civilians caught in these politically-managed proxy and other wars (via provocation of conflict, divide-and-conquer tactics, etc.) not only can suffer massive loss of life but the survivors may be permanently disabled and/or impoverished while special interest clients such as defense contractors and the banking establishment are enriched (e.g., Quinn 2023; Rockwell 2023). Note the key role of central banking in enabling more war through its ability to finance war cheaply through currency creation; this lowers the cost of war to special interest clients that may borrow for their activities (e.g., arms manufacturers) while enriching the banking-financial class that grants them the credit. To emphasize, this is not a criticism of profits, wealth generation, national defense, defense contracting or arms manufacturing, per se; rather, as with the other tragic outcomes of political management examined in this study, it is the fundamental role of political management in enabling the proliferation of unjust and unnecessary/reckless conflicts for pathological (i.e., politically-managed) profits. In addition, there is a singular threat to national security posed by political management, as discussed in section #3, Note 3 of Appendix 1 (A1).
14. Sanitation Infrastructure. Another critical potential consequence of parasitic mutualism may be overlooked: The diversion of politically-extracted resources away from essential public investment such as sanitation infrastructure development. Even if funds have initially been allocated and properly used to develop such infrastructure initially, the potential for the squandering of resources on other political priorities for other special interest clients may cause this infrastructure and facilities to fall into disrepair after completion, leading to long-term degradation and threats to public health. Moreover, as with withdrawal of public order, intentionally allowing sanitation infrastructure to degrade can be used as a weapon to extract more funds for operations.
15. New Business Models (Politically-Managed Products and Pricing Operations). Of relevance is the rise of new and ingenious business models in connection with climate change operations (re: commodification of carbon, carbon credit markets, cap and trade, carbon capture, carbon sequestration facilities, carbon “sinks”), as well as justification for the arbitrary seizure of assets (as detailed below in the section on land and resource grab operations).
With respect to carbon operations, roughly summarized, this operation is tied to a politically-managed regulatory framework that sets an arbitrary “cap” on carbon emissions such that those who emit less than the cap can “earn” carbon credits, while those who emit more than the cap must buy carbon credits as offsets to remain in compliance. The price of carbon credits on the carbon credit markets may be influenced by their supply, giving an incentive to lower the price of these credits for those exceeding the limit (typically by lobbying political managers to deliver this benefit). The notion of “change” is linked to this politically-managed dynamic in the sense of manipulating the supply of atmospheric carbon to generate trading profits in the carbon credit markets and to lower their price for carbon offsets.
A result of this artificially-created marketplace is politically-managed manipulation of carbon credit prices by increasing or reducing carbon emissions through interventionist policies; it is also possible that plant life and trees are subject to destruction as they are carbon dioxide “sinks” (i.e., they consume CO2 to grow); therefore, by destroying plant life, the carbon dioxide that plant life consumes for its growth can be replaced by pathologically profit-oriented carbon sequestration facilities which remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
It should be highlighted that reduced atmospheric CO2 also adversely impacts plant growth and food production, potentially raising the risk of food scarcity and famine.
Pathological Profit Profile. Briefly stated, the profit profile for this politically-managed carbon credit creation tends to involve manipulating the supply of atmospheric carbon as needed to maximize pathological profits for special interest clients. With the following backdrop in mind, the profit profile is better understood: Atmospheric carbon is reduced by living trees and plant life and human-made carbon sequestration facilities; atmospheric carbon is increased by felling and burying trees and other plant life, or the mass burning of trees and plant life.
Also see Kennedy (2022i), Koenig (2023), Moore (2021), Nickson (2023), Plimer (2021, 2023), Shellenberger (2020), Wigington (2017).
Potential Special Interest Clients and Other Beneficiaries of Political Management (re: parasitic mutualism)
Agendas under different pretexts (“climate change,” “protecting nature/the planet, etc.) opens up a new source of campaign funding for political managers in exchange for delivery of benefits for a new class of special interest clients. Firms that do not adhere to the current (climate, nature, other) doctrine may also face sanctions such as denial of credit and diminished business opportunities. Industries that utilize demonstrably failed, relatively unproductive or unsafe technologies may also benefit from politically-managed promotional activities, funding and investor support for a time; notably, other special interests may benefit from the supply and price-manipulation dynamics involved, as is discussed in the next section. Deliberate focus on certain issues rather than others can serve as a distraction away from harmful outcomes resulting from other politically-managed operations (e.g., focusing on the climate rather than on destruction of the soil microbiome, genetic integrity, and associated harms to plant/animal life from geoengineering operations (also noted below) and toxicity from chemicals used in industrial agriculture/agribusiness).
Politically-Managed Pricing (and Revenues). Although possibly overlooked, a crucial element of politically-managed operations involves pricing management. Politically-managed support of client-donors in new/emerging industries also can benefit client-donors of legacy industries in the same space by keeping prices higher than otherwise (as well as gross revenues=price x quantity of units sold). For example, consider the alternative energy/carbon neutral synthetic fuels production industry as a new client-donor of political managers: For as long as these (potentially highly flawed, non-viable) emerging technologies have limited impact on supply to hydrocarbon markets while using hydrocarbons themselves, * the legacy oil and gas industries may tend to benefit from higher prices (and revenues) than otherwise possible (it is recognized that elasticity of demand and supply are also factors that may or may not produce the desired revenue boost).
*Re: “green” or renewable-energy technologies and industries (Imanuelsen 2023); in the case of electric vehicles (EVs), their reliance on hydrocarbons for electric power is often overlooked.
Notably, political managers can expand their client-donor funding sources not only by funding and the granting of contracts, but by helping to manage prices and boost sales for clients via the politically-managed manipulation of supply-demand dynamics, including interventions to (a) prevent or decelerate rollout of facilities using highly effective technologies that could pose a threat to existing industries by substantially increasing energy supply and depressing prices (e.g., nuclear power industry in U.S.); (b) impose economic sanctions on significant hydrocarbon-producing nations, aiming to reduce their exported supply of energy to targeted geographic areas to be replaced by supply from client-donors (c) support actions to incapacitate infrastructure and/or delivery of energy by business rivals (e.g., pipelines, allowing increased export business for LNG industry clients as a replacement supply; re: Hersh 2024).
1. Carbon credit trading and Investing: Engineered changes in supply and price may allow for trading profits in the carbon credit markets. (Note: If advance knowledge of a particular “climate change” operation can be obtained, all parties involved (including political managers) in the trades may be able to enjoy outsized pathological profits from trading in the carbon credit markets).
2. Carbon credits: Earnings for artificial carbon sinks and collection of CO2 as an input for hydrocarbon fuel production under reducing conditions (see next): For example, carbon sequestration facilities can “replace” trees as carbon sinks; carbon sink and feedstock “developers” may purchase land to convert its plant material into a feedstock input to fuels or chemicals (See #6 on hydrocarbons below).
3. In land and resource grab operations political managers assume arbitrary emergency powers as self-proclaimed stewards of nature and the planet. Assets can be seized by officials under the pretext of an emergency (e.g., “climate,” threat to nature/natural habitats, etc.) either for transfer to businesses that have been rebranded under the new doctrine (e.g., climate-sensitive, nature-sensitive businesses), such as developers/real estate investors, exploration and development companies (e.g., hydrocarbons), or to keep as government-owned property and withholding the supply of properties for release onto the market to keep property prices higher than otherwise possible to benefit certain private sector real estate investor-clients. In carbon supply expansion operations (e.g., via wildfires) developers can also profit from the acquisition of burned-out towns and lands following evacuation of local residents by officials/political managers. Rise of Politically-Managed Climate and Nature-Oriented Organizations. Note that in a politically-managed context, some NPOs, NGOs, “philanthropic” and other organizations operating in the name of preserving the climate and nature may be expected to play an increasing role to facilitate the hand-off process to special interest client-donors of political managers.
Clarification. The importance of protecting ecosystems, reducing environmental toxicity, and preserving natural habitats is a crucial task. However, as noted elsewhere throughout this study, reliance upon political management to “solve” these problems risks perpetuating unintended and even destructive or genocidal outcomes to deliver benefits to clients of political managers while maintaining the appearance of doing good.
4. Agro-Forestry: Increased prices and profits from reduced wood supply.
5. Carbon offset purchasers may benefit from politically-managed operations to reduce the price of the offsets they must purchase.
6. Hydrocarbon and chemical production technologies: Fischer–Tropsch “FT” synthesis and processes*; biomass* as an alternative feedstock for gasification and synthesis gas [syngas] for hydrocarbon fuel production (re: France, Almegren 2014; Chong, Ng 2021; Chen, Zhang, et al. 2022).
Notes: FT process: A polymerization reaction and “…one of the steps in technologies used for converting nonoil feedstocks into long-chain alkanes, usually for fuel or lubricant applications…” (Ellis and Zalitis 2023). Biomass may often be referred to as a “carbon-neutral” resource in syngas production as an alternative feedstock to coal and gas (Ling, Khandelwal 2021; also see Jacob-Lopes, et al (Eds) 2022). ). For a broad-based perspective on hydrocarbons including in the context of the “fossil fuels” narrative, see Radio Far Side (2024a), also, re: abiogenic/abiotic and biogenic processes.
7. Geoengineering operations. Businesses that are engaged in artificial weather modification may also benefit from contractual arrangements related to climate change operations. There is an incentive for producers of crops in one region to contract for geoengineering operations to severely curtail production in another region to manipulate their own prices and profits upwards; in exchange for campaign donations, it is possible that political managers might help “facilitate” this process of engineered destruction for their special interest clients in such operations, including across nation-states. For more on possible applications of geoengineering for special interest clients in various domains, return to section #12 on Decriminalization/Criminalization Dynamics under “General lawlessness” and Land Grab Operations. Also, re: possible role of stratospheric aerosol injections, solar radiation management, directed energy operations, ionospheric operations, and spraying/dispersion of nanoparticulate matter (also see Kennedy 2023 and Wigington 2017 on geoengineering technologies and possible ramifications).
8. Genetic Engineering and development of Genetically Modified (GM) Organisms (GMOs). At issue is the principle of substantial equivalence between organisms in their natural, organic form versus transgenic forms. Genetic modifications may have significant consequences that have not been properly addressed in part due to possible cherry-picking of the criteria used to claim substantial equivalence by agribusinesses. Such alterations could lead to unintended long-term permanent harms to ecosystems, plant, animal, and human life (re: ecocide Taleb 2018). For studies on transgenic vs. organic plants and potential adverse effects of GM on C1 metabolism, see Vivancos, Driscoll, et al. (2011); Ayyadurai, Hansen, et al. (2016); Zanatta, Benevenuto, et al., (2020); re: glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) and GBH-resistant GM soy (single transgene, stacked-variety); oxidative stress and glutathione depletion,
CASE STUDY OF PATHOGENESIS IN ECONOMIC SYSTEM HOSTS: PATHOLOGICAL PROFITS AND GAINS
We have posited that a natural feature of political management of economic systems is the emergence of various pathologies potentially in multiple domains. Perpetuation of problems (i.e., recurring pathologies) within politically-managed economies include economy-wide malinvestment (including energy infrastructure and other policies that incapacitate the energy supply at economic cost), over-indebtedness, cycles of boom and bust, financial and banking crises, impoverishment, dislocation, provocation and escalation of conflict, population reduction initiatives, human rights violations, and genocide. Many of these topics have been addressed in Kennedy (2022 a, b, c, d, e), Kennedy (2017) and other works. These pathologies are also believed to extend to the realm of human (and animal) health within economic systems, as seen in the case study presented below.
Pathological Gains. It is posited that illness and death can be a product of systemic factors stemming from politically-managed forces involved in delivering an adequate return on political investment for clients. A case study of 2021 presented here suggests multiple mutualist relationships that may be linked to adverse health outcomes and fatalities within the economic system host. Refer to Table 2A and B of the Parasitic Mutualism Framework. The most relevant symbiotic relationships include 1. Business Growth-General (granting of government contracts for products) 2. Decriminalized Business Models (legal liability immunity for product harms) 5. New Business Model Promotion (given the experimental nature of the new technology of the product) and 6. Developers/Investors (likelihood of a politically-motivated promoted bubble in the industry).
Refer to Chart 2 here of the stock price appreciation of a company:
Returns to Investors. The period under observation is 2020-2021, from early 2020 at the start of the campaign* characterized by mass testing and described as a pandemic, followed by the injection operation with its initial product roll out in December 2020 and officially-promoted phases that refer to injection administration timeframes varying significantly by geographic region. In additional to promotional rhetoric by political managers during the operation, it is also likely that a successful campaign also would require the sustained suppression of information in the mass media/social media on any harms caused by the products being promoted, at least until the bulk of investment gains have been secured (August-September 2021). Harms will be discussed further below.
At the peak of August-September 2021 an investment in this company could have returned approximately 20 times the original investment amount in the space of 18 months or less depending on the starting point of the investment made. Note that during this period other producers of these experimental technologies (e.g., Pfizer/BioNTech, Astrazeneca and Johnson & Johnson) were the subject of promotions/recommendations by political managers, the investment community as well as in advertising and the use of mass testing policies to influence public opinion* (Kennedy 2022a, h).
Although not necessarily intentional, downstream beneficiaries of policies, harmful drugs, injections and/or concomitant “public health” operations could include the medical industry due to a rise in patients/clients who have suffered injuries in connection with such drugs/injections. Life insurers also may benefit by saving on the costs of claims payouts to clients who took potentially fatal drugs/injections if it can be argued that these individuals chose to put themselves at risk despite the well-known dangers.
*Detail: To increase public demand for the product prior to a planned product release, physical and psychological (e.g., fear, threat, reward-based) tools of control via political managers, corporate mass media/social media may also be employed. Examples include 1, mass testing and coding of "positive" test results are redefined as "cases"; these data may easily be confused with formal diagnoses of disease including among asymptomatic healthy individuals, and repeatedly reported and amplified by media outlets; 2, lockdown policies and isolation from others for support; 3. masking and social distancing policies; 4. threats (loss of job/licensing) and social pressure (friends/family/community). 5. Special privileges such as freedom of movement/access for the compliant consumers of said product, etc. Whether deliberate or not, confusion between the symptoms of the initial purported affliction/illness to be treated and any adverse events, may contribute to continued public consumption/use of the “treatments” or products (e.g., injections, drugs) and recurring income for product manufacturer (e.g., pharmaceutical, test kits, masks) despite evidence of risks and harms (Alexander 2021b, McKay 2023 on masking; see Rose 2021, Dowd 2022, Hart 2023a, Martin 2023, Skidmore 2023 on injection fatalities and adverse events, discussed next).
Harms. During this same timeframe, the following data were observed as shown in the following chart labelled Figure 1 which is reproduced from Rose (2021).
URF. In the right frame, 6639 deaths were reported as of late 2021 (as noted in the figure, at the time of publication in October 2021 the data reflected were for less than the full year). Because of the likelihood of underreporting to the VAERS database, an underreporting factor (URF) is estimated to determine the actual number of reports and deaths resulting from all shots administered in each year.
It should be emphasized that multiple companies were involved in this experimental injection operation including Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, employing different technologies (e.g., mRNA, Adenovirus Vector DNA biologicals) and therefore this company (Moderna) should not be viewed as solely responsible for the outcomes reflected in the 2021 data in Figure 1 above.
Adjusted Deaths and Adverse Events. The official figures reported for the period to approximately August 2021 are adjusted by the URF of 31 as estimated by Rose (2021); note other higher estimates (URF of 41 re: Kirsch 2022a), though this analysis remains with the more conservative figure. Based on the lower URF, an estimated 205,809 deaths would have occurred during this period in the U.S.* Moreover, there were an estimated “…818,462 hospitalizations, 1,830,891 ER visits, 230,113 life-threatening events, 212,691 disabled and 7,998 birth defects” according to the study (Rose 2021). (*) A second study has estimated total injection-related deaths in the U.S. by the end of 2021 at 276,000 (Skidmore 2023). For worldwide case reviews of post-injection injuries and fatalities unrelated to VAERS reports, see Hart (2023a). Also see Dowd (2022) and Berenson (2023). As of September 2023, worldwide fatalities in connection with the injections are estimated to have reached 17,000,000 (Baletti/Children’s Health Defense 2023).
CLOSING REMARKS
The dynamics leading to pathologies within host economic systems and their individual economic actors can be complex. Both this econobiological model and evidence from the case study suggest that politically-managed economies may pose a systemic threat of illness and death in populations.
Politically-Managed Public Health. With the backdrop of the parasitic mutualism framework and pathogenesis case study (re: pathological profits) detailed in this study, public health in a politically-managed context is a grave concern. Together with special business and other interests that may act as fronts (e.g., non-profits, philanthropic organizations) in extreme cases it is possible for the parasitic symbiosis to evolve into criminal business models that involve the development of pathogenic agents (e.g., biological, or chemical) together with their proposed antidotes. Planned pandemics for profit may involve gain-of-function (GOF) technologies that generate recurring income streams for various industries through permanent dependence on treatments and therapeutic products. These acts are pre-meditated assaults on humanity and are criminal matters for law enforcement; it should be added that there may be a strong incentive to conceal evidence of such pre-meditation, with claims that said pathogenic agents were entirely “unforeseen” or “unpredictable.” (Re: chemical and biological weapons treaty violations; Martin 2021a, b; Spiers 2021; U.S. Congress 2015; Boyle 2005, 2022).
The systemic risks originating from political management are not limited to the bio-medical/pharmaceutical industries. In the case of agribusiness and food processing a legal and regulatory framework can be established to aid and protect these industries by permitting the use of harmful inputs and ingredients (Re: Codex; Institute of Medicine and Committee on Food Chemicals Codex 2003; Law Library 2018). Atmospheric pollutants also warrant further attention (re: geoengineering; Wigington 2017). For more on the consequences of parasitic mutualism in various domains and in historical contexts, in addition to this study refer to Kennedy (2022 a, b, c, d, e). Also see Engelbrecht, et al. (2021); Leake, McCullough (2022); O’Toole, et al. (2022); Sakitani (2021), Seneff, et al. (2022), Seneff (2022), Sheldrake (2012).
Solutions? The concept of economic management and the development of parallel economies has been detailed in Kennedy (2022 b, c, d) and globally (geoeconomic management) in Kennedy (2022e). Also see the caveats noted below in the Conclusion to Appendix 1 (A1) Summary Definition of Political Management. Also applicable here may be a proposed solution for the threat to humanity posed by volcanic systems in Kennedy (2022f): “… an intermediate solution may lie in the propagation of self-sustaining distributed communities across the planet in areas that may be less likely to be impacted by cataclysmic volcanic events--communities that retain vital skill-sets for rebuilding as well as the preservation of historical records for future generations to access.”
For exposition on economic management solutions via decoupled parallel systems and diverse alternative communities, see Antonopoulos (2017) re: alternative currencies; Christian, et al. (2016) re: intentional communities; Davis-Stirling (2023) re: Common Interest Developments (CIDs) 1985; 2013; 2014 Acts; Gebel (2018) re: private cities, Holmgren (2020) re: permaculture communities, also see food forests/ permaculture food forest farming (e.g., Gale 2023); Jacobs (2016) re: cohousing, and Srinivasan (2022) re: network states. Other examples include coops, communes, resorts, self-governing homeless encampments, intentional communities, private membership communities (PMAs), communities of faith or practice, tribes, master-planned communities (MPCs), etc. Note that while the speculative bubble dynamics have been exposed in the recent cryptocurrency market collapse the transactional utility of certain cryptocurrencies is expected to remain a source of value for users worldwide. Also please refer above to Table 1 and the Notes to Table 1 of this study for initial discussion. . Regarding legal foundations that may apply to economically-managed communities, see Kinsella (2023; re: natural law/natural rights). Also see Friedman, et al. (2019) on alternative legal systems over several millennia of history that might provide economic solutions. Some legal rules and tools may exist in certain forms in the early 20th century, others might be considered novel. Some examples are roughly described here: Making tort claims transferable/marketable (Iceland; favors victims with limited resources for prosecution and enforcement of crimes, while the victim does not collect if damages are awarded, this may act as a disincentive to would-be wealthy and politically-powerful offenders while giving victims some compensation for their sold tort claim); the losing tort plaintiff is liable to the defendant for damages (Athens; may reduce the frequency of lawsuits filed without merit but that can bankrupt defendants), in the case where the authorities/state fail to prosecute a crime, private citizens can prosecute a case themselves (18th Century English law; a disincentive to wealthy and/or politically-connected would-be criminals); contract practice (China; to save on the time and resources needed to consult on contract law and resolve disputes in court).
A warning is that introducing certain economic solutions or replacement of a justice system with an economic approach does not constitute an alternative to political management; for further discussion, see the Appendix 1 (A1): Summary Definition and the Toolkit of Political Management, notably section #6.
Borders. The subject of borders (open, unrestricted, walls and closures) is predominantly discussed in the context of political management over a territory (physical space), as noted briefly above in section #12. Roughly stated, in an economically-managed context, the features of politically-managed systems as described in the Summary of Political Management above are absent; each community has ‘borders’ depending on the voluntary arrangements of that community. For example, in network space, borders are in essence embodied in individuals either as solitary actors (as in solo travelers) or as members of online communities (or phyles of like-minded individuals) evolving into network-based or other types of communities; in territorial physical space, borders are likely to exist around the voluntarily acquired and owned or leased property dedicated for community members or co-owned by the members. Note that some communities may accept members of “foreign” (non-member) communities or non-member solo actors into their communities on a case-by-case basis depending on compatibility and other criteria. Over time, expansion of communities in economically-managed network space or physical space may tend to be concomitant with the growth of membership or growth in acceptance of non-members.
Note on Security Provision. The threat to security (local, national, international) security posed by politically-managed security provision is highlighted in the Appendix 1 (A1) Item #3, Note 3. The following is a rough sketch, but in brief an economically-managed approach most likely must start at the local level whereby economically-managed (not politically-managed) communities contract with security providers both for internal patrols as well as border security (possibly separate service providers), not as special interest clients but as contracted entities that can be replaced in the event of poor performance. This dynamic begins with self-defense and local/community defense, and extends outwards to larger geographic areas where several layers and types of security provision are possible and contracted for by the communities within, and costs shared or targeted security arrangements for certain infrastructure, mines, or industrial areas, for example. As for contracting for another layer (e.g., a wide-area that acts as a protective “membrane” covering the entirety of a collection of communities (e.g., wide-area (transnational) security providers), the communities share in a percentage of the cost/fees as an overall add-on, with the option of replacing the security providers for failure to perform under the terms of the contract. Diverse forms of security provision would also be likely to emerge for different purposes, including securing sea lanes and contracted for by shipping companies, etc. Security insurance add-on premiums for the member communities may also play a role in security management whereby emergence of a sudden threat or performance failure would trigger an insurance payout to cover costs of the provision of back-up security services, for example.
Warning on Stealth Transitions to Political Management. If a community is economically-managed, it is also imperative that residents be capable of identifying the signs that their community might be “stealth” transitioning to political management; for a Summary Definition of features of political management, see Appendix (A1) of this study, below.
Agenda for Future Research. A study exploring pathologies and human health is expected to follow. While some may originate from the dynamics of politically-managed systems as examined in this study, idiosyncratic and random factors may also play a role. A number of the resources for research on this topic are found in the References in advance. Update: See Kennedy (2023) for this subsequent research: Complex Systems and Pathogenesis: A Multi-layered Etiological Reference. Note that the commentary herein and the References may relate to the topics of health and medicine; however, none of the information presented should be taken as medical advice of any kind.
APPENDIX
There are two parts to this Appendix, labelled A1 and A2.
A1. SUMMARY DEFINITION OF POLITICAL MANAGEMENT
This appendix (A1) gives a key Summary Definition of political management for a quicker understanding of its systemic nature.
Summary Definition of Political Management. This is a relatively concise introduction defining a general framework of politically-managed systems. The Notes to this section (Note 1 and Note 2) provide additional detail including basic concepts of economic systems as contrasted with politically-managed systems. An understanding of this framework can help citizen-residents better identify the possible stealth transformation of their own regional management entities into politically-managed entities.
Initial Definition. Political management involves managing a political investment business within an economic system. This takes precedence over the citizens-residents of the occupied jurisdiction and requires a set of specialized skills and tools to perpetuate a self-serving control system within an economic system to enrich those participating in the politically-managed system; political management primarily involves coercion, deception, and sustained suppression of economic and voluntary forces in a self-reinforcing/positive feedback loop (i.e., "positive polarity").
Key Objective and Business Model. To conduct a (political investment) business that derives from the self-granted power to deliver benefits to special interest clients-donors (political investors) typically at the expense of a captive public whose interests as citizen-residents have become subordinated to these politically-managed business dynamics. Benefits to Clients. These benefits may be in the form of generating a financial return for the client (e.g., 10 times return on original political investment) but also may involve protecting clients from prosecution or refraining from carrying out threatened actions against a target (i.e., extortive), as detailed further below.
Protection Racket. This political investment business also may include a protection racket whereby in exchange for a political investment from a special interest (either an existing client or client-to-be), political managers will promise to grant legal immunity for the client (e.g. granting liability protection against claims due to their harmful products).
This dynamic enriches the mutual beneficiaries (political managers and their client-donors) via extractions from the public with limited or no accountability where costs/losses can be passed onto others, this is a special type of symbiotic relationship termed parasitic mutualism as described in the main text above.
Variation and Exception to Mutual-Benefit Dynamic: Legal Extortion
Legal extortion can occur with examples as follows: Political managers may have a special interest client hoping to “knock out” a competitor. In such a case, the “benefit” provided to their client is by extorting the targeted business in various ways. As previously noted in connection with Diagram 1 in the main text above, political managers may also engage in self-serving legal extortion “shakedown” operations against a target where no special interest client-donor exists (other than the political managers themselves); this type of relationship is described as parasitic; see Legal Extortion: Shakedown Operations next.
Legal Extortion: Shakedown Operations by Political Managers. Political investing is not only initiated by special interests but also by political managers to extract donations/funding from special interests, and to gain votes.
(1) Legal threats via impending legislative action to be taken, such as new regulations or deregulation, more extractions (aka tax hikes), a product ban or "crackdown" on an industry, a pullback of future funding and support for businesses, non-profits, foreign interests, etc.
(2) Special Political Operations. Carefully designed operations to amplify a threat against a targeted special interest or a voting constituency "x": For example, orchestrating an "anti-x" movement (or a "pro-y" movement) that threatens the interests of "x" or a segment of voters. In the case of voters, the operation may help induce them to vote for a particular candidate or party.
(3) Both of the above may be executed simultaneously for maximum effect (campaign fundraising and voter support).
(Also, re: McChesney 1997; donor "milking," particularly likely in election years; also see Tullock 1967, 1993, Krueger 1974 on rent-seeking).
Political management generally involves absence of accountability for the agents operating within the system because the system itself is largely controlled and perpetuated by political managers symbiotically with their clients, with the aid of the structural/institutional apparatus and Toolkit of Political Management as described further below.
This systemic arrangement enables the generation of pathological (politically-managed) profits, gains, and pathological wealth inequality. It is crucial to note that rising pathological wealth inequality is also likely linked to rising inequality in pathological power relationships favoring those that derive their relatively greater wealth from politically-managed processes. (It should be clarified that this is not an indictment of profits or wealth in itself; for further analysis and detail see section #6 Pathological (Politically-Managed) Profits and Gains and section #9 on Monopoly Currency Creation in the Key Notes to Table 2A and 2B in the main text above; also re: currency debasement, asset inflation; Cantillon 1755; Mises 1931; Hayek 1944; Voslensky 1984; Stockman 2013, 2023; Jeftovic 2023). Lastly, it should be added that while the actors within politically-managed systems may change over time or be replaced, the system remains intact for potential harms to be perpetuated.
To deliver the maximum benefits to political investors, key tools are required to be detailed below in the section describing the Toolkit below.
It is important to add that this “political investment” activity may be confused with, or presented under the guise of, “democracy” or “democratic politics.” The dealmaking process between political managers and their special interest clients-donors is likely to be outside of the public eye and various diversions may be necessary to keep the public from understanding what upcoming operations* are being planned. Despite the appearance of representation through electoral politics, the primary focus is on the special interest clients. Once a jurisdiction becomes politically managed, its citizen-residents cease to be clients and their interests can be viewed as essentially subordinate to the special interest clients (with priority given to those who make sizable and recurring political investments). For examples of special interest clients, see point #3 below. *Note on Operations: For detail on politically-managed operations see Tool #10 Marketing Apparatus, Stages of Operations, below.
Business Model, Continued: Political Investment (Special Interests as “Clients”). A politically-managed entity's management team can be thought of as a "political investment firm" that caters to a certain kind of "investment client" (i.e., special interest groups, existing, new, or targeted; see below for examples). Political managers receive payment and/or votes to deliver benefits (this delivery of benefits to the clients is also called "returns" here; e.g., 1 unit of investment brings 10 units of benefits to the client-donor) to their special interest "political investors" generally at the expense of a captive public by draining their resources by various means as detailed in the Toolkit of Political Management section further below. Return to the section above on the extortive “benefit” aspect of the political manager-client relationship.
The investment contributions/donations may be accounted for as income but may be better characterized as a form of "equity investment" into the politically-managed entity made by special interests who are in essence "political investors." Such "investments" are more commonly referred to as "campaign donations" (and many other potential forms of payment). Clients who tend to be repeat investors are likely to be favored.
A few aspects of this business model may be overlooked and are discussed next:
Circularity of Funding for Special Interest Clients. A mutually self-serving circular dynamic arises from political managers providing funding for their special interest-client activities with key advantages:
1. A portion of the funds may be kicked back to the political managers and their political parties (i.e., “kickbacks”) that vote for the funding in the legislature.
2. Some of the funds may be returned via campaign and other contributions to the political managers/political parties as political investments to ensure continued funding for their activities in the future.
This funding dynamic of political management is an important contributor to the positive (reinforcing) feedback loop of political management, but may be more applicable to certain industries and activities: For example, funding for contractors (for infrastructure, the war complex such as defense contractors and intelligence community, the tech industry for intelligence and national security aims, etc.), various types of organizations conducting “humanitarian,” “charitable,” “educational/research” or other activities claimed to be in the public interest (e.g., non-profit organizations (NPOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs)), and special public-private initiatives and programs involving various industries and objectives. Note that although not-for-profit entities may not be defined as “businesses” per se, these organizations can derive substantial income from politically-managed funding.
Foreign powers/nation-states also may be significant clients as well.
Role of Regulatory Bodies. Regulatory bureaucracies/agencies may have strong incentives to partner in some way with the businesses they regulate, turning these businesses into special interest clients of the regulators. For their part, the regulated businesses may give special incentives to these regulatory bodies (e.g., contributions in the form of fees, license/patent royalty sharing arrangements, co-ownership in certain enterprises; note that even the payment of fines to the regulator for malfeasance can provide regulatory bodies with non-negligeable sources of income*). After providing incentives and/or cultivating a relationship with the regulatory bodies, these “regulated” businesses may be in a better position to help the agencies craft the regulations that “govern” them to benefit in various ways. For example, by carving out legal/regulatory monopolies for themselves, they can more easily eliminate competitors by regulatory means. These regulated businesses also can enjoy a form of liability protection from harms their products may cause by showing that they have fully complied with the regulatory framework (that they may have helped design!); this compliance aspect of regulation also can be deployed as a weapon to eliminate potential (or existing) competitors for non-compliance with the regulations. *Note: On critical issues arising from the dynamics of regulation and regulatory institutions, return to section #11 in the main text above on Accountability and Moral Hazard).
Wealth Creation Amid Lack of Demand. Political management may be a means to accelerate wealth accumulation beyond what could be possible under normal market conditions: This is possibly also referred to as free markets, although a defining factor of such markets is the absence of politically-managed market interventions and price distortions that benefit certain parties/special interest clients over others; in other words, undistorted markets that reflect reality of true costs and (price) signals of resource availability. Business insiders and wealthy individuals may invest capital in business or other ventures of their associates, friends, or certain “handlers.” An added step to ensure "success" of the venture is to provide campaign funding for political managers for their ability to generate returns by largely centralized, non-market (politically-managed) means rather than focusing on market dynamics and consumer demand. *
As a result, one might expect to see the following behavior among corporate clients of political managers, in particular: Adherence to the latest doctrine or ideology espoused by the current political leadership as a loyalty test to gain favor and preferential treatment in cartel-like behavior (re: loyalty/fealty test: the more extreme or irrational the doctrine/ideology, the greater the expression of loyalty; also see the discussion below on “repackaging” or rebranding via nominalism. Conforming to certain types of carefully crafted doctrines/agendas may also serve as a convenient justification for financially strapped corporations to reduce employees, especially of targeted groups so as to lower their labor costs, while avoiding discrimination lawsuits especially in a legal environment marked by judicial activism backed by political managers.
Key corporate managers of ostensibly “competing” businesses effectively joining forces together in various forms of interlocking directorates including possibly via front organizations; attempts to use their businesses to commit illegal acts (re: racketeering; Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act RICO in U.S., 1970); also, re: Martin 2023 as reported by Ateba 2023).
*Note: Bypassing of consumers/markets. Political management may be especially effective in promotion of products (or services) that may be unsellable under normal (market) conditions because of lack of consumer demand, affordability, interest, or because the products themselves are sketchy or carry risk of harm. Also playing a potentially important role in political management are front organizations (NPOs, “public interest,” “charitable/philanthropic” organizations, etc.) that may act as facilitators/advocates for corporate cartel-like behavior (e.g., Smith, B., 2023).
As described elsewhere, higher-than-normal (pathological) financial returns for clients may be achieved. The tools of political management are described throughout this study, but to create artificial (politically-managed) demand, deception, psychological manipulation, lack of informed consent, coercion, and fear-mongering may be used. Central banks (as part of the multiple tools of political management) and their ability to create currency, can play a key role in artificially stimulating demand and lowering borrowing costs that can give rise to system-wide problems of malinvestment and cycles of booms followed by busts (re: Mises 1912, 1931; Ropke 1936; Huerta de Soto 2012; Stockman 2013; also see Macleod 2024 on the distinction between real money and credit).
Key Points on the Summary Definition
1. Subjugation (including subjugation by proxy)
Once this politically-managed business model is established (via the Toolkit of political management detailed in next major section), citizen-residents of a politically-managed jurisdiction cease to be clients and their interests are essentially subordinated to the special interest clients that make political investments. Systemic outcomes are likely to involve significant harm to the subordinate class, although not always obvious as it may occur in nearly imperceptible stages that the populace comes to “accept” even if seemingly unfair or unreasonable. Meritocracy and competence/ability may largely cease to be a means of career advancement, increased earnings, or acclaim in favor of politically-managed placement and promotions solely according to immutable characteristics, adherence to doctrine, or insider connections, etc. Justice is more likely to be in the service of the power dynamics of political management. In extreme iterations and/or later stages of political management, possible outcomes include confiscation and engineered deprivation and collapse, collectivization, conscription, continuous war and genocide (Rummel 1997, re: democide). Also see other examples provided in this study as well as the Pathogenesis Case Study in the main text above.
Counterintuitively and tragically, politically-managed resources extracted from citizen-residents in large part provide the funding for the coercion and harms inflicted upon them.
The intricate process of perpetuating subjugation for politically-managed systems takes many forms (e.g., Bernays 1928; Huxley 1932; Meerloo 1956 re: menticide; Jung 1957; Sargant 1961; Ellul 1962; Arendt 1968; Herman, Chomsky 2002; Hopkins 2022; Pilger 2022; Curtin 2023; Johnstone 2023; Ratner 2023 re: Bezmenov).
The key role of nominalism and rhetoric in shaping perceptions during the politically-managed continuation of power and subjugation is discussed next.
2. Nominalism/Ideological Rhetoric in Perpetuating the System
Nominalism here refers to the use of names or labels, whether for political parties, philosophies, ideologies, religions, doctrines or other descriptive rhetoric to:
bolster the image of incumbent aspiring political managers and their parties, and
to label, demonize and target potential opponents/enemies of political management and power.
Nominalist rhetoric plays a critical role in transitioning from one center of a shared power structure to another to perpetuate political management (re: the uniparty) by diverting attention away from the special interest dynamics of political management by keeping the voters’ focus on the parties, "the issues," "core beliefs," or the alignment of the candidates with officially recognized political parties’ platforms on selected matters that spark passion among the citizens. This activity is heightened during the process of elections which can serve as an important cover for the underlying special interest client-donor dynamics. Some political managers may switch from one claimed ideology or party affiliation to another seamlessly because what’s important is to continue representing their special interest clients.
Therefore, under the distractions of rhetoric and names/monickers (e.g., party x, y or z, left-wing, right-wing, moderates, centrists, conservative, liberal, followers of religion x, y, free-market reformists, socialist/for the people, communist/for the workers, etc.,) a key driver of political management’s perpetuation becomes more transparent by correctly identifying the special interest clients that political managers serve, as far as this can be known.
Deceptive Model of Left-Right Framing: The Case of Advocates of Universal Non-Violence/Non-Aggression
A fundamental concern of political management is the placing of people in ideological “buckets” possibly to accomplish two critical objectives: 1. To demonize potential political opponents or dissenting voices; 2. To legitimize the use of violence by the state (state-sponsored violence).
The tragic result of deceptive framing is that some acts of violence can be categorized as “moderate” (Johnstone 2024) while those calling for universal non-violence can be categorized as “extremists”(re: Wedler 2021).
How is this possible?
The steps may be summarized as follows:
(a) The labelling of a "moderate" or "centrist" position as a desirable political stance. While the desirability of moderation appears to be perfectly reasonable, the framework may incorporate a key element of deception: The “moderate” position may implicitly accept the legitimacy of state-sponsored violence. How do we know that this framing is in fact deceptive? This may be more clearly revealed by the model’s categorization of individuals that advocate for universal non-violence: Specifically, those who oppose all acts of aggression/invasive force (see below on invasive force) which includes state-sponsored violence; in other words, those who do not recognize the legitimacy of violence (and theft/confiscation) when committed by political management. See further below for details on defensive force and invasive force.
Therefore, if the framing model places individuals advocating universal non-violence into left or right buckets, but not in the “moderate” or “centrist” position, then the framework may be condoning the use of state-sponsored violence.
For an important case study of the framework’s possible disturbing outcome, see Wedler 2021, citing Hosseinmardi, Gasemian et al., 2020 (note that this study appears to have been replaced but is referenced here from earlier records). Also see Johnstone 2024 re: an example of a position described as “moderate” in modern history; also see Woods (2024).
(b) From this starting point of a “moderate” or “centrist” position, a left-right paradigm is constructed. The greater the distance away from this "moderate center" is defined as increasingly "radical” or “extreme.” Individuals are then placed in "left" or "right" buckets according to viewpoints on selected issues and policies. However, this process removes or blurs certain key distinctions and appears to obscure/bypass the critical matter of human rights grounded in natural law and the principal of universal non-aggression (discussed further below in the section on Simple Definitions in the Left-Right Paradigm).
(c) Selective Treatment of Acts of Violence (and Theft). While this left-right model may treat violence and theft as wrong and unjustified in certain cases, there may be crucial and highly disturbing exceptions, which excuse acts of violence and theft when initiated by the state (by political management on behalf of special interests/voting blocs) as well as such acts of aggression when committed by individuals acting on behalf of political managers or who have the (tacit or overt) backing of political managers of the current political regime (e.g., the ruling political party favors group x as a voting bloc; members of group x that commit violent acts tend to be given
“inexplicably” preferential treatment in the justice system). This contributes to the perception and/or reality of a politically-managed two-tiered, compromised justice system.
(d) Conflation of Forceful Acts. A key distinction between "defensive force" and "invasive force” (i.e., acts of unilateral physical aggression) may be treated as largely non-existent or simply ignored. Briefly stated, defensive force includes justifiable force used in the act of self-defense in response to unilateral acts of aggression, not only to protect oneself but others from attacks/invasions into one’s own “space” (body, property, and life) or that of others. Invasive force would be forcefully (without permission or informed consent) entering another's “space” (e.g., body, property, and life). Also see Njoya 2024 on self-ownership, self-defense, and natural rights.
Simple Definitions in the Left-Right Paradigm
This is a rough guide that is subject to different societal and historical factors; examples are given here for a possible set-up of this left-right paradigm to the early 21st century, with a focus on political framing in the U.S. Note possible contradictions within the framework because “left” or “right” positions may suddenly shift according to priorities concerning funding from client-donors.
Therefore, it is essential to understand that this left-right paradigm is largely a well-crafted rhetorical cover for political managers to carry out the objectives of client-donors of political managers. This rhetoric also serves as a potential weapon to smear opponents (for example, it is possible for sincere advocates for peace and non-violence to be branded as “extremists,” “terrorists,” or “unpatriotic,” etc.).
However, this rhetoric and left-right framing obscures a crucial point: Universal rejection of the use of invasive force and violence may not be explicitly addressed, or if mentioned at all, only piecemeal and selectively according to “which side” one claims to be on. Remarkably, this leaves little to no distinction between “left,” “center” and “right” on universal rejection and on the matter of state-sponsored violence and theft.
"Left-wing" may include being anti-war (e.g., opposing violence in foreign interventions and entanglements) during certain periods in history, but pro-war in other periods (see below on “neocons” and the Key Notes below), anti-state and/or anti-big-business in some cases (re: Nader 2000 on corporate welfare; or re: “anti-fascists” if they favor dismantling of the existing order), but in other cases, pro-state, and fascist in support of their favored political party or once power is attained (also see Goldberg 2009; for historical analysis of outcomes under regimes that defined themselves as socialist or communist, see Rummel 1997; to clarify, this history should not be construed to mean that other politically-managed systems are incapable of similar atrocities). Political managers and parties claiming to be “for the poor,” “for the workers”/labor unions and who may often be labelled as “socialists,” “Marxists” or “communists” also fall in this left-wing category (re: Marx 1867); however, while touting themselves as “friends of working people,”de facto left-wing party politics may be covertly supportive of their powerful business interest client-donors against the interest of the workers by means of co-opting labor movements. The left may also be associated with being a “force for positive change” and ideologies favoring creation of a new order (e.g., Rousseau 1762; alsosee Note 5 below), which may be coupled with strategic mobilization/processes to destabilize, topple and destroy the existing order (Alinsky 1971; Cloward-Piven strategy, re: Piven and Cloward 1971); however, when power is attained, this new leadership may be intent on preserving the new status quo that they have helped create but will not necessarily be relabeled “right-wing” if they favor heavily redistributionist policies and further erosion of property rights, (possibly combined with support for war and regime-change operations overseas); see the Key Notes to this section below for further detail.
"Right-wing" also encompasses a variety of views such as: preservation of the existing order/status quo and property rights, in favor of the merger of state and corporate power (e.g., fascists/corporatists) for the political party and managers that they support, anti-state and/or anti-corporatist (i.e., opposed to the merger of the state and big business; however, in this case they are not typically referred to as “antifascists,” but may be labelled left-wing or libertarians). Others may be pro-state self-described patriots in favor of war (and possibly foreign imperialist expansion); thereby, opponents of war and bloodshed may be accused of being “unpatriotic” or “stooges” of the enemy, etc. (also re: Woods 2024 on “neocons;” for a key qualification, see the Key Notes to this section below*). Individuals that are part of the domestic opposition of a ruling political group that they accuse as being “left wing,” may in return be labelled as “right wing” by those in power. Also, adherents of certain religious groups (e.g., fundamentalists) or traditional values (e.g., “family values”) may tend to be categorized in the right-wing buckets of this spectrum. On the right’s historical support of unilateral aggression see Ippolito (2024); on the threat of right-wing collectivism, see Tucker (2017).
(*) Key Notes on Left-Right Framework
1. On pro-war stance. On the so-called “neocons” (neo-conservatives) it should be clarified that in certain periods in history, there may be little or no distinction between the voting records and public statements of both the left-wing and right-wing regarding support for perpetual war and the national security state, which tragically may include the slaughter of innocent civilians, and young combatants involuntarily conscripted in proxy wars.
2. On spending of citizen resources. While both left and right tend to be consistently in favor of increased spending of the resources of the citizens, their priorities differ mostly in degree: The left may be more associated with redistribution of resources in the form of social welfare payments (re: the “social safety net”), while the right may be more associated with redistribution in the form of corporate welfare and military/defense contractors. While the social safety net is a source of apparent legitimacy for political managers, the process of redistribution underpins a pernicious feedback loop in which a perpetual and growing underclass is the source of increasing power and control of the political class and its clients. In political management’s later stages of systemic breakdown and destruction of the purchasing power of the currency, the helpless and disenfranchised poor who are wholly dependent on a now-bankrupt state face catastrophic consequence; the potential for such tragic outcomes is detailed further in Tool #9 of the Toolkit in Appendix 1. Cost-cutting of government expenditures, as part of a platform of a political party or public-facing manager, is expected to come from the “right,” although this may be mostly rhetorical to gain favor with voters and may not correspond to the reality of later budget agreements.
3. Silence and Delayed Response. Political managers, regardless of being left or right on the spectrum may eventually and abruptly change their positions based on various factors, including public outrage. A critical aspect preceding such reversals is often overlooked: Political managers are initially silent on the disastrous results of their policies until the money has been made on behalf of their clients (or the sought-after “deeds” are done by their clients) after which the political managers may suddenly reverse and take opposite positions denouncing the acts committed and finding scapegoats; while this reassures the public the problem has been resolved and justice served, this was a politically-managed process from the outset and remains so, to be repeated.
4. Libertarians in Party Politics. An interesting phenomenon within the left-right framework involves so-called freedom/liberty-oriented individuals or libertarians, who may be arbitrarily categorized in the right-wing box without recognizing that the views cross both the left and right with the common thread of opposition to coercion and aggression. An example of such principles might be as follows: Supportive of free speech, freedom of association, the preservation of property rights, justifiable self-defense/the right to bear arms, universal non-aggression, bodily autonomy, anti-war and anti-corporatist/anti-fascist). However, in the context of political management, in practice a libertarian or freedom party may serve primarily as a “catchall” to coopt those who share views that straddle both the left and right and to help sway the outcome of elections for candidates of the other parties. Moreover, in a politically-managed international context, the philosophy of so-called “freedom” can also be used as a trojan horse to bring in new vassal states as part of controlled regime-change operations (re: Barnett 2024). It should be clarified while fundamental principles appear to be consistent with natural law and natural rights (for more on this see below and Tool #6 of the Toolkit in Appendix 1), some concerns highlighted briefly here include: 1. the politically-managed use of libertarian-like rhetoric to perpetuate the pathological dynamics of political management (e.g., Rousseau 1762; also see note 5 below); 2. Those who abandon such principles in national or foreign policy matters in favor of unilateral coercion or aggression, including genocide. 3.Other examples that overextend the concept of “freedom” in ways that lead to evasion of responsibility, or intrusions upon consensual and voluntary interactions; see Njoya (2024c,b) on the oft-misunderstood essence of individual rights and liberty and the unjust overreach in legal enforcement (e.g., deployment of state-backed legal force) of purported binding contracts/agreements where property rights--from which the right to contract derives—are not involved (e.g., unilateral opt-out/exit, breach of a promise, an expected action, or a claimed public/social contract or understanding, etc.; some of these may still be inexcusable but are subject to social opprobrium). (*) Property rights violations, e.g., theft of property, implicit theft (e.g., fraud), or violation of the individual right of self-ownership/non-slavery. Also see the separate discussions and references on collectivism and collectivist logic.
5. A possible misunderstanding of the concept of liberty concerns the "freedom of the individual" as expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) who may consequently be associated with "libertarian" values. However, while "unshackling ourselves" from hierarchical structures, social conventions and traditions may be superficially freedom-oriented, this "liberating" act is accompanied by embracing the establishment of a new order that rejects the old, such that in practice, the potential for violent transformation by greater exertion of state power is made more likely rather than less. Politically-managed systems remain intact, and perhaps are reinforced by the “freedom” logic. To return to the left-right framing above, this explains why Rousseau might be more correctly categorized in the "left"-leaning bucket.
6. Self-Defense. It is recognized that unbiased determination of "justifiable self-defense" may be difficult and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Major areas of concern that warrant analysis and understanding:
a) Politically-managed distortion of clear acts of self-defense to be portrayed as violent acts of unilateral aggression. This can result in unjust punishment of innocents and exoneration of aggressors.
b) Conflation of self-defense by 1) an individual and 2) self-defense by a regional management entity such as a politically-managed nation-state: A nation-state claiming to have the self-defense status of an individual is deceptive because while it is true that individuals are involved in the management of a politically-managed nation-state, there is a clear distinction between their personal self-defense (e.g., defending themselves against attack by a thief, or by employing bodyguards for their defense) and the defense of the entity/nation-state they manage.
Therefore, a set of basic principles for a regional management entity in matters of (“self”) defense is:
i) defending/protecting residents/citizens within the managed entity's borders from violence and theft (including against attacks on or within the managed territory).
ii) defending the right of individual residents/citizens to defend themselves against violence, and
iii) refraining from provoking conflict and finding ways to de-escalate conflict within and across borders to avoid putting the citizens/residents at risk of violent interventions or retaliation.
These basic principles can be a guide for evaluating a management entity's performance in defending the territory they manage. However, note the danger of an intractably broken foundation if these principles have been violated from the outset or at some point after occupation, a regional management entity is widely perceived as--or in fact is--illegitimately occupying the territory it claims to "manage:" Conflict and violence may persist indefinitely, jeopardizing overall security; see the separate discussions on monopoly occupation in this study).
An Alternative Framework for Consideration
Drawing from the concepts of defensive and invasive force in the section above, an example is provided here of a framework that could help remove inconsistencies and eliminate the legitimization of violence: Approximately stated, this alternative “moderate/centrist” position is that of universal non-violence/universal non-aggression; briefly qualified, this includes justifiable defensive force for self-defense and in the act of protecting others in response to unilateral attack, as well as a principle of non-confiscation of the property and income of others (e.g., this also includes extractions by various means including destruction of purchasing power by monopoly currency creation/legalized counterfeiting).
From this alternative central (centrist/moderate) point, a single trajectory extends outwards (no “left” or “right” exists) that identifies the degree of unilateral aggression/invasive force and theft/confiscation that is deemed acceptable to impose on others by excluding oneself from the imposition. In such a framework, the most “extremist/radical” view would embrace unrestricted unilateral aggression, violence/invasive force against anyone else for any reason, including the taking of the lives of others at will, as well as confiscation of all income and property of others, with total impunity. However, merely holding such views (e.g., “thought crimes”) should not be treated the same as acting upon such views, whether individually, or by gaining control of the state machinery that enables such views to be executed upon on a mass scale (re: democide; Rummel 1997; including basis for such actions in certain ideologies/doctrines). It is hoped that a clearer framework might be developed to help us identify and better understand the true risks of aggression to help save lives.
Other Discussion on Nominalism and Ideological Rhetoric
Slogans and Rhetorical Justifications for policies are given names that well-received by the public. While a name or justification for a policy may evoke a positive image, it should not be assumed that the name will correspond to actual outcomes; tragically in some cases the outcome may be the exact opposite of the rhetoric. Examples of policy justifications include for security/safety/protection, national/patriot, fairness/equality, care/,justice/morality, stability/stabilization, diversity/uniformity, growth/rebuilding; freedom may be employed in instances where the public has been subjected to unreasonable restrictions and it is determined that they should be given a reprieve. For extensive detail on this within the context of politically-managed economic systems, see Kennedy (2017) Economic Distortion Dynamics.
Nominalism in the Claimed “Preservation” of Illusory Ideals. Securing public acceptance of the status quo may also involve laying the groundwork with special form of nominalist perception management whereby the system that the citizen-residents are claimed to live under is given a name (e.g., “democracy,” “representative democracy,” “constitutional republic,” “constitutional republicanism,” religious republic x, y or z, socialistic republic x, y or z, etc.) followed by repeated emphasis on the benefits of this form of political organization and how it must be preserved; however what is really being preserved is not what is being repeatedly claimed; rather it is simply political management driven by its special interest client dynamics, masked by given name.
Strategic Positioning for Transitioning Power. The establishment of political management must assemble and have ready a diverse field of candidates planted within different political parties to be offered to the public. This is successfully accomplished by research and monitoring of the talking points, language people use and emerging trends in public opinion to have the establishment candidates groomed/trained to mimic the public and appear to be “their” representatives (re:Ayyadurai 2022). It may be assumed that so-called “fringe” or “radical” candidates or parties are independent, however these may in fact be specifically groomed by the establishment to capture and appeal to a certain increasingly influential demographic whose ideas are gaining popularity (Barnett 2023; Butler, P. 2023). Having candidates of all stripes at the ready for all demographics is particularly important when a “crisis” (actual or planned) occurs involving an existing political manager or party or politically-managed operation when suppression of the truth is no longer possible and the truth is exposed (e.g., crimes of various kinds including deadly or harmful products pushed on the public, waging of wars and genocide of innocents, massive public project boondoggles, embezzlement and waste of the public’s resources, etc.) has been exposed and public dissatisfaction or outcry can no longer be contained. The process of a quick repackaging or rebranding for political management retention is discussed next.
“Repackaging”: Pivoting while Retaining Establishment Power. Continued from the previous section, if popular opposition emerges from the citizen-residents against extractions, injustices and crimes committed by political elites and their special interest clients, political managers may need to shift towards nominalist rhetoric in support of a “change” or “overhaul” of leadership to ostensibly “fix the system” and assign blame for the past transgressions. Problems are all attributed to the reckless actions of political manager or party x, as well as too much/too little of policy/ideology “x” (e.g., “-isms”, more/less “socialism,” “capitalism,” more/less of religious doctrine x or y, left/right-leaning, conservative/liberal, reformist/progressive, freedom/traditional, regulation/deregulation, privatize/nationalize, free trade/fair trade/trade restrictions, law and order/checks on excessive policing/surveillance, funding/cuts, etc.). The new candidates and leadership can denounce not only the replaced leaders but also their ideology or slogans repeatedly in their campaign rhetoric and speeches as a “badge of shame” or “pox” on all future candidates attempting to revive the ideology/doctrine/religion.
Demoralization and Public Acceptance. Part of the strategy to induce the public to seek a replacement of the existing order may be through engineered demoralization by the installation of (a) clearly incompetent and/or hopelessly corrupt (puppet) leader(s). The public may be likely to be more accepting of the pre-planned replacement regime.
Stepping Up the Rhetoric. A simple changeover of power and replacement of the “old and corrupt” leadership may not be enough to convince the public that “real” change will be implemented. Therefore, more powerful rhetoric to bring in the new and reject the old power structure must be devised, often centering on a proposed new political party or system and a process of purging and cleansing to clean slate, briefly discussed next.
A New Political Party/System. For example, an entirely “new and improved” order based on core principles are proposed, spearheaded by a truly independent party that embraces:
1. true fairness and equality (e.g., justice for all, real communism to empower workers)
2. technology and science (e.g., technocracy and increased reliance on scientific “experts” to improve our quality of life.
3. Freedom and Self-Determination which may include abolishing (some) institutions of the old order to start anew and allow citizens to chart their own individual paths towards prosperity for all.
Purging and Cleansing. The new leadership may also be more convincing if they become the torchbearers carrying a banner of a new doctrine that claims to “clean slate” by fully addressing past injustices to start anew in an exercise of self-absolution. All heinous acts of the past are "cleansed" not only by the ritual of changing political parties but by implementing a new and “moral” order, etc. This process likely involves assigning guilt for historical injustices to those selected as representatives of the “old order” (e.g., the replaced leaders of the opposition party and any common characteristics of their followers (e.g., their religion, ethnicity, race, political affiliation, tribe, etc.; re: collective punishment).
It should be reiterated that the process of switching parties or “replacing the old and corrupt” (and associated blame-shifting) cannot be expected to lead to systemic accountability, other than possibly a few token prosecutions of selected scapegoats who may have only played marginal roles in the crimes committed.
While the process of vilification of the opposition and their followers as the source of all historical evils leads to conflicts and divisions between parties and even with the society overall, these divisive dynamics also may be designed to create the foundation for the rise of a new class of political managers in a reshuffling of the permanent political power structure: (1) Political managers of the new doctrine, groomed to take over and who pledge to “purge the system” and punish the opposition, etc. (2) Political managers leading the vilified opposition and their followers who have been unfairly targeted and blamed.
This “conflict” between both parties can be seen as a form of theatrical performance designed to evade true accountability since any heinous acts and injustices committed throughout history were likely to have been a collective politically-managed effort by members of both parties on behalf of common special interest clients (i.e., by all political parties who are likely to share the same clients; re: the uniparty). Whether any of the actual perpetrators and their accomplices were ever prosecuted may be doubtful.
Assumption of Power of “New” Leadership: Rhetoric and Cosmetic Changes. After assumption of power to “replace” the old order, some token measures may initially be implemented that demonstrate the new leadership’s commitment to their professed party agenda, doctrine, philosophy, religion x, y or z, etc., (e.g., nationalizations, market/tax reforms, regulation/deregulation, expenditure cuts or increases, etc.). Token prosecutions or denunciations of selected leaders (or their followers) of the old order may be pursued as well. While the politically-managed system remains essentially intact, the new leadership does bring in a new crop of political managers who continue to serve existing special interests and may bring in new special interest clients they have cultivated to become more dominant clients under the new “order.”
Power Preservation through Transitions
Non-Accountability. A critical deception of the process of transition and the rhetoric involved is that the public may be accustomed to accepting that simply replacing political managers/leadership is the equivalent of making the perpetrators accountable for past transgressions: In other words, removal from office (or resignations) is viewed as a sufficient punishment, rather than any meaningful prosecution. In a non-politically managed context, punishment for the same acts is likely to be far more severe than losing one’s job, but in political management, the outcome is far more ambiguous and likely to allow perpetrators who acted in the capacity of political managers to evade accountability for the actions taken in office. Rhetorically, blame may be cast upon the party that has been removed from power, but this is not equivalent to accountability. The reality of political management is that the execution of policies and operations that led to crimes and injustices were part of a collective politically-managed actions of multiple political managers and political parties on behalf of their shared special interests; in short, political managers of all parties may tend to work in unison to serve their shared donors to execute operations that can lead to harmful outcomes, and are obligated to cover for one another if they are to perpetuate the system of political management (as noted above, the concept of “uniparty”). The deception is effective because the opposing parties may appear not to be working together because the distinct policies and ideologies that they stand for are designed to divert the public’s attention away from the underlying dynamics involving serving their special interest client-donors.
Ideology and Donors. A key piece to this puzzle is how the development of a new ideology/doctrine fits into political fund-raising. In brief, corporate donors and other organizations who pledge allegiance to this new doctrine (possibly including preferential hiring and treatment for its proteges whose greater incomes can help with campaign contributions as supporters) are given priority for future delivery of politically-managed benefits/rewards. A similar dynamic can be seen on the side of the opposition to raise funds to elect a new class of political managers that ostensibly represent the newly targeted/victimized group.
In closing this section, it is recognized that nominalism is a convenient and efficient tool to assign a word to phenomena without delving into the minutiae (e.g., to identify systems or ideologies at least as they exist in theory vs. in practice). However, nominalist rhetoric plays a central role in deception and perception management to evade accountability and perpetuate the politically-managed establishment/status quo.
In closing, should be emphasized that however desirable the ideals, none of the slogans, rhetoric or new systems proposed should be expected to produce the outcomes claimed, or fundamentally alter the system of political management itself (i.e., the parasitic mutualism dynamic whereby political managers and their special interest clients benefit at the expense of captive citizen-residents). The scenarios given here focus on two political parties for simplicity but adding more political parties to "reform" the system cannot fundamentally alter the system of political management.
3.Financial Returns on Political Investments
The client “political investors" expect to receive benefits (in the form of a "return" or "payback") on these political investments that may reach up to 20 times the original investment (re: Clifton 2021; Hartmann 2022); note that these returns may tend to be financial but may also take non-monetary forms. See Note 2 of this Summary Definition below for details on political investment activity which may often be confused with what is called "democratic politics." Because political investment relationships can be largely at the expense of the captive public, this type of relationship is generally defined as "parasitic mutualism:" as discussed in the main text above on Reinforcing Drivers of Positive Polarity: Parasitic Mutualism in the section on the Elections Process and Political Investment Returns.
4. Special Interests and Political Managers
Preface. The systemic symbiotic relationship between political managers and their special interest client-donors (donor class) is forms what is defined here as the political elites. Although in politics the nebulous term “the rich” will typically be used to place blame for these systemic dynamics as a diversion, but this elite class is the source of pathological wealth and profits and is distinct from the “rich” that derived their wealth from serving customers in undistorted markets.
A. Who are the Special Interest Clients? (i.e., Political Investors/Donors, Voting Blocs) These likely vary by society and historical period. Two or more special interests may combine to gain from their political investments. There may be considerable complexity in categories and public/private overlap to secure benefits in return for political investments. In other cases, instead of funding, regulatory benefits or legislative modifications/legal preferences are sought. Some special interests are politically-managed and created to serve other special interests. Note also that special interest clients can be in competition and some clients may be given priority over others in certain circumstances. Foreign powers also may be significant special interest clients of a nation-state, although critical details on such political investments and arrangements may be concealed in various ways. Special interest clients may also be described as entrenched stakeholders, typically “investing” in political managers to eliminate competition, with the use of state power and force if needed. Clarifications. 1. It is not uncommon for special interest client-donors or the political managers to be the sole focus of criticism for their mutually-beneficial parasitic activity that can result in potentially horrific outcomes, however, the system of political management is essentially designed for this purpose. Therefore, while justice may be pursued against certain actors towards limiting harms, this is a systemic problem and the actors operating within the system simply change over time leaving this fundamental systemic risk unchanged. 2. There are potentially unrelated parties who benefit from politically-managed operations that are conducted for the benefit of special interest client-donors. However, not all such beneficiaries are necessarily special interests themselves; these may simply be businesses or individuals who have spotted, and profited from, opportunities created by the engineered outcomes. 3. Crossover. As part of dealmaking, even political managers and their political parties may become regular special interest clients of each other to better negotiate the delivery of benefits for their respective clients. 4. The potential threat to national security exists with politically-managed security provision; this is discussed in Note 3 to this section.
Examples of possible special interest client/donors from the 20th and early 21st century are given next, separated by several categories.
1. Business 1 (Existing). Industrial conglomerates, oil, gas and mining industry (re: land and resource grabs), the insurance industry (reimbursement needed from excessive losses incurred as a consequence of prior politically-managed operations), the financial industry (banking/brokerages/hedge funds/pension funds), legal firms and professionals (attorneys/barristers), carbon credit market investors/participants, agribusiness, the chemical manufacturing industry, real estate investors and developers (re: land and resource grabs; also see eminent domain/condemnation law to benefit special interests, forced relocations and racial injustice (Fullilove 2007; Scheiderich et al., (Eds) 2017; Somin 2015), construction contractors, the pharmaceutical and bio-medical industry (e.g., product promotion and legal immunity/liability shields from product harms), defense contractors/arms industry (re: war and conflict escalation), financial institutions/creditors, debtors/borrowers (also linked to financial industry/business financing, real estate development) as special interest clients.
2. Business 2 (New industries/business start-ups). Such businesses may tend to be non-viable whereby their product(s) have little or no market demand and financing from the private sector/venture capital is impossible due to lack of prospects or inherent product dangers that need politically-managed protection; therefore, these entities may turn to political management for funding and political backing/support in exchange for their political investments. Such activities may also have the backing of wealthy private investors/billionaire associates. Also see section #15 on “New Business Models” in the main text above.
3. Business 3. Fronts for Businesses (Various)
“Public Interest” and “Global” Fronts. “Philanthropic/humanitarian” organizations, self-proclaimed “global” entities, NPOs, NGOs, very high-net worth individuals (e.g., “billionaires,” “oligarchs”, etc.) that may act as fronts or promoters for various businesses/industries, or on behalf of unidentified entities including possibly nation-states. “Global” Financial Institutions also may in fact be extensions of a nation-state for its superpower/global aspirations by the weaponization of credit and other financing operations to subjugate other nations; this may be seen as another form of unconventional warfare. Legalized Criminal Businesses, Criminalized Enterprises, Frauds in this category may be operating behind apparently legitimate business or organizational fronts (e.g., de facto decriminalized/legalized criminal activity: involuntary human trafficking; harmful procedures or product distribution without informed consent, etc.). For details on this complex topic, return to sections #10 and #12 on decriminalization and criminalization in the main text above.
4. Organizational Special Interests
Advocacy/Ideological. Religious groups, issue-oriented associations/clubs, labor unions (even if coopted; both public and private sector employees). The category of Ideological Special Interests (Special-Purpose/New) is detailed separately below.
Foreign Governments/Powers may seek influence in the external policies of a nation-state by making political investments in various forms including covertly and become clients of political managers. Since political party control of the nation-state apparatus is expected to change over time, it is likely that political managers of more than one party may receive funding and campaign donations to ensure that the desired benefits continue to be delivered, including security guarantees.
Domestic Public Entities (Funding) Bureaucracies/civil service workforce, (re: In U.S., the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act 1883, Civil Service Reform Act 1978, Schedule F 2020. pending changes to Schedule F per the Office of Personnel Management 2024; note that the political appointees among these employees may have dual roles as both as part of this special interest group and as political managers as noted further below; also see Berman (1983) on the rise of administrative law bureaucracy), public education organizations/schools, publicly-funded science and research organizations, law enforcement (as special interest clients distinct from contracted security companies that can be summarily replaced) or other public entity clients seeking additional funding in exchange for their support (e.g., civil asset forfeiture, see Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984 in U.S.; Benson 1993; Mitchell 2017b; Wimer/Institute for Justice 2018).
Politically-Managed Law Enforcement: Possible Dual Roles. The police may function both as an adjunct to political management and as a special interest client of political managers. For example, when politically-managed operations involve legal grey areas, criminality, or violence, it is possible for situations to arise whereby law enforcement may be expected to take orders from political managers rather than follow their own chain of command even in violation of their own protocols. Political managers may offer some form of compensation to law enforcement for cooperating with certain politically-managed operations that clearly run counter to the standard law-and-order policing duties expected of law enforcement. Because police forces potentially face liability for complete withdrawal of law-and-order services, including for property damage and losses caused to the community during such politically-managed operations, there may be a need to act as a special interest client and donate campaign funds to political managers as a form of “protection” (for legal immunity) as well as to ensure the continuation of funding for personnel benefits (compensation packages, etc.). Also return to the Key Notes to Tables 2A and 2B, sections #10 and #12 in the main text above, on the dynamics of decriminalization and criminalization as well as community destruction policies to benefit investors and other clients of political managers.
5. Ideological Special Interests (Special-Purpose/New)
Group Identity Formation: Business Client. This may involve multiple steps. A business special interest client may make political investments to promote their product/services. Political managers then must create a “movement” involving identity group formation to help deliver the promised benefits to their client. If the activity becomes unethical to increase revenues the businesses may demand to remain unidentified. Influence Operations. Entities/agencies within nation-states pursuing their formulated national security or influence-operation objectives may be aligned with special interests in facilitating, funding and fostering longer-term strategies. In some cases, these activities may involve special interests centered on identity/ideological formation.
Identity/ideological formation also can be effectuated for the benefit of largely unseen special interests via the waging of complex politically-managed ideological/culture war(s) designed to perpetuate support for foreign policy objectives (Crooke 2023). On a nationwide scale this likely involves mass media propaganda (see detail on information dissemination below), and indoctrination in the school systems and universities to foster future generations of ideologically-aligned citizens against an enemy, while guaranteeing future income/funding for the ultimate special interest client (e.g., the defense industry). Also see Nehls (2023).
Group Identity Formation/Political Managers. In this type of operation, political managers may become clients themselves to cultivate and fund groups with the primary objective of gaining/maintaining political power including toppling an opponent or regime. Later, these formed groups may become special interest clients of the political managers at least as a voting bloc. As for business special interest-clients. while they may not be initially involved, if this created “movement” appears to have enough backing and support by those who hold power, are likely to become clients-donors of the political managers and the groups they have built/invested in as clients. So-called “color revolutions” (also, re: rent-a-riot) may be part of such a strategy to seize control of the political apparatus. Cultivated special interests can be varied and may include the “riot industry” or retail theft organizations strategically combined with victimhood/social justice interests whereby political managers may deliver monetary compensation/restitution benefits or lax policies (withdrawal of police, no bail, etc.) to the group in exchange for ongoing political support; also see Note 2 below; regarding perspectives on elements of politically-managed operations, the role of ideology and the media, see Ngo 2022, Sowell 2023, Taibbi 2021; also see the critical discussion in #10 Marketing Apparatus, Stages of Operations, below.
B.Who Are the Political Managers?
The following is a rough sketch and may vary considerably by governing bodies. Crudely stated and using a private sector equivalent, political managers are akin to key sales executives or public relations officers that ensure delivery of benefits to their special interest clients, but with the ability to resort to deception, coercion and violence as needed using the machinery of the state (i.e., the state as enforcer). In a broad sense, nation-states (and the entities they control including other nation-states in an international context) can function as political managers by acting to represent key corporate and other special interest clients (the process being closely linked with political parties and key bureaucracies representing their special interest clients) for direction and planning of operations; note that a single operation may be able to profitably serve many special interest clients at the same time.
Some examples are listed below as a rough guide (note there is potential overlap among categories, with many possible variations in history):
(a) Political party decisionmakers who may not hold public office but strongly shape political management, mostly from behind the scenes. Candidates that are considered for office (future political managers) comprise elected and unelected officials. Ideally, the candidates the decisionmakers desire are the ones that are voted in*; with the proper mimicking and matching of rhetoric with that of the public, as well as so-called "mud-slinging," this may work. However, if this is not possible, then "unelected" officials "win" in rigged elections (i.e., "selections" rather than elections) whereby political manager consensus for a particular candidate is believed to better serve their special interest clients than those supported by voters; in such cases, party insiders may need to negotiate to override the voters. Securing sources of political investment funds from existing and potential special interest-clients is also a critical function; the planning and execution of operations on behalf of clients are detailed elsewhere in this study, including on the topic of group identity formation and in Tool #10 on the Marketing Apparatus.
(*) Note: Popular Political Managers/Cult of Personality. It should be added that political managers who are very popular with the public can be especially dangerous in the context of political management. While they may have been legitimately voted into office, very popular leaders pose a unique threat because their handlers are more easily able to pass laws that might not otherwise have been possible. Supporters will tend to follow their leaders and their rhetoric while ignoring the specifics of the legislation that their leader signs into law and the potentially devastating consequences once the law is implemented and enforced.
(b) Certain intermediaries (e.g., regulatory agency or other bureaucratic heads, industry representatives/lobbyists, political appointees with civil service bureaucracies who may also have a dual role as a special interest for bureaucracies). Non-political appointment intermediaries may not necessarily have any permanent party affiliation and have influence with political managers of any affiliation that they advise to ensure that policy decisions benefit the special interest clients that they “represent” (e.g., an official in a "public health" related agency that acts on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry to get their product approved and on the market or to ban competing products; an official of the national security apparatus that advocates for decisions—including escalation of conflict and war-- that lead to increase military expenditures for special interest clients such as the technology industry and defense contractors). Note that in some cases, these bureaucrats may receive compensation of various kinds from the special interest clients they serve, or may have ownership interests in companies or patents from which they can profit alongside their special interest clients. Conflicts of interest in various forms are a critical source of potential harms to the public in politically-management due to false claims of independence/impartiality: e.g., a bureaucracy. scientists, doctors have a financial interest in the product for which they are charged with evaluating the safety; also, re: the “fox in the henhouse” analogy.
(c) Organizational Key Players. Prominent members of certain organizations (e.g., think tanks, "research institutes," "public interest advocacy groups," etc.,) may be similar to bureaucrats in (b) above in that they may have influence with key policy decisionmakers to better serve their special interest clients. Such organizations can be considered fronts for special interests (e.g., defense, tech, bio-pharmaceutical industries, etc.) but may masquerade as "impartial" entities producing "unbiased, quality" studies, position papers, etc., that recommend certain courses of action that tend to benefit their clients.
(d) Other Variations/Complexities
Revolving Door. Bureaucrats may switch back and forth between their positions in bureaucracy, industry, lobbying organizations for industry/businesses, or think tank/research organizations depending on the party in power if they are known to be affiliated with a particular party. For some historical examples of the back-and-forth dynamic, see Leake (2024). Some individuals who appear to ‘oversee’ large organizations could be considered political managers to some extent, but they may actually serve as puppets that are subordinate to other political managers/handlers that may not be as well-known to the public. An example might be the "boss" of a labor union that superficially appears to support the union workers as a special interest but is in fact may be a co-opted puppet of one or more other special interests (e.g., employers of the workers, industry officials, political party officials, etc.) that do not have the workers' interest in mind. This puppet type of political manager is in effect being "managed" by others and must play to the special interest group that they represent (the labor union members) that he/she is representing their interests and is "on their side."
Lobbyists for special interests play an intermediate role between special interests and political managers, but there may be considerable overlap with political managers depending on the industry and circumstances.
Downstream dynamics of Special Interests. While public functions such as judiciary, law enforcement, military and even the school systems are generally special interests that may make contributions to political managers for favorable consideration, preferential treatment and benefits, they may also pledge their allegiance and support other promoted agendas of the same political managers to ensure favorable consideration. A similar dynamic may occur with private sector special interests by choosing to faithfully abide by and comply with politically-managed operations in hopes of favorable treatment or the delivery of (future) benefits for themselves. For example, say industry x becomes a special interest client of political managers by making campaign contributions (political investments) to benefit their industry. Political managers launch operations to benefit industry x. At the same time, unrelated industries and organizations may align with the political managers on this operation even though they are not the original political investors for this operation, because by pledging their allegiance to the political manager (and its party), they expect to receive additional benefits for themselves as well.
Mass media can operate as a form of political manager by giving advertising space and promoting their clients, to secure advertising revenues for themselves; while not considered political management per se, the media industry advertisers are clients and the dynamic involved is similar to special interest clients in a politically-managed sense.
Central Banks (Monetary Policy). As a non-market “grand enabler” of political management, the role of central banks in creating currency to help execute political managers’ policies and operations cannot be understated. Details and examples are given throughout this study. While central banks are facilitators of political managers they can be viewed as a special interest client in the sense that if the central bank does not create the currency to fund what is demanded, their politically-selected leadership risks non-re-appointment, and other threats such as audits or removal of the charter (to be granted to another more compliant replacement institution or a replacement system) could be used as needed.
(*) Notes on Special Interests and Political Managers
Note 1. Information Dissemination includes the activities of mass (social) media, public relations, and disinformation organizations, to name a few. These entities may operate as businesses that depend on securing advertising revenues from their clients (advertisers, users of their platforms), or from funding from other entities/organizations including state security entities to disseminate propaganda to promote products, policies, and agendas (e.g., Herman and Chomsky 2002). Also note the potential role of the intelligence community in infiltrating the mass media to shape public opinion, monitor and control information flows. In addition, journalism schools and their graduates that may be subject to various influences including intelligence agencies, dominant political-managers and their special interest clients. Due to the threat of job loss and diminished career prospects, journalists with exceptional critical-thinking skills may opt to self-censor or be rejected by mainstream media organizations for their lack of alignment with current narratives and ideology.
Note 2. On victimhood/social justice claimants as a special interest client. It should be emphasized that there are cases where oppressed victims have legitimate grievances and are unable to find redress in a biased and unfair judicial system; this unfortunate and tragic reality should not be minimized or dismissed. However, the special interest element addressed here arises when violent/criminal acts by a group (or in some cases traffickers/gangs masquerading as social justice organizations) are not only justified by unfounded claims of injustice against them, but as part of politically-managed operations that can potentially yield substantial payouts/restitution to group members from political managers and their appointees in exchange for continuing political party support. Clarifications: Claims about past true acts of injustice may be true, but these heinous acts were against other individuals that are entirely unrelated to the individuals making the claim other than their group identity (e.g., religion, ethnicity, race, income class, political party, etc.); for further discussion on injustice, development of movements based on blame-shifting, guilt-by-association, and other means to gain benefits for special interest clients, see the main text above in Key Notes to Table 2A and 2B, Item #13 under Politicization Steps. It should be added that when retail theft activity begins to rise due to politically-managed victimhood identity groups together with withdrawal of law enforcement, lax bail policies, etc., there are other possible special interest clients (or unwitting beneficiaries) such as local businesses facing the deterioration of their communities and cratering business sales; these businesses have a greater incentive to claim insurance payouts for losses due to the theft to replace their lack of sales. In turn, insurers that are special interest clients of political managers may also request that benefits be “returned” to them by being reimbursed for the excessive insurance payouts through some form of bailout (also see #8. Business Restitution/Rescue and #12. Decriminalization/Criminalization Dynamics in the Key Notes to Table 2A and 2B).
Note 3. On the unique threat to national security (re: Butler 1935). While strengthening security (local, regional, national, or international) is a laudable goal, “(national) security” in the context of political management can be a magnet for special interest client donors, perhaps beginning with defense contractors and arms manufacturers, then as technologies and justifications are developed over time, new industries can be expected to follow suit. However, while clearly income/funds are needed to bolster security, political management poses a potentially serious threat to improving security at all levels. Although large budgets may often be equated with improved security, the nature of politically-managed security provision leads to the focus on the continuation of funding for these special interests in exchange for support of the political managers that deliver the funding rather than performance; on the contrary, it can be argued that failure tends to be rewarded with additional funding (this applies to other politically-managed entities as the objective of politically-managed operations to deliver benefits to the clients and maintain political power). Sadly, the long-term result can be the draining of resources from the citizenry for the benefit and enrichment of these special interest clients and the political managers that serve them with no qualitative improvements in security. Moreover, there exist strong incentives to worsen security, that is, to create destabilizing conditions--including through deliberate and needless provocations-- to ensure the continued flow of funds to their special interest clients; funding can be further increased if violent armed conflicts can be generated among many groups/nations whereby the special interest clients can supply weapons and other materials of war to multiple sides of the conflict. There is little inherent incentive to institute preventive actions or to negotiate meaningful cease-fires and long-standing regional peace. New Markets. Another concern is that expansion into new markets may mean turning inwards against the country’s own populace through unwarranted surveillance and militarization. Deliberate provocations to destabilize the homeland by fomenting civil unrest and “color revolutions” may be desirable to secure additional funding and special interest-client profits. Also, with the advent of newer technologies, weapons of war may also be expanded to biological, chemical, psychological, neurological directed energy, geoengineering operations, and other weapons (some activities may be conducted under the guise of biomedical manufacturing facilities or research laboratories, placing local citizen-residents at risk).
As noted in the Closing Remarks above and elsewhere, including Kennedy (2022e; Chapter 5 in this book), an economic solution for security is by fixed contracts for security provision services for a defined geographic area, likely beginning at the local level* and working outwards, with the terms specified for breach of contract to replace a failing or incompetent security provider. A back-up layer involving security insurance to cover failure to perform in the meantime. *Note on localities: It should be emphasized that the local entity also must be economically-managed, otherwise the self-reinforcing dynamics of political management will persist.
Note 4. On Positive Traits for Political Management. A highly popular public-facing political manager, combined with the machinery of the state, can be particularly dangerous because the public may be more likely to accept intrusive and authoritarian policies that might otherwise be more difficult to implement. Therefore, public-facing political managers may be selected for likeability and ability to garner sympathy from the public. They also may appear to believe (or truly believe) that they are benefactors of humanity and the people they claim to represent. It is recognized that this may be an image that is carefully crafted by the public-facing manager’s handlers and advisors who also are political managers. The managers of the public-facing managers may assist the latter to mimic the language and speech patterns used by their supporters or by organic, grassroots leaders to co-opt these movements before they become too popular. Technological advances for the scanning and analysis of internet communications can facilitate this process (re: narrative heatmaps; digital diplomacy doctrine; global toxicity scores; modified legal definitions of cyber-crimes, misinformation, disinformation and malinformation).
Public-Facing Image vs. Reality. The qualities of the actual people behind political management (distinct from the image of the public-facing political manager that is created by handlers and advisors who themselves also are political managers of the public-facing political managers) are clearly common among all of us but for a successful career in political management certain qualities may need to be amplified in the public-facing managers. Also, historically there are likely to be variations in the need for certain qualities over different time periods and movements; also note that some qualities of the handlers (managers of the public-facing managers) are expected to be quite distinct from those of those they manage. Regarding key social networks and relationship-building among those whose livelihoods and power are closely tied to political management, see Shiva 2022, re: the “swarm”).
On the importance of incompetence in political management, see the separate section in #10 on Marketing Apparatus and Operations on strategic incompetence as a function of management decisions by the handler/managers and the gatekeepers that “process” information for the public-facing managers.
It is recognized that apart from the standard campaign contributions, many other forms of compensation to political managers and their parties (including off-the-books) may be used to further incentivize them to perform; however, the reality of the system remains: As members of an established political party (or as key agency bureaucrats serving an industry as their purported regulator), public-facing political managers must be committed to serving their client-donors above all other priorities. While their political careers and even the survival of their political party may be at risk if this duty fails, the key point is that these managers are fundamentally acting as a part of a system that is designed to perpetuate itself with the aid of their handler/managers and gatekeepers.
Punishment without Accountability? The politically-managed corrective or punitive process may have various layers, including legal “reforms” and promises for a better future, resignations, removal, (real or show) prosecutions of political managers.
To understand how politically-managed systemic punishment can be deceiving, consider the following example: Policies promoted by managers on behalf of their client-donors have resulted in severe harms to the public including genocide. It is decided that punishment for these crimes should be a prison sentence or even the death penalty for the public-facing political manager (and possibly some associates); another possible scenario might be dissolution of the political party of the offending political manager.
At this point the public may be convinced that justice has finally been served because the political manager has been held accountable. However, this overlooks the systemic continuity enabled by the impossibility of accountability for the politically-managed system: In other words, this “punished” manager is simply replaced by new political managers, or the political party is then replaced by either the opposition party/ies or a newly-created party. However, the system and its dynamics remain unchanged. The new political managers and parties then continue business as usual with the client-donors to potentially commit the same acts for which the political manager was punished (possibly with a pause until the public calms down or the crimes are largely forgotten). It is unlikely that the public will identify the source of the problem as being systemic and self-perpetuating and will come to accept the new public-facing political managers as their representatives.
In contrast, the negative polarity/self-correcting dynamic of economic systems acts as a braking mechanism. Tragically, in later phases and extreme iterations, the dynamics of the positive polarity/reinforcing feedback loop of political management including the systemic lack of accountability and other key tools of political management can result in horrific outcomes. The next section details this toolkit of political management.
TOOLKIT OF POLITICAL MANAGEMENT
To deliver the maximum benefits to the special interest "clients" who are the political investors as donors, key tools of political management are required, detailed in the following toolkit list (enumerated and preceded by a hashmark #).
Special Mention: Bond Issuance. It may be argued that national government bond issuance should be listed below as a separate category within the tools of the political management toolkit below. The reason bonds are not segregated is because of their dependent or intermediary status as defined here. While bonds can be called upon to generate funds for political managers, bond repayment depends largely on sources that are listed in the toolkit below: #2 Imputed Ownership Fee Extractions (often referred to as “taxes”), and #3 Monopoly Currency Creation (Legalized Counterfeiting) which itself is linked to less visible form of repayment (i.e., inflation, by destroying the real value of the bonds through declining purchasing power of the currency in which the bonds are denominated; this may tend to occur over longer periods of time). Finally, it should be qualified that a third form of “repayment” (which is in fact a contradiction) is rolling over the debt as long as possible (i.e., non-repayment) by replacing prior debt issuance with new debt issuance, hoping investors will continue to buy* the new debt.
*Note on incentivizing bond buyers: Manipulation of interest rates is used to incentivize bond purchases in the bond markets (principal buyers being investors, pension funds, insurance companies, banks, and central banks) for capital appreciation and interest income, while finding ways to cover capital losses of banks and investors from serial interest rate hikes. Another incentive for potential buyers is as a more stable “safe haven” asset when other markets are seen as too risky (e.g., stock, and real estate markets) either by engineered collapse or organic factors (note that this is not to suggest that the bonds are in fact safer when considering inflation, default and exchange rate/currency risk). Another disturbing but possible means to continue bond financing for political management in Nation A is the strategic debilitation of the economies (and thereby the tax base) of competing bond-issuing nations/entities. The goal is to improve the relative attractiveness of Nation A’s bonds vis-à-vis competing nations to raise funds more effectively from global investors for Nation A. Moreover, as part of a larger strategy by Nation A, if these debilitated competing nations eventually raise funds from their bond issuance, a portion of these funds may be used to purchase goods produced by Nation A (e.g., for armaments), further strengthening Nation A’s economy and productive capacity. On bond financing also see Christ (1968, 1979; re: government budget restraint), Barro 1974 (bonds as net wealth), Fabozzi and Modigliani 1992, Fabozzi 2011; for a recent example of bond financing mechanics in geopolitics, see Luongo (2024).
Preface on Monopoly Control
A key element of political management is legal monopoly status in various domains, including territorial or regional management (ranging from localities to nation-states; see item #1 of the Toolkit list below). In a legal monopoly, the monopoly status is likely to be conferred by law, decree, or forcible occupation and not by voluntary arrangement. This is distinct from a business that might loosely be regarded as a “monopoly” because of its overwhelming market share and dominance due to success in meeting the voluntary demand of customers.
Monopoly on Information/Information Control is not treated as a separate category of the political management toolkit below because this activity crosses multiple categories. Control of the media. Whether called "mainstream" or "alternative" media the objective is to make inroads into all types of media outlets to shape dominant narratives beneficial to a politically-managed entity and/or their special interest client-donors. This infiltration will include AI-based applications and large language models (LLMs).
Other targets for monopoly control may include the following:
Data Collection Monopoly. A single entity such as a government agency is responsible for collecting and storing data on the variables central to the agency's mission. This allows data to be suppressed. or scrubbed from databases at will if the data suggests that the products of a special interest client-donor are unsafe or deadly. If requested, data access is limited (or substantially redacted) so that any investigations into harms and criminal wrongdoing are rendered more difficult if not impossible.
Tech Industry (Social Media Platforms). Control over the innovative algorithms that underpin successful social media and other platforms not only enable better control over information for surveillance, censorship, and the shaping of narratives in accordance with policy objectives but may give tech companies that acquire the algorithmic technologies an advantage in creating and developing new rival platforms (re: Glass 2024).
Education Monopoly, including universities. Education is a vehicle to control the information that young minds are exposed to and if extended into university, may facilitate effective behavior control later into life.
Research Monopoly to control funding and grants for research that the politically-managed establishment and special interest client-donors wish to promote, and to suppress or withdraw funding for research that is revealing findings that are not desirable.
The Toolkit of Political Management is enumerated and detailed next (#1 through #10).
Tool #1) Legal Monopoly Occupation Status
This is a brief overview; for additional detail see Tool #9 (e) Legitimacy Apparatus and Note 2 to this Summary, on "democratic elections" and monopoly occupation scenarios. This legal monopoly involves laws and measures to block competing management entities from providing regional management services, a self-granted legal status. With monopoly control over an area it manages, the politically-managed entity has more flexibility of actions, including against the interests or will of the citizen-residents within the managed geographic area. As discussed in Tool #5 below, the political managers also have monopoly power to enter into political investment deals with special interest clients-donors. Monopoly occupation is an important first step; for other tools to consolidate pathological wealth and control, see the other tools listed as part of the toolkit. Elections. Note that figureheads may change with elections, giving the public the impression that management of the entity has changed. However, monopoly control over the territory held by a politically-managed entity remains intact, without the legal possibility of competing providers (also re: feudal title, municipal corporations; use of eminent domain/condemnation law to benefit special interests; forced relocations and racial injustice (Fullilove 2007; Scheiderich (Ed.) et al., 2017; Somin 2015).
Tool #2) Income Generation 1: Imputed Ownership Fee Extractions
In an economic system, collection of fees from citizen-residents of a community/jurisdiction tends to involve a clearly-established and fixed periodic expense that goes ostensibly solely for the management of the jurisdiction (e.g., monthly, quarterly common area management expenses, or association fees, etc.). In contrast, a politically-managed operation may be characterized by the following (even if implicit):
Presumption of Ownership. Although rarely made explicit, an essential presumption of political management is that the politically-managed regional management entity holds some form of ownership interest in human chattel and in turn the productive activities and assets of the citizens-residents.
Although in early phases such an ownership interest by political management may not be perceived as extractive, by this unwarranted presumption of ownership, the capacity for extraction goes potentially far beyond what is warranted to cover the costs of managing the community/jurisdiction. In politically-managed systems, extractions can be expected to surpass the basic cost of community management--and transferred out to enrich the special-interest clients of political managers (in geopolitics this can extend to funding for foreign special interests). These politically-managed extractions can be described more closely as a form of imputed equity ownership distribution from the citizen-residents, an imposition that clearly raises a fundamental human rights issue involving decriminalized slavery (re: human chattel property). Moreover, real estate ownership may involve non-sovereign feudal title. This decriminalized tool of political management forms a key basis for parasitism within an economic system “host” as described elsewhere here. Note that these types of imputed ownership fees are often simplistically termed “taxes.”
Inherent Ambiguity. As a result, politically-managed extractive fees also may tend to have a deceptive and arbitrary element that makes for ease of significant further extraction in later stages, and whereby the amounts that citizens-residents are to pay are largely subject to the discretion of the monopoly political management entity; this inherent ambiguity essentially leaves no upper limit to the potential level of extraction, other than the capacity of subjugated citizens to pay, or protestations. Note that extractions include the stealth form of currency debasement (see #3 below) and can extend to arbitrary fines and penalties (see #4 below). It should also be emphasized that the power of extraction in its various forms generates an unjust financial asymmetry that favors the political manager class and their special interest clients who can enrich themselves by impoverishing the masses of citizen-residents—an inherent force multiplier effect. Otherwise stated, resources taken from the subjugated can be used against them. On modern feudalism, see the Conclusions to the Summary Definition below. For examples of economically-managed alternatives that tend to reduce ambiguity and impose natural limits, such as membership or community fees, etc., return to Table 1 in the main text above and the ensuing commentary in the Key Notes to Table 1.
Tool #3) Income Generation 2: Monopoly Currency Creation (Decriminalized/Legalized Counterfeiting)
Currency can be created (issued) by the central bank by monetizing debt issued by politically-managed entities such as the Treasury of national governments (debt-based currency creation) or via the banking system via a system of fractional reserve banking (currency created by credit creation). This debt-currency does not represent real "income" as it is created by extending credit/incurring debt which is distinct from a transaction involving an equivalent value in exchange as between buyer and seller of goods or services; the debt incurred is to be repaid afterwards, from future transactions involving exchange of value that generate enough positive cash flow to cover the principal balance of the debt plus interest. (Note: “Value” generally defined as subjective value of all parties to the transaction).
It is critical to note that the debasement of currency is also an extraction from the public, in the form of destruction of real incomes by reduced purchasing power of wages or other income (this is a stealth form of theft often referred to as “inflation;” the politically-managed explanation for this phenomenon is typically greedy businesses or other economic actors, although the loss of purchasing power ultimately originates from monopoly currency creation to assist in the financing of government expenditures).
Dependency. A key advantage of this form of “income” is to expand dependency on (and support for) the state and its political managers at minimum apparent cost (i.e., the cost of simply creating new currency units), at least in the early stages before currency debasement is felt by the masses. Examples of ways to increase dependency and support are given next: Bailouts and Papering Over Losses. This currency creation can also be used to enrich and/or protect special interest clients including by covering their financial losses and failures; note that since the currency is typically created at the national level it can also be directed to financially support allies in other politically-managed jurisdictions (e.g., provinces, states, municipalities) to compensate for any damage caused by their own destructive policies in favor of their own special interest groups (also recall the commentary on community destruction and policy-induced bankruptcies in section #12 in the main text above. This also can apply to the international level through bail-out organizations that can channel the created currency to compensate the losses of international investors and politically-managed entities. Stimulus Payments. Currency can also be created and distributed to garner political support or placate citizen-residents who have been physically or financially harmed by policies of political management (e.g., injuries caused by political managers by promoting their clients’ products, lockdown policies, forced closures of small businesses, etc.) giving the appearance that the failures have been resolved; however, a long-term consequence as noted above is the destruction of purchasing power and impoverishment of the masses.
Historical Notes. Credit/currency creation has historically been constrained by the use of assets/commodity money such as gold (and silver) as the monetary backing for the currency units circulating within the financial system. However, fractional reserve banking allowing for the pyramiding of credit/currency on top of a limited gold base led to instabilities that are blamed on (the supposed lack of) gold rather than on excessive credit creation via the system of fractional reserves driving boom and bust cycles, financial and banking crises stemming from the overextension of unrepayable credit. At the national level, a similar problem with excessive debt issuance (bond buyers as creditors) leads to the politically-managed “solution” of untethering gold from currency creation to facilitate unconstrained government spending (e.g., U.S. President Nixon’s closing of the gold window, August 15, 1971; also see Mises 1912, 1931; Ropke 1936; Rothbard 2008; Huerta de Soto 2012; Stockman 2013; Smith, G., 2023 and Macleod 2024 for a historical backdrop. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (1999, U.S.) also should also be noted as a driver of metastasizing financialization of the economy and the expansion of debt through securitization (Stockman 2013); see the next section).
“Hyper”-Financialization of an economy arises once currency creation has essentially decoupled from the real economy (likely seen by a sustained collapse in the velocity of money). To direct and maintain the flow of newly created currency into the real economy, political managers can be expected to take on a more active role: On the consumption side of the economy, political managers may consider a more permanent form of social welfare stimulus that lock the citizen-residents into long-term dependency: e.g., UBI or universal basic income, keeping the real economy flush with the created currency units to maintain demand. * This stimulus policy also may extend to providing cash benefits to migrants, not only for a direct injection of stimulus funds into the economy (see the separate discussion of Reset Operations), but also with the possible expectation of generating an increase in money velocity.
In addition, the increasing dependence of corporations on the state (re: corporate welfare; Nader 2000; also, re: corporatism, fascism as the merger of corporations/business and the state) should not be overlooked as a central feature of political management (e.g., corporate-state symbiosis), especially in the later decline phases.
On the production side, stimulus is likely to take the form of politically-managed (non-market) industrial policy designed to increase development and production in various sectors. ** especially those in which the central state machinery has greater control such as the war industry. The creation of currency can be directed into the real economy via funding for bureaucracies that aid in the war efforts and by war finance for the domestic production of armaments and likely extended to other industries including the technology sector; ; also note the income-increasing opportunities for financiers by funding both sides of a war or conflict, especially with the aid of cheap (low-interest rate) borrowing enabled by central banks and their control of currency.
(*) Demand. A distinction should be made between (nominal) “demand” (based on nominal currency units) and “real demand” (based on real purchasing power). The inflationary, politically-distributed, and destabilizing impacts of politically-managed arrangements under hyper-financialization are discussed elsewhere in this study.
(**) Other Industries. As for politically-managed direction of the financialized funds to other industries in the private sector, return to the discussion above including about the Business Model of political management and sub-section on Wealth Creation Amid Lack of Demand.
In closing this section, the critical role of central banks and their non-market monopoly power to create currency may often be overshadowed by the drama of politics; many may view these institutions as a benign or positive/stimulative force in the economy. However, upon further examination of the dynamics, central banks serve as a potentially unjust wealth transfer mechanism for politically-managed operations that benefit various special interest clients while impoverishing ordinary citizens, as detailed elsewhere in the main text (e.g., counterfeit currency creation/debasement facilitating asset inflation, Cantillon effect (Cantillon 1755; Stockman 2023), malinvestment, * bailout funding rewarding failed businesses, financial institutions, and jurisdictions). In addition to being a driver of pathological wealth inequality (Stockman 2024b), central banks also tragically enable needless death through the financing of conflicts and war that enrich arms industry clients, among others.
Monetary Distortions and the Gutting of Economies. Central banks also can play a not-so-obvious role in economic dislocation and long-term incapacitation by propping up the national currency above its market-clearing rates (re: overvalued currencies). Transactional/Trading Currencies: Currency interventions may be designed to cheapen imports or facilitate financing/foreign investment for special interest clients of political managers. This can lead to severe distortions, dislocations, and eventual crashes (e.g., in currency values, real estate and capital markets in countries with politically-managed overvalued currencies). Reserve Currencies. In the case of a nation with reserve currency status (as distinct from transactional/trading currencies), Nation A’s external trade and current account deficits are consistently financed with foreign central bank purchases of Nation A’s currency typically to be invested in Nation A’s government-issued debt (as a reserve asset) and which provides Nation A’s government with an external source of financing for its expenditures (also, re: Triffin Dilemma). However, while this source of financing facilitates increased spending by the political managers of Nation A, this distortion comes at a cost to Nation A because its economy becomes increasingly reliant on overseas production through artificially cheapened imports from the currency overvaluation while domestic production and the export sector are incrementally gutted, leading to underemployment and stagnant wage growth (also see the consequences of monetary policy-induced malinvestment above).
To prop up the reserve currency of Nation A and maintain spending power internationally (re: “exorbitant privilege”) Nation A must expand dependence on its currency by foreign entities (e.g., by their investing in assets denominated in its currency such as the government debt issued by Nation A as noted above, e.g., petrodollar status of U.S., by inducing borrowings denominated in the currency, orchestrating bailouts for losses on foreign investments using the currency, promoting investment by foreign-based entities in private sector assets of Nation A through acquisition of businesses, farmland, etc.). Nation A’s propped-up reserve currency is likely to be an outlier of currency overvaluation in relation to Nation A’s domestic production/income-producing capacity (this may not always be apparent by observing cross-rates with other currencies due to central bank coordination). Sadly, Nation A’s citizens may face severe economic distress once this currency overvaluation can no longer be maintained, crashing to reflect the reality of (high) domestic costs, (weak) production and income.
In sum, central bank-induced currency/monetary distortions beget unsustainable dynamics leading to economies potentially riddled with idle, underutilized resources and lacking internal productive capacity, which in an eventual currency and other market collapses subjects the dependent masses to greater hardships.
Politically-Managed Extensions. There may be a misconception that a reduced role or outright abolishment of national central banks would solve the problems as detailed above by ostensibly returning economies to a solid monetary foundation without monopoly currency creation by nation-states. However, this may ignore a politically-managed “solution” involving a national fiat currency replacement role for institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and mechanisms to absorb unwanted U.S. dollars/U.S. dollar-denominated assets and other currencies through the distribution of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs); re: Bergsten (2009). In sum, and otherwise stated, calls to abolish (national) central banks could be viewed as a trojan horse for a new supra-national monetary authority.
Asset Acquisitions via Excessive Lending. The role of international financial institutions in inducing over-indebtedness by borrowers internationally (debt slavery) with the objective of land and resource acquisition in exchange for the defaulted debt (e.g., debt-for-land swaps) should also be recognized as another potential tool for expansion of asset/resource ownership on a global scale, especially when paired with deliberate policies to gut economies that destroy repayment capacity for the debts.
Also see the separate discussions on possible politically-managed systems for novel extractions from the public, inflation-damping mechanisms via digital control grids, and carbon-based tools (re: section 15. New Business Models (Politically-Managed Products and Pricing Operations and elsewhere in this study).
*Note on malinvestments: In brief, these may be described as uneconomic and unsustainable investments incentivized by downward interest rate manipulation that benefit special interest clients including investors, the financial sector and the real estate industry that can set into motion cycles of bubbles and financial crises that deepen wealth inequality.
Tool #4) Income Generation 3: Other Fees, Fines and Penalties
This source of income typically originates from what is called "regulatory bodies" of political management and administrative law (also see #6 approval/licensure and #7 regulatory activity/justice below). Also, re: civil (asset) forfeiture; Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984 in U.S.; Benson 1993; Mitchell 2017b; Wimer/Institute for Justice 2018).
Social Services as an Extractive Vehicle. Another possibly overlooked source of income generation for political management is from social services as a vehicle to extract more resources from citizens increasingly beyond the services being provided (state-backed skimming). An example might be the implementation of various changes in rules affecting social health insurance or pension system contributions such that citizens must increasingly pay out more into these systems without the guarantee of commensurate benefits being provided. This is akin to the problem of inherent ambiguity of politically-managed fees as noted in Tool #2 above on Income Generation 1: Imputed Ownership Fee Extractions.
Tool #5) Political Investment Income from Special Interest Clients (as a form of Income Generation via campaign donations, political fundraising, voting blocs and other means). This critical element of the toolkit is detailed above in the Key Objective and Business Model discussions in Appendix 1. Although any money received may be accounted for as income to the political management entity, this type of contribution may more correctly be described as a form of (political) equity investment for which a (high) return on the investment is expected to be delivered by the political managers, including benefits in the form of legal immunity. This tool also may involve legal extortion by political managers to extract donations/funding from targeted special interests either on behalf of another special interest-client (parasitic mutualism) or for the benefit of political managers themselves (parasitic); this was detailed above in this Appendix under Legal Extortion: Shakedown Operations
It is important to note that to give legitimacy to the income that is received from this tool in the eyes of citizen-residents, this fundraising and donor (political investor) activity must be principally tied to so-called “democratic elections” that are claimed to result in the will of the electorate being represented. Also re: Thomas 2023 and section #9 below on the Legitimacy Apparatus.
Tool #6) Monopoly on Adjudication (Courts/Justice System) that can be used to favor special interest clients and punish opponents as needed to maintain power and control. Judges within the monopoly are not necessarily uniform as some may play a stronger role as political managers (e.g., tending to rule on cases with political party as a priority in decision-making), other judges may prefer to adhere to the principal body of law for that jurisdiction. Legal counsel for the plaintiffs or defendants may wish to relocate a court case in a “friendly” venue, so it is likely that limits need to be placed on the proliferation of non-political, non-activist judges and their rulings that could undermine the political management establishment. In politically-managed systems that permit the juries, jury pools also can be an important factor in swaying judicial outcomes; venues may be preferred in which jurors are likely to favor one side or the other (plaintiff or defendant) for reasons that may have little to do with the evidence of the case.
The consequences of monopoly adjudication are detailed in the main text above in the section on Non-Monetary Tools of political management. It should be added that while not an argument for leniency on acts of violence, an inherent bias within political management may tend to “push” towards both excessive criminalization (legislative or administrative state) and excessive punishment (judiciary) that serves to financially benefit certain special interest clients the more that “crimes” are committed, however “crime” might be defined by political managers; of grave concern are the systemic consequences of political management serving special interest clients leading to mass incarceration of non-violent innocents (re: prison industrial complex, including as an export; Dreisinger 2017). To address the problem of excessive and inhuman incarceration, honest and crucial politically-managed efforts may be undertaken; however, while it is invaluable to correct these problems, they are seen as fundamentally systemic such that there is an inherent tendency for politically-managed “justice” to expands the definition of “crime” that ultimately brings in more income to special interest clients and consolidates the power of political managers; note that this can include increased funding not only for the construction of facilities, but also for the expansion of budgets of law enforcement and military as special interests and the political managers that serve them; income opportunities can be further expanded when expanded internationally and backed by nation-state policy, for example. Blurred Distinctions on Crimes. This expansive politically-managed process likely results in a potentially dangerous tendency to blur the distinction between (a) truly violent crimes/individuals that pose a clear and continuous physical danger to others and (b) non-violent acts/offenders* and non-violent innocents, Crucially, this also may include blurred distinctions between (a) unilateral physically violent acts of aggression (unilateral offensive force) and (b) acts of self-defense in response to unilateral physically violent aggression (e.g., use of defensive force; which may include actions to immobilize or repel an unrelenting attacker from continuing). As described elsewhere, physically non-violent acts such as an individual making a counterargument (in speech or in writing) may be redefined (or “elevated”) to the status of a crime on par with a violent physical attack; this may be done on various pretexts (threat to public/national security, mis/disinformation, hate(ful), anti-(x) or (x)-ist, to send a message that argument x, y or z will not be tolerated, etc.) that serve to silence or lock up existing or potential members of the political opposition, or dissident voices. In such cases, we may, for example, expect to see instances of incarceration of individuals whose non-violent actions of individual expression exposed something counter to the interests of those in power and/or posed a serious business threat to a key corporate client of a political manager.
*Note on Offenses. As touched on above, definitions may vary as to the nature of a claimed offense; some “offenses” may be valid or be the result of excessive criminalization or punishment, including in some cases the exercise of free speech (re: speech crimes; it is recognized that in some cases, personal lack of familiarity with, or exposure to, certain lines of reasoning or points of view may cause some to find such views offensive).
An extension of this incarceration dynamic may involve quarantine camps under the regulatory state under the guise of “public health” as discussed elsewhere in this study (re: Cox 2023).
On the jury system and the incentives for politically-managed engineered bias, as well as commentary on lawfare, see White, L.R. (2024) and the discussion in the main text above under Non-Monetary Tools as a subsection of Reinforcing Drivers of Positive Polarity. Also, re: Casey 2024 on basic concepts of justice and justice systems.
Monopoly adjudication on regulatory matters of the administrative state (i.e., administrative courts) is addressed separately in #7 next.
Better Approaches. A critical point to end with is what types of crime and punishment models exist that in practice (1) minimize violence* and (2) when violent acts do occur, compensation for victims without having to rely on political managed solutions for assistance; this is particularly essential to protect the impoverished and powerless who lack the resources to prosecute and enforce justified claims against well-funded and politically-influential aggressors. *Note on minimizing violence: This includes state-sponsored violence/ acts of violence orchestrated or perpetrated by political managers and their special interest clients who within a politically-managed context are unlikely to be held accountable, as discussed, or referenced elsewhere in this study.
For further insights on possible solutions to problems of crime and punishment see Friedman, et al. (2019) on alternative legal systems over several millennia of history, and Kinsella (2023), Hoppe (2023) on legal foundations for free societies (also re: natural law/rights).
Friedman, et al. (2019) draw from elements of other legal systems throughout history that may offer economic solutions (e.g., early Icelandic law, Athenian rule, 18th Century English law, ancient Chinese contract practice, etc.). Also see Leoni (1961), Rothbard (1975, 1981) and Benson (2011) on concepts in legal systems and justice; see Kennedy (2022e) in the context of geopolitical issues.
This topic is discussed further in the section titled Solutions? in the main text above on economic management alternatives.
Tool #7) Monopoly on regulatory activity (e.g., administrative state) and justice (e.g., court system, district attorneys, judges; administrative law and courts; on the dangers of administrative law re: Berman 1983) Via regulatory or other monopoly actions, control of the supply of selected goods by various means can deliver benefits for special interest clients by raising prices of their goods and/or opening up new markets. Control of the justice system allows for manipulation to favor special interest clients/voting blocs and to punish opponents and their voting blocs, for example clients/voting blocs and to punish opponents and their voting blocs, for example (i.e., use of the machinery of justice as a partisan political weapon). On the moral hazard created by regulatory oversight, see the discussion above in Note #11 (Regulatory State and Accountability through Fines) in the Notes below Tables 2A and 2B.
Monopoly on approvals and licensure (for professions/occupations, commercial products, services, etc.) may be considered a sub-category of regulatory activity but with an emphasis on the local level.
Justice and Courts under Political Management: Detail. An unforeseen and dangerous dynamic of politically-managed justice is the potential for persistent harms and accumulation of injustices due to politically-managed lack of prosecution (even when clearly warranted). For example, the producers of an injurious product face lawsuits, but the courts repeatedly dismiss these cases for "lack of standing" or other reasons. Why might this occur? One concern is when the producers are important and influential client-donors of political managers who expect political managers to call upon their political “allies” in the court system (e.g., in the case of politically- aligned judges) to not prosecute such cases against their client-donors (or to be particularly lenient if so). However, if the harmful product situation persists, the cases may continue to pile up without resolution. This can lead to the clogging up of the courts with more and more such cases. The politically-managed response may be to avoid addressing the issue of refusal to hear and rule on such cases, and instead place the blame on "too many frivolous lawsuits" or "an overwhelmed and underfunded court system," etc. Consequently, politically-managed justice can leave citizens with little or no redress in the courts for the injuries they have suffered (or the death of family members), while client-donors are enriched with pathological (i.e., politically-managed) profits that they can feed back into further campaign contributions to political managers (i.e., positive feedback loop/circular flow of funds).
Tool #8) Monopoly on Security Provision. While security and law and order are generally considered desirable, the granting of monopoly power over regional security can easily extend to a monopoly on violence, including to crack down on worker protests and labor movements on behalf of corporate special interest clients, or to exert control over communities for various objectives. Because of this monopoly power, the deliberate withdrawal of law and order by political managers can be used as an effective threat to extract more funding for increased budgets from the subjugated public on behalf of law enforcement as a special interest-client of the political managers (for more detail on this topic, return to section #12, Note 1 on Decriminalization/Criminalization dynamics in the main text above).
In addition, criminal elements may be called upon as an extension of political manager power, either as new special interest clients (e.g., cartels, retail theft gangs), as part of planned redevelopment policy (e.g., real estate developers/investors) or as voting constituents, etc. Because monopoly status on security leaves common citizen-residents dependent solely on politically-managed entities for their protection (including the justice system), when managers choose to withdraw the provision of security or shift to policies of non-prosecution of violent crime, citizen-residents are at higher risk of victimization and are placed in a position of subjugation by proxy. Similarly, political managers may also opt to weaponize policies against ordinary residents and businesses to hasten their out-migration and property sales/abandonment. Later, when law and order is restored by political managers, the return of confidence contributes to rising property values for real estate investors who bought properties at the politically-induced market lows. For critical discussion on these special interest dynamics return to the main text above, in the section #12 Decriminalization of Criminal Activities by Political Management.
As in the case of crackdowns on labor movements noted above, violence may be resorted to for the purpose of delivering a maximum return on political investments, forcing the general public to submit to the will of political managers to benefit their special interest clients: For example, coercing the consumption of certain products (e.g., pharmaceutical industry), or facilitating the waging of war (e.g., arms manufacturers; war can also be used as a tool to rally public support and justify the build-up of a machinery of state violence implemented domestically. Also re: Rothbard 2012). Together with the protection racket dimension of political management, political managers can offer special interest clients the benefit of non-punishment (immunity or refraining from pursuing justice in the event of criminal acts) in exchange for campaign donations, etc., as noted above in the Key Objective and Business Model sections, and below in #10 Marketing Apparatus and kinetic attacks.
This monopoly on violence may extend to development of a threat apparatus including technological weaponry: With technological advances, a superpower may threaten to deploy advanced tools against both enemies and allies alike to project power and force compliance, or actually deploy such tools as punishment for acts of "disobedience" against a superpower's directives: The list is non-exhaustive but may include (current, future) technological weaponry in various domains: Geophysical and atmospheric engineering (e.g., earthquakes, tidal waves, storms, tornadoes, drought/flood, etc.), biological (bioweapons/causing damage to biological life),), chemical, radiological, directed energy weapons (DEWs), advanced nanotechnological, neurological (neurowars, neurowarfare), psychological operations and the abuse of the field of psychology for political purposes Corbett (2023); Reich (1983) re: USSR, drone-assisted and other forms of infrastructure destruction (financial, energy,/transportation, food, manufacturing, etc.), activation of riots (cells) or rent-a-riots, etc. For more discussion see commentary in the Appendix of Kennedy (2022e) on geopolitics.
Tool #9) Legitimacy Apparatus. The establishment political managers must also build an apparatus to convince the public (citizens-residents) that they have true representation and are still in control of the outcomes within the politically-managed monopoly jurisdiction, while political managers continue their business of delivering benefits/returns to their political investors. A critical component of maintaining legitimacy is to prevent all organic, uncontrolled movements from taking root so that any grassroots efforts at unifying and mobilizing (e.g., for human rights, better working conditions, wages, against injustices and violence/genocide, etc.) are immediately redirected into the control systems of political management as the only perceived legitimate savior and solution. The key legitimacy-enhancing element of Social Welfare and the social safety net (and risks) is detailed separately at the end of this section together with commentary on politically-managed pension systems.
The legitimacy apparatus may be closely tied to deception and propaganda, possibly including the following elements:
(a) Educational System control: Indoctrination including through textbooks by erasing or distorting history and the use of psychological manipulation of young minds, particularly to shift blame onto manufactured enemies and scapegoats for historical crimes and state-sponsored violence (e.g., instead of assigning the true responsibility for historical acts of aggression/genocide committed by the state/state actors under political management, students are taught that it is the members of a religious group, ethnicity, racial group, income class, political party affiliation, etc., who are to blame).
(b) Controlled Mass Media: Propaganda, deception, deflection, distractions (including the” news”), and possibly outright lies (which may include espousing of ideologies that doctrinaires truly believe in); normalization of dysfunctional results of the system (e.g., worsening health or behavioral outcomes), engineered invisibility or suppression of dissenting voices and their replacement with system insiders who imitate their rhetoric.. What is often referred to as “healthy public debate” is likely to be orchestrated to limit debate only to allowable topics; the end result is to keep the public distracted with various pre-selected and approved “issues” or “news items” for the public to debate and think about while giving them the satisfaction that they have freedom of expression.
Pre-emptive Labelling/Smearing of individuals whose views counter the official narrative or interfere with a politically-managed operation can play a critical role in the success of an operation. Ironically, by labelling all opposing views (of all political stripes, highly informed or reasoned etc.,) as extreme, unhinged, vile, etc., it is possible for truly extreme and dangerous policies to be implemented because they not only may appear more “moderate,” legitimate and reasoned, but they face less opposition because many people fear being tagged with an odious label. The media can be an effective vehicle for a “wrap-up smear” to discredit a political opponent. For example, political managers share a lie about the opponent to the media that promptly disseminates the lie in their news reports. When questions arise as to the truth of the matter, political managers can simply point to the media reports as proof of a “verified” source of the information.
(c) The destruction and/or co-opting of legitimate, organic popular movements (e.g., organic labor movements; re: Adelman 2023; re: hangings of American union activists in 1887; May Day).
Prevention of group assembly wherever needed, especially vis-à-vis potential opposition groups (e.g., lockdown and social distancing, social isolation policies, closing of churches and other places where like-minded people might congregate) to not only subjugate but to discourage communications among individuals who may be likely to unite to oppose the politically-managed operation. Note that exceptions to these policies may be made for politically-favored and allied groups.
(d) Selective silence or non-response involving suspected political wrongdoings (e.g., stonewalling freedom of information act FOIA requests in U.S.).
(e) Use of fear (fearmongering) to establish the appearance of legitimacy; fear also may be employed as part of the marketing apparatus to help sell (or encourage repeat sales of) products of special interest clients (e.g., pharmaceuticals).
(f) Recall that if political investing is done secretively, it may be perceived as not in the interests of the overall public. Therefore, if the political investments (e.g., campaign donations and other forms of payment) are made as part of a highly visible and regular public decision-making process of choosing their "representatives," the process may be viewed less suspiciously. This gives rise to what is termed democratic elections (i.e., political investing activity by special interest clients that coincides with "democratic elections" for orchestrated public visibility) (also see Note 2 below).
(g) War and Conflict Provocation may eventually be employed as a highly effective form of distraction from problems caused by prior actions of political management, including rampant price inflation. War and conflict can effectively be blamed for these problems (also see Controlled Mass Media in (b) above); note that special interest clients also can benefit from such operations (e.g., defense contractors, arms manufacturers, financiers/financial industry from currency creation and war finance, etc.).
(h) Investigations of wrongdoing to regain public confidence. In response to mounting criticism of official corruption, bribery, criminal activity by political managers, etc., political managers (likely of the opposition party) may choose to launch an “investigation” or series of “probes” into the matter. The purpose is to assure the public that “something is being done” and that the perpetrators will be “outed” and brought to justice. However, the process may be intentionally designed to look in the wrong places and ignore the most important evidence of the most serious crimes; any evidence of malfeasance that is “found” is only enough to convict on much less severe charges. If successful, the investigation(s) restore(s) legitimacy in the political process in the public eye while for the most part the offending political managers remain immune from prosecution for any more serious acts. Most of the political parties can be expected to be involved in such procedures, protecting each other in exchange for other deals and concessions; such protection also extends to the special interest client-donors of political managers.
(*) Note on “c” in the list above: Destruction of organic movements that are not controlled by the establishment. Identity politics can be weaponized by the creation of multiple front organizations that ostensibly “represent” various identity groups (these groups are distinct from truly organic identity groups advocating for the same or similar causes). When a dissident voice or group challenges the narratives, positions and policies advocated by these identity groups and/or the political managers who advance their clients’ agendas, these controlled identity groups are tasked with making various public accusations against these dissident voices, whether true or not. Controlled mass media are then able to point to these accusations and any denunciations made by these “numerous” organizations as evidence of the illegitimacy of dissident voices (i.e., anyone challenging the politically-managed narrative, position or policies). Character assassination of vocal individuals who fail to conform to the official narrative(s) and propaganda: Real or staged violent incidents (e.g., false flags) may be used to discredit these disfavored individuals who it is alleged are linked to such acts by their speech that “incites violence.”
Legitimacy through Social Welfare Provision: Risks of Mass Dependency
A large role for politically-managed social services/social welfare is commonly accepted as giving legitimacy to politically-managed entities of all jurisdictions. However, upon scrutiny, mass dependency on a state monopoly tends to result in an expansion of power and control mechanisms over the citizenry—inducing a “comfortable” form of servitude with a kind and caring facade. Meanwhile client-donors are enriched by the politically-managed returns on their political investments through contracts. grants (e.g., for automation/technology-related and other industries), or increased revenues for businesses that sell their products to the dependent class consumers.
Cost, Service and Sustainability. As is typical with monopoly provision of services, when the monopoly provider is caught in corruption or failure to perform its functions on behalf of those they serve, there is no possibility of replacement, so increased funding is generally the solution to "fix" the problem; in extreme cases of dereliction of duty and criminality, accountability may be handled by having the figureheads of the agencies resign, while the remainder of the monopoly entity benefits from increased funding and resources to "ensure that such embarrassing incidents will not reoccur." Over time, this monopoly dynamic of more failures=more funding is likely to continue raising the cost to society while reducing the quality of social services to the public. In later stages, the dynamic may result in large-scale theft/illegal appropriation of public funds (re: “missing money” problems; undisclosed government accounting policies e.g., FASAB Statement 56 in U.S. (2018); Austin-Fitts (2023).
The critical danger of mass dependency is the precarious state of a populace that has become accustomed to state aid and no longer has the tools of self-sufficiency and self-reliance. Due to escalating costs as noted above, the unsustainable dynamics of politically-managed entities may lead to bankruptcy and worthless currencies, inflicting tremendous hardship when these social welfare benefits no longer can be paid, or have lost their purchasing power.
Warning on Politically-Managed Pension Systems (aka Social Security in U.S.). As beneficiaries/pensioners have paid into these systems typically over decades, it is reasonable for them expect to receive pension benefits upon retirement. However, political management of pensions presents serious problems for the beneficiaries. First, due to the secular debasement of the currency (linked to #3 of the Toolkit above (Monopoly Currency Creation (Legalized Counterfeiting), by the time the benefits are paid, the real purchasing power of these amounts paid to beneficiaries may be drastically diminished. Second, when faced with budget pressures, political managers may modify the laws to raise the eligible age of receipt of benefits which may result in further reduction of purchasing power when finally received. Third, there may be a transition to a “pay-as-you-go” system whereby any funds collected by the pension system are transferred to the Treasury to cover ongoing government expenditures leaving the trust fund with essentially no assets for the beneficiaries other than as accounting entries evidencing obligations to the trust by the Treasury; re: U.S., Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).
Reset Operations. Due to the potential for unkept promises of national retirement/pension benefits (Kotlikoff 2015; Mitchell 2017a) stemming from the politically-managed transfer of the citizens’ income to special interest clients over generations (Stockman 2013; 2024b; including wealth transfer via inflation), as well as possible theft/massive accounting “discrepancies,” (Austin-Fitts 2023), draconian reset operations may be deemed necessary for continuation of operations, with several elements:
(1) A more prominent role for the monetary authorities in fiscal matters by the direct injection of funds to the public rather than through the traditional banking/credit channels (re: Jackson Hole meeting, August 2019; U.S. repo market financing disturbance, Sept. 2019; and the eventual massive direct stimulus payment programs during the orchestrated ‘public health’ operation beginning in early 2020 (aka the ‘Covid pandemic’ and subsequent rollout of the countermeasures/injections) paired with a second possible objective of a reset operation:
(2) The reduction of state pension payments/pension obligations possibly by disability/injury or even death via injections/drugs and unsafe health systems including hospitals. While benefits may accrue to the politically-managed medical establishment for treating harms and injuries sustained, such an operation also may help reduce the financial burden by shifting the obligations of public pension systems to the public disability systems. The possible impact of such a ‘reset’ operation on reducing private sector employment, benefits and pension obligations also should not be overlooked. For more on technocratic management of payouts and development of control grid systems including programmable currencies (e.g., CBDCs) see the Conclusion to the Summary Definition, Part A, #7, below.
(3) Other: Targeting of Adversaries/Rival Producers. Another objective may be the weakening of economic/geopolitical rivals. By shutting down global economic activity due to the above-mentioned global ‘public health’ operation, hydrocarbon/energy usage is reduced, thereby weakening the economies of nation-states that may have abundant hydrocarbon resources but rely on oil and natural gas export revenue. The shutdowns also may disproportionately adversely impact the industrial production and economic vitality of rival producing regions, particularly those that are dependent on external energy sources and if energy export sanctions are imposed that reduce their access to cheap energy.
Another possible scenario is a form of “smearing” on a global scale that reduces the influence and expansion of a rival nation-state globally by deliberately tainting their reputation and undermining trust by branding as “rogue” (e.g., dangerous lab leaks and bioweapons production, wet markets/unsanitary food-handling practices, etc.)..). On the legitimacy apparatus in the international/geopolitical context, see Kennedy (2022e).
Tool #10) Marketing Apparatus and Operations. Potentially intricate plans must be devised and executed to deliver the benefits promised to special interest clients by promoting their products, services, and ideas through various types of politically-managed operations. The marketing apparatus consists of potentially numerous institutions and organizations (already existing such as the school systems, or which are established to serve as fronts for special interest clients, typically under the guise of good causes including humanitarianism, democracy, safety, health or more broadly the "public interest" however defined). Clients may include government entities including the military that hope to secure additional funding for their activities by linking them together with private sector operations. Some of the entities may operate at both a domestic and international scale and appeal to diverse groups by mimicking local traditions, culture, and festivals to be co-opted and controlled later. The rhetoric, fearmongering, politically-backed branding, certain programs, local "movements" and initiatives lay the groundwork for public acceptance and/or compliance with certain planned operations. Note that false "opposition" entities may also play an important role in using rhetoric to take hold of the political apparatus of a target nation, then shifting positions later and turning that nation into a vassal state.
Other entities may be self-described as "global" and "authoritative" to corral individual nation-states into their orbit through various overriding agreements and treaties to reduce their sovereignty over time.
When reputation or funding is threatened due to exposure or scandals that cannot be fully suppressed through the mass media, such entities may quickly step-up public relations efforts to appear to be acting primarily in the public interest.
Special Cases of Marketing Operations
Psychological Operations (Psyops)
One form of warfare is war on the mind, sometimes referred to as fifth-generation warfare. This may consist of deploying psychological tools to induce the masses to conform with a politically-managed agenda to assist their clients; this topic is touched on elsewhere in this study (e.g., “nudge units” re: Thaler and Sunstein 2021; military-grade psychological operations). Also see Bernays 1928; Huxley 1932; Orwell 1945; Meerloo 1956 re: menticide; Jung 1957; Sargant 1961; Ellul 1962; Arendt 1968; Herman, Chomsky 2002; Desmet 2022; Hopkins 2022; Pilger 2022; Curtin 2023; Johnstone 2023; Nehls 2023; Ratner 2023 re: Bezmenov).
Some examples of techniques used have been noted elsewhere in this study and may also include: Blanket control of information sources/media, constant repetition, use of authoritative figureheads to broadcast desired messages (e.g., appointed “experts” including industry shills), creating trauma and emotional states that open the subconscious mind to hypnotic suggestions, peer pressure/social pressure (e.g., Asch conformity line experiment study 1951), creating distortions of reality to alter viewpoints, thought processes and behavior (e.g., see the section above on deceptive Nominalism/Ideological Rhetoric and the left-right paradigm), idea-policing, censorship and engineered invisibility of certain undesirable alternative viewpoints, ostracism, public shaming, isolation, threat of loss of livelihood, methods to weaken cognitive functioning and critical thinking skills such as promotion of unhealthy lifestyles, poor nutrition, and public dependence on devices with embedded tools (e.g., artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled phones/computers), sustained targeting of the hippocampus of the brain in various ways to impede or destroy neuronal growth and development, etc.
Deceptive Choices 1: Bad Guy/Good Guy Psyops. The public is presented with the tyrannical "bad guy" B (e.g., a semi-evil entity or organization, nation-state(s), certain nasty figureheads, etc.) so that the political party/crop of political managers that offers considerably less invasive, less restrictive, and less tyrannical policies appear to be the "good guys" that the citizenry will naturally rally behind (e.g., tyranny vs. tyranny lite).
Deceptive Choices 2: Political Parties and Uniparty. To understand the term "uniparty" and why a system of two or more political parties is likely indispensable to the functioning of political management, consider that all parties have an incentive to take in campaign donations and other political investments from the donor class. The individual parties that constitute the uniparty are tasked with the implementation of the policies that will deliver benefits to their client-donors. This process is difficult to pull off by one party alone because when the policies they impose on the public causes a backlash, there is no replacement "savior" party to replace the "bad guys." This process might be better illustrated through cycles (e.g., election cycles). For example:
Cycle 1. Party A implements policies that end up being harmful to the public in some way or that generate mass discontent and a backlash but does advance the interests of client-donors for both parties. In this Cycle 1, Party A did the visible 'dirty work' for Party B and took the blame, allowing Party B to gain seats as the "savior" to replace Party A.
Cycle 2. After acquiring power, Party B may eventually fall into disfavor with the public after doing the visible dirty work for both parties. Now, Party A (that had taken the blame in Cycle 1) gets to take the reins of power as the new savior.
From cycle to cycle, the public tends to respond to the carefully-crafted rhetoric of the public-facing political managers rather than the actual policies that likely benefited both political parties' client-donors. The public will conclude that by supporting the opposition party to replace the incumbent "bad" party things will finally get "fixed." But this is just one phase of perpetual cycles. The key for the political managers is that their client-donors get what they paid for (i.e., the returns on political investment they paid for).
It should be emphasized that unpopular or harmful policies are often excused as "failed policies" but it is more likely that the policies were in fact the intended outcome to benefit client-donors.
Sleeper Influencers.These influencers are usually public figures that have acquired considerable popularity through political manager backing over time. The handlers of these influencers use social data analysis tools to mimic the talking points of the populace to help the influencer continue to gain popularity and public trust. This marketing operation is defined as "sleeper" because the plan is to make the public more likely to accept what the sleeper has been ultimately groomed for: To garner public acceptance for the implementation of a potentially heinous or harmful policy on behalf of client-donors.
Manufactured Crises (also re: false flag operations)
To deliver benefits to client-donors, political managers may be tasked with devising a "solution" to a not-yet existing problem. However, because the public support required for the solution may be lacking, pushback against implementation of onerous and coercive measures is likely. Therefore, a manufactured crisis may help reshape public opinion to the advantage of political managers towards execution of their planned operation.
Long-Term Operations. Some crisis operations may be years in the making and involve indoctrination of children and youth through the school systems, social conditioning, and the controlled entertainment complex to facilitate future acceptance of invasive authoritarian or even totalitarian measures.
Covert to Overt Crisis Phases. Another crucial aspect of manufactured crises is a transition from a covert phase to an overt phase. While a crisis operation is in progress, the crisis conditions may persist for long periods but are not made public so as not to interfere with the operation; during this covert period, information about the situation may be repeatedly downplayed or suppressed. Overt Phase. Later, when the decision has been made to wind down the operation and bring in a new operation with a new set of policies or to present a new political candidate to “solve” the crisis, then the situation is finally announced to the public as a “crisis,” with the predictable results of public outrage needed to effectuate the desired political changes. The winding down of operations is covered further in Part C of the section below on Stages of Marketing Operations.
Crisis Operation Steps. The psychological makeup of members across the political spectrum may be factored in to determine the type of crisis needed for maximum effect and to achieve the objective. The crisis must elicit a public response that evokes the strongest possible emotions to lower any critical thinking about the event. The planned measures are implemented as fast as possible so that there is less chance for questions to be raised or opposition to develop.
The operation gains more traction if some members of the public (and/or with help from paid influencers and shills) unwittingly push for implementation of the hoped-for solution that was already planned by political managers. Without this crisis, this pre-determined "solution" would have never been acceptable to the public.
Note on coercion. It may be argued that certain measures are not coercive because there is a choice involved. This overlooks that an important part of politically-managed coercion is to "offer" a choice between two or more pre-determined and limited options.
Manufactured Crises: Examples
Possible manufactured crisis operations orchestrated by political managers and possible desired "solutions" are listed next. Note that for success, many of these operations and their implemented solutions may violate multiple constitutional and legal provisions, principles of due process and equal justice under the law, as well as natural and human rights. Several sections above address these and other types of operations in further detail (re: section #12 on Decriminalization/Criminalization Dynamics (including engineered decriminalized migration and crime) and #15. New Business Models).
1. Climate Crisis. This crisis operation may be designed to induce the public to accept systems of carbon credits to fund government activities under the guise of saving the planet and humanity.
2. Migrant Crisis. In the initial stage, massive decriminalized migration backed by political managers may not be publicly announced as a “crisis” because the activity may be linked to funding for non-profit and charitable entities that assist with migration efforts and a circular flow of funds back into campaign donations. However, other voices (either politically-managed or independent) emerge to declare that an “illegal” migration crisis exists and needs to be managed, and which may coincide with funding for tech-related industries (clients) for the development of ID verification (e.g., digital ID) and digital tracking systems. The crisis may also bring the public to be more accepting of intrusive and coercive track and trace measures, and possible violation of bodily autonomy under the pretext of public health (also related to #4 below, "health crisis").
3. Energy Crisis (policy-induced supply or price restrictions). Rising prices financially benefit suppliers of energy (e.g., oil and gas). These suppliers (and other businesses) can be blamed for inflation caused by currency-creation to fund uncontrolled government expenditures that benefit special interest client-donors.
4. Health Crisis. This type of operation is created to induce the public to accept new kinds of intervention including new drugs, therapies, injections and nano-technologies that ideally will deliver recurring contract revenues to the special interest client-donors (e.g., pharmaceutical industry). See Latypova (2024a) on criminal premeditated pandemic operations. Violation of bodily autonomy is a major threat from such policies.
5. National (regional) Security Crisis. This operation is designed to instill fear about a real or manufactured enemy or rogue nation and garner public support for more spending on defense, benefiting arms manufacturers, the tech industry (for surveillance tools, etc.) and other contractors.
6. Domestic Terror and/or Rampant Crime. This type of operation may focus on both real or manufactured internal enemies that threaten the citizens of the nation. Crime waves may have been engineered as discussed in section #12 on Decriminalization/Criminalization Dynamics to benefit real estate investors and developers (re: cheap land and/or resource grabs) who can sell at a profit after law-and-order/confidence are restored. This delivers a positive financial impact to special interest clients as in #5 above and may allow for larger contract awards that cover not only the claimed foreign threats as noted in #5 above but also domestic threats. Funding for regional/local law enforcement client-donors for procurement of enhanced weaponry, robotics and surveillance technology may also be added into funding packages.
7. Disinformation Crisis. This type of operation has multiple potential beneficiaries: Censorship and the "disappearing" of public voices may be necessary to better align the flow of information made available to the public with desired narratives of clients to maintain sales and profits. The development of tools to surveil and track the population and their speech may be aided by lucrative contracts to client-donors of the tech and other industries.
Crisis “Resolution” and Totalitarian Risks. The politically-managed resolution of their crisis operations (especially #1, #2, #4, #6 and #7) may also be tied to additional funding for certain client-donors, including those in the military-industrial-tech surveillance complex and law enforcement for crackdowns on the populace, together with contractors for the prison-industrial complex and other industries. Large contracts may be awarded for construction of facilities to solve the problem(s) created by the crises may include public housing, tent camps or detention centers for illegal migrants, prisons (included for violent offenders who may have been released during the withdrawal-of-law-and-order crisis phase), quarantine camps for those deemed to be public health menaces (re: Cox 2023), re-education or concentration camps for dissident or unapproved voices allegedly spreading misinformation, or those that are found guilty of “speech crimes,” “thought crimes,” or "climate crimes" against the planet, etc., citizens targeted as “undesirables,” or accused of being “bourgeois,” unpatriotic or of sympathizing with the enemy (e.g., from 20th century, Nazi Germany, China under Mao, USSR under Stalin, internment of Japanese-Americans under Executive Order 9066, U.S., 1942, Cambodia under Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge, etc.).
Stages of Marketing Operations
A.Planning/Preparatory Phase. The initial political investment and dealmaking phase in negotiating delivery of benefits/financial returns to special interest clients may largely be invisible to the public while attention is diverted to elections-related activity, selective reporting designed to distract, and debates on selected “issues,” “controversies” and so on that serve as camouflage for the preparations of the operation.
Note that in cases of stealth operations both the planning and execution may transition seamlessly without advancing to a more public execution/delivery phase as detailed in the next subsection B (see Webb 2023; re: long-term stealth modifications of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC code 1952) across all fifty states of the U.S.). On the “pseudo-legal” structures put in place over decades enabling bioterrorism in the U.S. and abroad see Watt 2022, 2023, Delaney 2023, Martin 2023, Latypova 2024b,c (re: Covid injection operation). Also see Boyle (2005), Phelan (2021) and Kennedy, Jr (2023) on the history of stealth biological engineering research (re: biolabs) and Latypova (2024a) on pre-meditated pandemic operations.
Actions followed by Denial and Accusations. If true information becomes available of a particular action taken or statements made by the authorities--despite irrefutable evidence--any public commentary and criticisms are still repeatedly met with denials (e.g., "it never happened”) or accusations (e.g., of “conspiracy theories,” “misinformation spreading” etc.); also, re: gaslighting.
Once execution is decided upon, the politically-managed marketing operations follows a series of steps; if one step fails to produce results, political managers and their clients may opt to move to the next more forceful stage for better results. The list below is simplified and not comprehensive; various tools as described elsewhere in this section may be deployed to ensure better outcomes for clients. Some hypothetical examples:
B.Execution/Delivery Phase (to secure pathological profits, gains and wealth for clients and related parties):
1. Political promotion (speeches, pronouncements), public relations (PR), consistently positive “spin” on events, markets, etc., despite worsening conditions and outlook, branding campaigns, entertainment and/or news reporting involving the use of shills, influencers, celebrities, multiple distractions including the provocation of war and conflict that also may serve to garner popular support for political managers and perpetuate their power as wartime leaders, , engineered confusion,* misdirection* to divert attention away from information that does not fit an official narrative (e.g., events, the damaging role of certain organizations/institutions, political managers, a nation’s role in fomenting violence, etc.) and redefinition of language, promotion of drugs/psychotropics, electronic device-mediated psychological manipulation, dietary, medical and other interventions that enhance passivity in the face of abusive treatment, or that triggers aggression. In finance, the propping up of financial and real estate markets through monetary policy may induce misguided complacency among the asset-holding public and pension funds amid acts of fraud and embezzlement, etc. (re: quantitative easing). On the broadcasting of intent and predictive programming psychological operations, see Kennedy (2022d).
2. Indoctrination, censorship and precensorship, suppression of vital information, digitally “disappearing” certain individuals from the public sphere and discourse to keep their dissenting views hidden (note that the prominently visible candidates/individuals are likely those being promoted, even if portrayed in a negative light they are being given publicity), “prebunking” potential evidence of crimes and improprieties, buying the “silence” of certain public figures/organizations (e.g., “hush money”; for the sellers of silence a possible form of “shakedown racket”), corporate media collaboration to broadcast official narratives, targeting and punishment of promoters of counternarratives, etc. Blackmail may be instrumental in controlling certain public figures through duress and induce them to advance policies that could not be pursued otherwise. Deliberate perpetuation of victimhood (including real victimization and abuse) to maintain power as perpetual savior/advocate/protector (recall the discussion in section #13 of the main text above on the role of “protector” in a politically-managed context).
3. Propose new legislation to change existing laws. This may be done together by installing a majority of members of the political body in advance that can be counted on to secure a vote in favor of otherwise unpopular laws to deliver the promised benefits to the special interest clients (also see blackmail above).
4. Issuance of edicts, mandates, orders, verbal threats (e.g., for non-compliance), closure of accounts (e.g., “debanking”); overcoming resistance by rushing the execution of operations to give citizens minimal time to respond, evaluate or oppose what is being proposed or done to them.
5. Erosion of property rights (Webb, D.R. 2023, e.g., engineered insecure title to assets for use as collateral for third party special interests, conversion of asset ownership to designation as entitlements), uncertainty in property rights (e.g., squatter’s rights).
6. Asset seizures,* confiscation, forced liquidations (e.g., bail-ins, takings, civil asset forfeiture*). Kinetic attacks, violence against citizens, collectivization, quarantining, incarcaration or lockdown, followed by cover-up if needed; waging war can also be effective in covering up crimes committed by political managers as well as diverting the public’s attention.
(*) Notes from Line #1 in the list above):
Engineered Confusion through Indoctrination cannot be underestimated in reinforcing the positive feedback loop of political management by advancing client-donor sales or other objectives by inducing people to accept something that they might otherwise reject had the truth/facts been made clear. If deliberate, sowing confusion can be thought of a psychological operation to dismantle an internally consistent framework for understanding the world, including by introducing contradictions in which the information fed to citizens conflicts with their observed reality, then chastising them for disobedience in various ways if they “see” something different from what they are being told to believe and especially if they speak out about this inconsistency (e.g., calls for speech controls, obedience training; accusations of speech crimes). This form of indoctrination may be reinforced by the media (including social media programming), the education system/academia and political manager pronouncements. Note that even if confusion is not deliberate and is allowed to persist, the result is also likely to be effective.
Recall the example cited in the Case Study of Pathogenesis in the main text above: The purported symptoms of an illness are very similar to the adverse effects/injuries from the treatment for that illness. After treatment, any side effects from the treatment itself may be confused with the illness, inducing the public to seek more treatments (e.g., booster shots); this may be particularly effective if the treatment also fundamentally impairs the human immune system, leaving the victims vulnerable to a variety of illnesses. In the next phase, slight variations of the illness or mutated “novel” pathogens (e.g., variants) are announced, further inducing unwitting individuals to seek treatments that are claimed to target the new thing. Such phased operations have multiple benefits for business client-donors of political managers and investors in these businesses: To promote recurring sales of the treatment products themselves or of a new class of products to treat the side-effects of the treatments, including long-term pathologies such as cancers, auto-immune disorders, etc., , that lead potentially to many years of repeat business and pathological profits for the special interest client-donors. Manufactured confusion also lends itself to plausible deniability such that the product makers can claim that any harms caused cannot be linked to their products.
It should be added that in addition to the manipulation of search engine results, artificial intelligence (AI) may also play an increasing role in the process of engineered confusion, although with sufficient advances in AI technologies, may be more difficult to maintain as an effective propaganda tool without banning the more truth-and-reality-based AI models.
It should be added that in addition to the manipulation of search engine results, artificial intelligence (AI) may also play an increasing role in the process of engineered confusion, although with sufficient advances in AI technologies, may be more difficult to maintain as an effective propaganda tool without banning the more truth-and-reality-based AI models.
On Misdirection Concerning Wage Increases. A common example of rhetoric that appeals to the public but misdirects them is the promise to raise people’s wages by forcing businesses to pay workers more. What is not addressed is the less visible chronic source of long-term declines in real wages (i.e., real being nominal wage growth minus price growth) arising from the destruction of purchasing power from debasement of the currency by political management and its monetary tools. More specifically, the currency debasement originates from additional currency creation in the process of financing increasing government expenditures by monetizing government debt issuance (e.g., debt monetization). Essentially, political managers who engage in this misdirection are omitting a key politically-managed driver of worker impoverishment and shifting blame onto private sector/businesses, while claiming to be “for the workers.”
Misdirection by Redefinition of language and words is considered a potential form of misdirection by change meanings to align with a desired narrative or objective. An example of misdirection by the redefinition of words concerns the term “case” in the context of public health propaganda. “Cases” are redefined to mean a “positive” result from a test kit rather than care in a medical facility, typically for a diagnosed condition. This redefinition of language contributes to inflating the number of individuals who can be categorized as ill and can help political managers promote products and treatment protocols of their clients (e.g., pharmaceutical companies); also, re: Kennedy 2022h.
Other Misdirection
Doublespeak and playing to different audiences (including with AI-assisted deep fakes). An influential public figure or political candidate takes opposite positions on a policy (i.e., both “pro” and “con”) in an interview or policy statement. Each position is shown to the appropriate audience to give the impression that the candidate is aligned with their position only; similarly with an investment “expert” who “predicts” a stock will rise in one interview and fall in a separate interview; the video of the correct “prediction” is the one that is broadcast to the public.
Distortions. On historical and current official and media actions (e.g., 2024 vs. 1960’s Vietnam war protests, U.S.) see North, J. (2024); e.g., non-reporting of actual injustices that prompted the protests, ignoring proposals for non-violent resistance or resolution, maligning sincere protesters as violent, bigoted, hopelessly uninformed, immature, bourgeois and privileged, “plants” and “tools” of the enemy or dangerous influences (it is recognized that some paid external agitators may be inserted into protests to discredit real and sincere protesters in various ways). It should be added that by the early 2020’s relatively newer ostensible “alternative” media outlets may have been created at least in part to advance certain narratives and distort reporting.
Collectivism/Collectivist Logic. This section on misdirection highlights the danger of a collectivist logic of ignoring individuals in favor of the collective. This involves conflating acts of aggression by individual members of a group (e.g., nationality, religious, racial, or ethnic group, ideological, income class, political party, etc.) with all members of that group: This concept of justice emphasizes groupism and “social guilt/social innocence” or “shared guilt/shared innocence” based on groupism rather than personal guilt or innocence, whereby blame is cast on the entire group rather than the individual aggressors within the group. Detail. A violent act is committed by a member (or members) of group x against innocents (non-combatants, non-aggressors, innocent bystanders, etc.). If the aggressor’s group x is a favored identity group, the aggressor may be treated with impunity based on the collectivist logic of “shared innocence” to be discussed next.
Collectivism falls into basic conflations between acts by individuals and the groups they are deemed to be members of, as follows: “Everyone is guilty” (shared guilt), “No-one is guilty” (shared innocence) or a mix of the two:
(a) “Everyone is guilty” (shared guilt). This can be expressed in at least two ways: 1. This typically involves a politically-managed framing that treats all members of group x as complicit with the individual aggressor(s) of group x to justify retaliation against everyone, begetting more violence and potentially harming/punishing innocents within group x; or 2. defending acts of aggression against innocents by a member of a politically-favored group x because the innocents are deemed to be guilty by association as members of a “guilty” group (“guilty group” as defined by past true or fabricated aggression by individuals that share similar characteristics to the innocent individual (e.g., nationality, religious, racial, or ethnic group, ideological, income class, political party, etc.).
(b) “No-one is guilty” (shared innocence): Treating all members of a group including the aggressors within the group as being wrongly accused. For example, calls for punishment of the individual aggressors within group x is claimed to be persecution of, discrimination, or an “attack” on all members of group x; this may be backed up by the claim that the aggressors themselves are in fact “innocent” by virtue of the fact that they were seeking justice on behalf of the collective (i.e., “their” group) for prior (true or fabricated) acts of aggression against “their” group by another group that the innocent victim happened to be associated with based on some characteristic (guilt-by-association and shared guilt as noted above). In this case, the aggressors may remain unpunished for their acts against innocents by virtue of the claimed innocence of the collective (possibly rooted in group victimhood based on past true or fabricated events). Applications of Collectivism. 1. “Everyone is the same. “An aspiring leader or political manager who claims to be a “representative” of all the members of group x uses collectivist logic to justify criminal acts by some of the members of the group, citing, for example, “our” traditions/culture*, or “this is payback for what has been taken from ‘us’ by (group y or z),” etc. While this approach may help raise some support from the target voting bloc and other sympathizers who equate such statements as being heroic, protective and pro-justice, the consequences may be overlooked: Shifting responsibility for the acts of a few to all members of group x not only can facilitate further criminality and violence by the few wrongdoers within group x who can continue with impunity (including for their aggressions against innocent members of the same group x), but this also unjustly taints the reputation of the honest law-abiding members of group x as they are all being treated collectively—i.e., treated as "all the same" as the criminal actors within the group. This results in insidious form of forced “herding” and subjugation by proxy: Honest innocents who try to escape communities of violence are marginalized by the outside world that mistakenly sees them through this collective lens (e.g., all members of group x seen as violent) promoted by politically-managed collectivism. The community of group x may be impoverished if political managers permit theft and violence to be unpunished. Trapped socially and economically by the politically-managed outcomes of herding and subjugation, the innocents of group x communities may be condemned to being victimized by the violent members of the community stemming from this politically-managed lack of individual accountability. If political managers never assign responsibility to the culpable individuals, they could be complicit in increased crime and violence-- including against the members of the group they claim to be protecting, or subjugation by proxy.
2. Using the example of a political entity (e.g., nation-state, territory, province, etc.), all citizens of political entity A are treated as equally complicit in any violence/aggression perpetrated by political entity A’s claimed leadership (“everyone is guilty”). It is recognized that a complication is that many of the citizen-residents may strongly support their (perceived) leaders for various reasons including experiences of past injustice, indoctrination by the leadership through public schooling and the controlled media-entertainment complex over many years, fear of their leadership, patriotism, bonds of ethnic unity, etc., but this does not cause them all to necessarily be complicit in the acts of aggression.
The other variation on this collectivist conflation as noted above is when calls for prosecution against political entity A’s leadership for aggression is claimed to be a prejudiced “attack” on all the citizen-residents of that political entity (“no-one is guilty”).
The fundamental danger of this collectivist logic remains: Conflating aggressors and non-aggressors can lead to either unjust exoneration of the perpetrators or unjust collective punishment of innocents.
Also note the possible weaponization of tribalism and factionalism as tools of political management to divide people and foment conflict for purposes of gaining control.
*Note on traditions and culture from above: To clarify, the concern is not about culture and traditions per se, but about the collective approach of using “culture and tradition” to justify violent or murderous behaviors, etc., by members of a group that a political figure claims to represent. Destruction of Cultural Heritage. It should be added that the tragic destruction of culture and traditions may be a long-term consequence of politically-managed dynamics to engineer worldwide consumer and ideological uniformity for special interest client-donors (including political entities) seeking to expand influence, control, and sales into global markets (Radio Far Side 2024b). Tragically, these politically-managed culture-obliterating expansionist activities on behalf of global corporate special interest client-donors may also be deceptively marketed under the guise of promoting diversity.
On Drug Criminalization (Prohibition) and Decriminalization. The commentary above is not intended to suggest that criminalization/prohibition is an appropriate solution (re: Block 2024), but rather to highlight the risks of politically-managed promotion of drugs for purposes of mass control.
Example of Possible Politically-Managed Marketing Activities. Conversion of largely vacant and/or bankrupt commercial properties (e.g., office buildings and some skyscrapers) in big cities for future residential occupancy may be accompanied by a marketing campaign by political managers (and front organizations) on behalf of their real estate investor client-donors for new urban design plans such as “smart cities” or “15-minute cities.” Such plans may also be linked to some form of control grid and universal basic income to ensure that populations stay herded in these areas to secure a recurring cash flow for the owners of the converted commercial-to-residential urban properties.
(*) From Line #2 in the list above: Notes on indoctrination and psychology:
Learned Blindness ("blind spots") and Variations. This form of indoctrination involves training the populace to not notice (or think of) the obvious; this can be accomplished by repetitive omission, misdirection, repeated subtle 'disciplining' or overt punishments against those daring to consider, or ask questions about the obvious, etc.
One variation of learned blindness may be an indoctrinated focus on a specific target (e.g., focus on the “enemy,” a particular group identity, certain characteristics, ideas, etc.) leading to a sort of blindness to other possible factors of concern; this form of indoctrination may serve to distract people from focusing their attention on the true origins of injustices, for example.
Another variation of learned blindness is the creation of a false dichotomy. This form of indoctrination and manipulation involves cultivating a binary vision of the world for the public to view things in terms of only two choices, “x” or “y,” where no other possible options exist. Moreover, the choices being “given” to the masses, when eventually implemented in practice have no relationship to the stated choice (e.g., the choice between “elected officials vs. unelected officials,” or choosing between “our system”/Party A=”freedom and prosperity,” and “the other system”/Party B=”oppression and servitude.” While the choice appears to be clear, that the former should be chosen over the latter, after implementation of this “better” choice, in practice the difference in outcomes may overall be similar or virtually indistinguishable (although different identity groups may intentionally be impacted unevenly to be used for future politically-managed changes).
Conditional Acceptance. In this form of learned blindness, an undesirable, questionable or even immoral action is rendered acceptable because it is falsely linked to a positive or acceptable outcome. This might be most effectively “taught” as a slogan that is repeated from a young age. An example might be “give up x, y or z” to “help others and contribute to society.”
Future Risks. Also note the risk of debilitating indoctrination by intentionally constructing blind spots via Artificial Intelligence (AI) models that humans will rely on in the future.
Targeting Bodily Autonomy: Abuser tactics for pathological profit. As part of the marketing apparatus, the abuse is likely to be carried out by political managers to deliver 'willing customers' (i.e., targets, or 'marks') for their corporate donor-clients through powerful psychological tools and tactics. In addition to the use of mass media and political discourse, this abuse may extend to indoctrination in the politically-managed school systems. The abuse may begin by establishing collective trust as 'protector' of the targets, later followed by constant messaging to diminish the victims' sense of self-worth in various ways (isolation, label them as 'oppressors' or 'evil' according to their immutable characteristics, psychologically reduce them to sub-human status, e.g., with terms such as ‘ape-brained meat sacks’, ‘hackable animals’, etc. (as in examples given by Aboli 2024).
Violation of Bodily Autonomy: Engineered “Consent.” As noted in the section above, part of an operation to financially benefit their special interest client-donors and the investors in novel products and services, political managers may begin by laying the psychological groundwork to create demand for the new market by promoting a new way of thinking (ideology/doctrine) or breaking the will and self-worth of individuals to prepare them psychologically to "regain" their sense of self-worth by accepting the new “product.” This process may bring individuals to eventually allow their bodily autonomy to be violated, even repeatedly (e.g., special treatments and therapies involving injections, drugs, experimental or other surgical interventions, and inserted nano-technologies, etc.). In addition to marketing, this groundwork also may be designed to bring people to more willingly accept an emerging technological state (such as job replacement by humanoid AI-driven robots in the 21st century). “Aftercare.” Possibly akin to managing a 'mark' after a con trick (Naked Emperor, 2023), at some point some victims will lash out after recognizing that they have been abused and taken advantage of. To prevent this from escalating into class action lawsuits or political retaliation, etc., an infrastructure may be crafted in advance to manage victim anger and frustration by arranging for politically-managed 'confidants,' counseling services, or manufactured support groups.
Additional Notes. The deprecatory psychological manipulation of humanity as described in the sections above not only may negate individual qualities and differences to be subordinated to a collective, but may also be intended to diminish the value of human life to subhuman status, to be subordinated to the overriding objective(s) of adherents of a type of supremacist ideology/worldview who have anointed themselves as having special rights and privileges over others--including the right to take human life at will—by virtue of their status and to achieve their ideological objectives. The system and tools of political management pose a unique threat under such a mindset as eventual control of the state machinery is acquired. Historically, political ideologies and justifications for subsequent atrocities vary throughout history, but ascension to leadership positions in the context of political management may considerably raise the risk of state-sponsored violence.
Distinction. This description of supremacist elite control in the context of political management may be confused with placing value on high standards (towards meeting demand and serving the needs of customers/end users), adherence to excellence in quality, craftmanship and quality control in production processes, superior customer service, culturally polite behavior and good manners, sanitation/cleanliness, etc., in an economic context.
Other Concerns: Deceptive Aspect. Political movements may have broad appeal as being protective of others, moral and virtuous. The motives of the leading adherents are unlikely to be questioned at least initially and may never be suspected of ever becoming genocidal upon attaining power. Popular and laudable rhetoric lends credibility and builds trust (e.g., “for the greater good,” “to empower…,” “to right the wrongs of the past,” “to preserve (values x, y or z), “to preserve peace, order, and harmony,” “for freedom and justice,” “for the safety and protection of x, y or z,” “to resist/fight against oppression (by groups x, y or z),” etc. Also see section #13 above on Group Identity Formation (Identity Politics) and Privileged Class Status and Note: Detail on Role of “Protector.” Political movements may also expand their influence and popularity with strategies such as borrowing elements from other traditions, cultures, or religions (to gain acceptance among the members of dissimilar groups), adopting a collectivist logic (“we are all one,” “we are all in this together”) to reinforce a sense of unity. Moreover, a (real or self-proclaimed) victimhood status as well as claiming to be a protector of victims can add to popular acceptance and shield the ideological leadership from criticism for their actions. This combination can enable those in charge to more effectively “hide” among those that they claim to be protecting and “united” with as a collective. Also see the separate discussion on collectivism. However, as their plans to achieve the overriding objective(s) of their ideological program are executed, the true genocidal face of the leadership may eventually be revealed (not only in internal affairs but externally by foreign interventionism, territorial expansion, and the permanent waging of war, etc.).
(*) Detail on Asset Seizures (Line #6 in the list above)
Civil Forfeiture as a supplemental funding mechanism for law enforcement and/or government agencies (e.g., Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984 (U.S.); re: Benson 1993; Mitchell 2017b; Wimer/Institute for Justice 2018). Under the Act local police departments cooperating with federal drug enforcement authorities in an investigation can share in confiscated assets including without the filing of charges.
Role of Regulatory Bodies in Asset Seizures and Wealth Transfers. Another form of asset seizure stems from imposition of regulations requiring expensive upgrades on properties for various stated purposes (e.g., safety, environmentally-friendly, etc.). Some property owners (especially homeowners) may be unable to afford the cost of these upgrades and if found to be out of compliance can have their homes seized by the authorities, or the homeowners may be bankrupted and are forced to sell their properties. Although not necessarily obvious, this is a wealth transfer from homeowners to companies that perform the upgrades that may be clients of political managers, and if the homes are liquidated at a discount, may benefit another special interest client of political managers: real estate investors.
Asset seizures can also arise from state-sponsored actions such as forced relocation/collectivization or quarantining (Cox 2023) under various pretexts, resulting in the victims being unable to pay their mortgages, leading to default, foreclosure and property liquidations that benefit real estate investors (e.g., internment of Japanese-Americans under Executive Order 9066; Franklin D. Roosevelt, February 19, 1942; Other historical examples of forced displacement, relocation, collectivization, mass incarceration, concentration camps and genocide include the Native Americans, U.S., Canada; African Americans and others via Eminent Domain; the Palestinian people; policies in USSR, China under Mao, Tanzania (Ujamaa collectivization), Nazi Germany, Chile under Pinochet. (Re: Solzhenitsyn 1973; Rummel 1997; Fullilove 2007; Crooke 2009; Hallbrook 2014; Reisman 2014; Kennedy 2017; Kennedy 2022c; Kornbluh 2023, 2019); also, re: ethnic cleansing, engineered famine/deliberate destruction of the food supply of indigenous peoples, forced evacuation/collectivization policies.
Other Detail on Confiscation/Theft (from line #6 above)
Theft from Depositors (including “bail-ins”). In a public finance emergency, political managers may require cooperation from banks to obtain Treasury bond financing, particularly at a time when confidence in public finances is low, and/or bond yields are depressed to the point that potential buyers are discouraged from purchasing the bonds because of the likelihood of future capital losses (when yields rise again). To induce banks to purchase unwanted bonds, political managers may tacitly “allow” an event to occur whereby the depositors funds (that may have been a major source of funds to buy the bonds) can be “taken” during (or under the cover of) a subsequent bank failure or insolvency.
Theft from Foreigners (Adversaries or Allies). Foreign nations that hold Treasury bonds with nation-state A may be subject to punitive actions by Nation A for various reasons, including economic sanctions. One form of punishment can be the freezing of the foreign (or allied) nation’s assets (or assets of some of their citizens). After freezing, it is possible that Nation A might move to transfer ownership of those frozen foreign assets to itself.
Resource Confiscation. After a military intervention or conflict, a nation may justifiably choose to keep troops in the area as it can be argued that continued military occupation can help maintain peace and protect the local populations and/or their resources against aggressors and resource theft, etc. However, there are concerning exceptions involving possible deception, such as the clandestine arming and control of “camouflage” insurgents to create a false justification for indefinite continuation of a "protective" military presence. If a military occupation is unjustified (e.g., unauthorized/illegal occupation and/or involving resource theft), the occupying troops positioned in the area are unnecessarily and deliberately being put in harm’s way as potential targets of anti-occupation forces (McAdams 2024). This also may be part of a reckless strategy to exploit any attacks on the troops as a pretext for further escalation of conflict and war profiteering as well as stepped-up territorial occupation and resource exploitation. Note: Also see Kennedy (2022e) on geopolitical issues including “camouflage insurgency" and acquisition of resources and territory by other means including coups and other politically-managed operations.
Defunding the opposition. It is key to add that many of the actions listed just above may be closely related to the campaign fundraising dynamic. The goal is to increase fundraising power relative to the opposition party/ies and their supporters (in other words, make it harder for competing political management candidates to raise funds and outspend your campaign; this improves your spending power in a relative sense). This may involve a multi-pronged approach against the opposition’s potential “deep pockets” donors as well as the capture of various organizations (public and private sector) to favor hiring for those that espouse the new ideology; these new employees are not only likely to be supporters of the torch-bearing political managers but also can earn more income to donate to campaigns (while those who become politically unemployed have less):
1. Opposition leaders and supporters: Asset seizures, prosecutions, imprisonment, tying up assets of, or bankrupting major opposition leaders, associates, and their wealthier campaign donors. Also see lawfare and discussion on politically-managed weaponization of the judicial system (adjudication) elsewhere in this study.
2. Public sector focus: Political action to force firings of individuals working in large organizations especially in the public sector if they tend to poll in favor of the opposition (e.g., police forces, military, school and university systems, although varies by country), then replace them with sympathetic potential donors. This may in some cases include policies to integrate illegal migrants or foreign nationals who have been allowed free entry into the country and possibly financial assistance and may feel an allegiance to the torch-bearing party rather than the opposition.
3. Private sector focus: Becoming the party of a "new doctrine" that has unquestionably popular appeal (e.g., justice, equality, unwavering support for x, y or z, fighting against the injustices of x, y or z, etc.) especially among young people. This strategy can be effective in gaining support from the leadership of private sector organizations as a virtue signaling mechanism to shift political donations from the opposition to your “ideologically-correct” party instead. This also can be extended to business hiring practices whereby potential candidates for jobs that subscribe to the new doctrine will be given preferential treatment while others face prolonged unemployment as a politically-disfavored class (and therefore have less resources to donate to the opposition).
C.Winding-Down Phase. Once it has been determined that most of the pathological income and assets have been secured or seized (e.g., the “clearing” and transfer of land for future exploration or development via land or resource grabs, awarding of contracts to clients, stock price appreciation, royalties to patent holders, promotions and raises, etc.,) the following steps may be taken with the primary objective to reward the contributors to the effort and to avoid judicial accountability for any crimes committed:
1.Resignations or “removals” of puppet political managers (these were the “faces” of the operation). Media may emphasize the resignations as being “in disgrace” so as to appease the public that the instigators have been “dealt with” which serves as an adequate substitute for prosecutions.
2.For those playing largely subordinate roles in the operation: Promotions, awards, commendations, transfer to private sector positions (or vice versa), non-prosecution or show prosecutions to appease the public. These same complicit individuals may also be called upon for assistance in future operations.
3. Repeated claims of policy “success.” Backed by a compliant media, it is possible for political managers to spin catastrophic outcomes in a positive light by simply announcing nearly the opposite of the reality. With repetition, skillful framing and wording by media, coupled with a lack of alternative sources of information and the historical backdrop, the public may be inclined to believe what they are being told even if their own lived experiences suggest otherwise. Examples of such public pronouncements touting policy success might be: “our nation’s economy is booming like never before, “our streets are safer than ever,” “we have emerged victorious in our fight against x, y or z,” “we are committed to helping our nation heal its differences,” “inflation is now behind us,” “our country’s tireless quest for diplomacy and a balanced foreign policy has helped secure a lasting global peace,” etc.
4. Pretext Formulation. Political managers or unwitting apologists may attribute catastrophic outcomes of politically-managed operations to reasons such as: "mismanagement," "mistakes were made," “our leaders never learn,” “stupidity,” "incompetence," or "failure." This type of labeling can be very effective in perpetuating the power structure of political management as long as the public is kept unaware of the beneficiaries of supposedly "failed" operations. This way, political managers together with their special interest beneficiaries can continue to profit pathologically at the public's expense while escaping accountability. Some examples of pretexts are detailed in the next paragraph.
Detail. Pretexts Enabling the Perpetuation of Power
Claim: "Special interests 'subvert' governments." While this statement recognizes that a problem exists, this may imply that special interests are its sole origin. This overlooks the inherent design of political management that enables both special interests and political managers to enter into mutually-beneficial arrangements at the expense of citizens as detailed elsewhere.
Claims of "mismanagement" and "failure." Catastrophic outcomes of politically-managed operations may be described as "mismanagement," "mistakes were made," or a "failure"; however, this is a matter of perspective: An ostensibly "failed" operation (including repeatedly “losing wars”) can be highly successful if political managers were able to generate fortunes for their special interest clients (e.g., defense contractors, arms manufacturers, etc.), or if another objective was attained. "Failure" can also be a pretext for the assumption of additional power by convincing the public that "mistakes were made" but that the managers in charge will try better next time.
Incompetence may be a valid reason for what has occurred, but not necessarily in error: i.e., strategic incompetence. The importance of planned incompetence within the system's design cannot be underestimated: Many political managers who are promoted to positions of visible leadership by their own managers/handlers* may have been expressly selected for certain qualities such as pliability and lack of awareness. In addition, being blindly ideological, self-absorbed, lacking common sense or ethics, or lacking real world understanding may also be desirable for political success; without these qualities, certain legislation and egregious policies are less likely to be pushed through to impose on the populace. *Note: The handlers also may involve gatekeepers to strategically process the information that the public-facing political managers receive (including preventing vital information from reaching them or convincing them that a highly imprudent or dangerous policy will make them a “hero” or save the world); thus, the public-facing manager actually may be more ofa figurehead, and the gatekeepers/handlers are the real managers behind the scene and largely unknown to the public.
Bumbling and incompetent leaders can play other valuable roles, as well, including as a form of distraction and entertainment redirecting the public’s attention away from certain undesirable or heinous policy actions,or to put adversaries off-guard, especially when the bumbling and idiocy are well-timed. As noted elsewhere in this study, the installation of incompetent (or corrupt) leaders can serve to demoralize the public and induce their acceptance of a pre-planned replacement (engineered demoralization).
While often entertaining, repeated commentary on the incompetence or “stupidity” of leaders may tend to overlook this feature of politically-managed systems or may be intended to lay the groundwork for pre-planned political changes by various factions (e.g., proponents of a replacement puppet, enablers, or apologists for the current regime’s “flaws”).
An additional pretext in the form of a proposed solution to the problems is discussed below in the section titled Solutions?
Conclusion to the Summary Definition
As long as the public remains unsuspecting and/or does not object, the self-reinforcing process (="positive polarity") can be expected to expand over time as economic distortions build up. Eventually, financial burdens on the populace, including loss of employment, inflation (inflicting a loss of real income/purchasing power), as well as revelations of egregious acts and corruption by political managers, etc., can lead to loss of legitimacy. The politically-managed system is not naturally sustainable without repeated application and implementation of the tools and techniques of political management to perpetuate its existence by interfering with the functioning of economic systems and locking many into long-term dependency on the state (re: permanent underclass politically managed under a control grid slavery system). Eventually as economic realities can no longer be masked or avoided, a dependent population can suffer severe dislocations in a jarring transition which may in extreme cases may result into deadly outcomes linked to protests, politically-managed crackdowns/mandates, criminality (political/authorities and street level crime), extreme poverty and homelessness, induced shortages and famine, the waging of war as a diversion and as a benefit to special interest clients. A safer transition to economic management (characterized by self-reliance and self-sustaining economic systems) is addressed in the next section on Solutions.
Solutions?
This section is in two parts. Part A discusses the possible consequences of continued reliance upon politically-managed systems (i.e., positive polarity and self-reinforcing systems). Part B provides a sketch of the process of transitioning to economically-managed systems (i.e., negative polarity; counterbalancing systems).
Part A. Remaining Tied to Political Management
For those who prefer to rely solely upon politically-managed systems while hoping that reforms and piecemeal fixes /replacements will resolve the systemic issues, a few caveats are noted here.
Recapture. Others may propose to “take back” or recapture the institutions that they characterize as having been captured by their (ideological) opponents by political action, under the assumption that things will fundamentally change by perpetuating the same institutions that are built to serve the objectives of political management.
New Parties. Another proposed solution to the outcomes of political management may be the creation of a new political party to “fix things." A variation on this might be the switch of political managers from one party to another more “independent” party, for example. However, adding more political parties, or a change of party affiliation does not fundamentally alter the system of political management.
Attempts at “Reform.” Also, it should be emphasized that under political management, removal, imprisonment, or resignation of a political manager (or related parties) should not be confused with the notion that the politically-managed system itself has somehow fundamentally changed; on the contrary, these actions are typically a step in the process of political management. To review the phases of this dynamic, refer back to #10 Marketing Apparatus, Stages of Operations above.
Another possible proposed reform to fix the problems posed by political management may involve removing the ability of political managers to solicit, or receive compensation from, special interest clients (including from lobbyists, Political Action Committee “PAC money,” etc.). However, because of the asymmetric incentives of the system (i.e., the forces that the system requires including election fundraising, demand for politically-managed “services” in exchange for campaign donations, etc., and increased spending outweigh those required to ensure consistent compliance with such a rule). Simply identifying certain forms of compensation may also pose challenges (e.g., engineered IPOs (initial public offerings), stock price appreciation for clients generating gains from which kickbacks are paid later to political managers through special arrangements or entities, etc.). Even if such a rule can be successfully implemented to some extent, as long as the other tools of the machinery of political management remain intact (refer above to the elements of this Toolkit), the system’s pathological dynamics are likely to remain fundamentally unchanged. Reform Proposal: More Transparency. Political parties and related organizations can receive and handle large sums of money unlike many businesses and public corporations that are required to submit rigorous audits and report the details of their financial operations. Some may therefore propose to “bring more transparency” to the finances of political parties as well as their funding sources and organizations that work on their behalf.
It is also likely that key decisionmakers within politically-managed entities may be kept largely anonymous. Blame for policy actions taken that harm others may then be shifted to others.
While rhetorically calls for transparency may be appealing to voters and the public, for reasons given above, such policies are unlikely to be maintained even if initially implemented, and do not fundamentally alter the systemic foundations of political management.
Political Secession (into a New Politically-Managed Entity). Based on the right of self-determination, a political separation (secession) may be considered to prevent further abuses (e.g., oppression, violations of human rights and genocide) being committed by a governing polity (McMaken 2022, 2024b).
However, if the new polity created out of secession retains the characteristics and institutions of political management as described herein, the dynamics are likely to remain unchanged; the “newness” of the seceding governing body may deceive its citizen-residents into believing that a fundamental change has occurred. Over time, the pathological outcomes of the self-reinforcing positive feedback loops of political management of this new entity are likely to emerge, although initially this may not be obvious.
Also, it should be highlighted that secession may also be a politically-managed longer-term strategy to foster dismemberment and break-ups under the guise of decentralization, freedom, and self-determination, with the ultimate politically-managed objective being the assertion of dominance over those smaller entities.
For discussion on what might be called economic secession combined with economic management, see Part B. Transitioning to Economically-Managed Systems below.
Common Citizens as Client-Donors. Captive resident-citizens may consider that by banding together as a special interest themselves they can "buy" back their own freedom from extractions by making their own political investments to offset the political investments made by other special interests. However, a meaningful long-term reduction of resource extractions imposed upon them is likely to be systemically intractable because reducing political managers' extractive income sources reduces their financial capacity to deliver benefits to other special interest clients.
However, it should be highlighted that citizens may be able to benefit from working within the legacy system of political management under certain circumstances. For example, individuals may be able to have certain grievances addressed and receive financial or other support* by becoming clients of political managers; this approach is expected to be more effective for those who are well-organized as potential voting blocs and those that are significant campaign donors for political managers. (*) Note that reliance on politically-managed systems should be taken with caution because eventually, the system dynamics of political management tend towards overshoot and default/bankruptcy leading to serious hardship for those who are financially dependent on the state.
Political Consolidation into One-World Government. It may be argued that the problems of the world including war largely stem from the existence of nation-states or nationalist sentiments. Therefore, it is proposed that by doing away with national boundaries and creating an overarching governing body in the hands of political managers with global reach and control that these problems can be solved. However, under such a system, the infrastructure of political management is expected to be retained but with a planetary-scale expansive reach and controls such that the more dangerous outcomes of politically-managed dynamics are likely to be amplified, posing a far greater potential threat to humanity. For historical perspective, see Arendt (1968), re: totalitarianism.
This proposed global totalitarian solution may also be linked to technologies and justifications described in the next section on technocratic political management and control grids.
Improving Politically-Managed Systems via “The” Science and Technocratic Management may also be advocated. Individuals deemed as highly-educated and intelligent experts are entrusted with the management of the economy and society to achieve desirable goals as they envision. Scientific experts/technological elites partner with or become part of a new class of political managers coupled with cutting-edge Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and equipped with control grid technologies including programmable currencies (e.g., CBDCs). Beyond Turnkey Totalitarianism. Despite their utopian appeal, politically-managed technocratic societies may tend to devolve into a form of “public health totalitarianism” that overrides any patient-doctor relationships or voluntary consent, employing diverse advanced control tools for collective compliance including mass censorship of vital information, psychological engineering and behavioral science techniques such as the weaponization of fear, public shaming, and scapegoating to accomplish politically-managed objectives (e.g., “public health” terror campaigns to deliver medical “solutions” on behalf of client-donors).
While the objective of nudging to elicit better decision-making appears to be praiseworthy (re: nudge units; Thaler and Sunstein 2021), it is critical to note that in practice, i.e., in the context of political management, the definition of “better” may tend to be redefined as better delivering benefits and returns to client-donors in politically-managed operations-- which may be devoid of accountability and tragically can involve highly unethical actions, medical and psychological abuse, suppression of vital safety signal data, mass harms and even genocide of the citizenry (e.g., Rose 2021; Watt 2022; Baletti/Children’s Health Defense 2023; Waggy 2024).
The compulsory administration of health and other “enhancements” (medicines, injections) may also be claimed to be justifiable on various grounds, but with the unstated goal of delivering benefits to special interest client-donor industries (e.g., technology industry, the pharma-medical-industrial complex backing global public health front organizations, etc.). Just like for other client-donors, political managers may help lay the groundwork for these special interest clients to surveil, track, trace and medicate populations for “safety, security” and “societal harmony” as determined by the designated class of elite experts. In extreme iterations and later phases, politically-managed technological interventionism based on the notion that humans are programmable life forms to be manipulated at will, may threaten irreversible planetary depopulation or humanity’s permanent physiological, neurological, or genetic impairment (e.g., gene-editing technologies and genetic engineering, efforts to merge humanity with synthetic biological forms, bio-digital convergence; also re: history of eugenics to eliminate “undesirables;” scientific racism, scientific- ideological death cults; bioenhancement/moral bioenhancement, neuro-programming, nanobots, and invasive nanotechnologies).
Despite the potential extinction-level risks, a centralized, techno-totalitarian society may still be deemed a “success” by some if it is perceived in a positive light by its (remaining) subjects, and artificial intelligence (AI) may be seen as a promising tool to this end (Smith, B., 2023; Tremblay 2024; also, re: scientific dictatorship and cognitive cleansing; note the possible full-scale digital elimination of information sources that may arbitrarily be deemed to be “unscientific” (i.e., posing a threat to the perpetuation of politically-managed self-proclaimed “science-based” systems).
Other Piecemeal Fixes and Replacements, some of which have been discussed above in more detail, might include novel voting systems, more security-enhanced electronic voting equipment, the redrawing of voting district lines for improved citizen representation, new doctrines and ideologies that aim to wash away the sins of the previous order and institute a new one, a replacement of the central bank with a new and improved currency creation entity, etc.
Reliance on Politically-Managed (Legacy) Media and Online Search Engines also poses a threat to citizens because these entities cannot be counted on to provide the public with vital information. Why? The corporate legacy media (including social media) and legacy online search engine services business model are likely to be driven by advertising revenues or funding from their sponsors (both business and political) which may require suppressing or withholding information (e.g., about the product and other harms caused by sponsoring businesses and other clients). In extreme cases, the censoring of such crucial information to a public entirely dependent on politically-managed media and online search functions can be deadly. It should be added that legacy media may attempt to infiltrate, or rebrand itself as, “alternative,” “independent” or “decentralized” media to perpetuate misdirection and distractions.
War on Citizens. Political managers may find it necessary from time to time and for various purposes as detailed elsewhere in this study to suppress citizens by means of (direct) state-sponsored violence, or more indirectly by "weaponizing" certain groups against the common citizens (e.g., by withdrawal of basic law and order, granting favored identity groups immunity from prosecution for violent crimes they commit, etc.). This may be part of broader strategies to disempower citizens through information/psychological warfare and demographic warfare (see above: #10 on Marketing Apparatus and Operations of political management, and section 12 of the main text on Decriminalization/Criminalization Dynamics. For a psychological perspective on coping, see Jung (1957) on the role of individuals in resisting the threats posed by collective and powerful forces (re: statism; including state-sponsored violence justified in the name of social justice; also, see Casey, G. 2012; Gordon and Njoya 2023: Endrulat 2024; on a brief history of statism, see Smith, G. 2024).
As noted elsewhere (Appendix 2 of Kennedy 2022e), historical revisionists may use the term “civil war” to de-emphasize the role of state-sponsored violence against civilian populations.
In closing this section, for those who choose to remain subject to politically-managed systems, at the very least an awareness of political management’s inherent risks and neo-feudal outcomes* is critical, and care must be taken to understand the potential for harms caused to the public by future politically-managed operations which may be undisclosed to the public during the planning stages prior to rollout.
*Note: See Kotkin 2022; Stone and Kuttner 2020; Smith 2023a, 2023b; Thomas 2023 for perspectives on modern feudalism.
Part B. Transitioning to Economically-Managed Systems
Another long-term viable solution requires pursuing and expanding parallel economic systems that have entirely decoupled from, and are not dependent on, politically-managed systems: This economically-managed form of governance includes development of independent alternatives in multiple domains such as decoupled businesses and the localized production and trade of goods and services, currency choice, alternatives in schooling/education, medicine, sanitation services, security services/community defense, justice systems (including adjudication choice), etc.
Note that this act of decoupling as described here might be called economic secession combined with economic management (the key point being that secession is followed by economically-managed governance); to reiterate, economic management is fundamentally distinct from political management, as well as political secession into a new politically-managed entity as described in Part A above. (Note that while considered unlikely, political secession followed by organic conversion to economic management cannot be ruled out). Also note that the term “popular nullification” would only apply here if the transition involves decoupling from politically-managed systems in which case the term could be qualified as “popular economic nullification”.
More examples of economic management are provided in the Summary and Closing Remarks section of the main text above as well as Table 1 and the Key Notes to Table 1. To reiterate, while problems do not magically disappear under any system, the negative feedback loop of economic systems allows for incremental self-correction and self-sustaining dynamics. This contrasts with self-reinforcing mechanisms (via positive feedback loops) that tend to continue indefinitely until such a system’s inherent lack of sustainability results in some form of “break” followed by crisis and potentially involving massive suffering and loss of life in the process.
It is also imperative that residents be capable of identifying the signs that a community might be “stealth” transitioning to political management as described above in this Summary Definition (the Toolkit), beginning with the income-generation sources within first five items of the Toolkit of Political Management as described above.
See Note 1 and Note 2 to this Summary Definition next. Note that while these Notes aim to detail points made in the main text and the Summary Definitions there may be some redundancies for emphasis.
Note 1 to the Summary Definition. Polarity: Contrasting Economic and Politically-Managed Systems
Polarity: Economic forces detail. In contrast to political management, economic systems are characterized by counter-balancing/self-correcting forces (i.e., a negative feedback loop or negative polarity). An economic system originates from productive activity, modulated by undistorted prices (of inputs, final products, and services) via a pricing system that reflects true costs. Negative polarity describes a sustainable system with a self-correcting trajectory. This is illustrated with an example, next.
Sustainability (Negative Polarity). Resource conservation/economization of resources occurs when prices reflect reality (true costs) of producing and supplying goods and services. The counterbalancing/self-correcting "braking mechanism" of economic systems means that when a resource become relatively scarcer its price tends to rise, which raises its cost and discourages its use or consumption. If the price of gasoline rises, the feedback loop in economic management (economic response) would tend towards a reduction of its use by consumers. On the production side, in response to a (projected sustained) rise in prices, producers may choose to increase production, but they too are constrained by the price of the inputs that they use for production; if the cost (accounting for price and quantity of the input) of the inputs are rising also, the producer is incentivized to use less (economize) on the input resources. The counterbalancing process of negative polarity may tend to discourage overuse/waste) of resources (re: economization).
Incentives and Polarity of Systems. Negative polarity also describes a system where incentives tend to be aligned with objectives (alignment of incentives). Incentives are ways to reward/encourage or punish/discourage certain activities/behavior that would generally be considered undesirable. To repeat from above, in the case of resource scarcity, the natural incentives within a system should slow down use of the resource; in economic systems, this signal typically comes through the pricing system (assuming no distortion in prices), such that prices rise when resources are scarcer, causing less use of the resource; in contrast, note that if a system encourages increasing use of a scarcer resource, waste is an undesirable outcome.
Similarly, in social dynamics, system dynamics should not encourage or incentivize/reward people for causing other undesirable outcomes such as harming others, causing injury and death without consequence.
However, as shown in this study, the positive feedback loop (positive polarity) of politically-managed systems introduces incentives to do things that most would regard as undesirable (e.g., use more of a resource as it gets scarcer, or reward people for harming others and behaving in certain undesirable ways).
It may be argued that a system of political management does punish bad behavior. While this is true, the system inherently involves selectively application of punishment and reward for political gain (including to garner supporters, e.g., Party A over Party B); in this manner, supporters may be “allowed” to engage in bad behavior while the targeted out-groups (e.g., members of the political opposition, different religions, ethnicities, races, etc.) are punished in some way, even if they are not guilty of the alleged acts (re: blame-shifting, or guilt-by-association, as detailed elsewhere in this study). Similarly, in the case of resource use, inflation and rising prices may cause political managers to blame ordinary citizens or businesses for overuse of a resource or “price gouging” as a justification for various forms of restrictions such as rationing, price controls or technologically-enhanced control grids, while the political managers themselves who are instituting the process may not be subject to the same restrictive rules (e.g., government spending and funding increases for special interest clients-donors despite diminished citizen and national resources). The result is the perpetuation of the problems described, with the continual “solution” pitched to citizens to remain tied to political management dynamics (i.e., to continue to support special interest clients of political managers ).
An example is provided in the next section of positive polarity and misaligned incentives of political management that result in waste in resource management. On problem-solving by correcting misaligned incentives, see Butler, W.B. 2023.
Politically-Managed Resource Pricing and the Masking of True Costs. As noted above, politically-managed interventions are self-reinforcing (positive polarity) and continue to mount until rendered unsustainable by economic forces. For example, to respond to increased relative scarcity and higher cost of a resource as noted in the economic scenario above, political managers decide to artificially lower the cost to the consumer (e.g., by subsidies for the good, or via social welfare payments). This intervention causes more resource use than otherwise possible given the available resources--in sum an overuse (waste) of scarce resources given the reality of costs. While the consumers who pay less of their own money for the resource may be happy with this intervention and support the political managers that promised them these benefits, they become less conscious of the true cost of the resource which is being masked and which is being borne by someone elsewhere. Production side. If the subsidized price of the good drops below production costs producers of the goods may lose money by producing more so that they too will need be compensated for their losses. New Markets. Since political managers have artificially created a gap between the politically-managed cost of the good versus the true economic cost of the good, they have unwittingly opened an opportunity for black markets to emerge to profit from the difference; although political managers will vilify black market operators for this development, they will rarely see their own role in creating these markets. Possible Outcomes. When political managers either (a) no longer have sufficient funding to continue providing these benefits, or (b) when they resort to currency creation (inflation) to help cover the politically-managed costs, at some point a breakdown (crisis) may occur whereby the true cost reveals itself in sudden uncontrolled price spikes. This event can trigger social unrest among the beneficiaries who had become dependent on this politically-managed system of resource pricing that did not reflect the true economic costs. Consistent with the positive polarity of political management, previous economically unsound politically-managed interventions tend to usher in other control systems such as rationing or price controls; however, with price controls, if the controlled price is set too low for producers to cover their costs of production, consumers may be faced with empty shelves--a supply collapse. Therefore, advances in technology may embolden political managers to attempt to institute controls for both managed pricing and rationing of goods and services (e.g., via social credit permissions and identifiers such as digital ID) such that buying and selling are subject to a politically-managed digital control grid (Bible, Rev 13.16-13.17); such an technologically enhanced system can then be easily deployed to punish critics, outgroups, dissidents, and any remaining political opposition by cutting off their resources.
Note 2 to the Summary Definition: Political Investing and Democratic Politics
Clarification. It should be emphasized that the common use of the terms "democratic elections" or "democratic politics" to describe political management may be misleading because democratic processes/elections can be conducted in a non-politically managed context at least initially (refer to the Key Notes to Table 1 on the potential for the later transformation of voting systems towards political management).
This mutually beneficial yet typically parasitic relationship is between two or more parties:
(1) Political managers of regional management entities with monopoly status over a geographic area (comprised of, or linked closely to, political parties, politicians and closely affiliated supervisory management entities; bureaucrats accepting bribes from special interests may also qualify); and
(2) Special interests as "political investor" "clients" of the political managers, which can be multiple (e.g., corporations/businesses, government agencies/bureaucracies, school systems, groups that are dependent on the political system, religious organizations, NPOs and NGOs as fronts for unseen special interests, billionaires, etc.; of note is that such political investment may also be facilitated and expanded by legislation or court rulings, re: Golinger 2024, Citizens United in the U.S.).
It should be emphasized that certain organizations that claim to be “international/global” in scope promoting various laudable agendas, etc., may be operating as fronts for, and extensions of, a nation-state and their corporate special interest clients seeking dominant overriding status over other nations and markets through the subordination or destruction of their national sovereignty (also see Wriston 1992; Farrell, Newman 2023; ; also, re: civil society conduits—entities enabling infiltration into other nations’ political machinery). It may be thought that taxpayers are a special interest and to some degree they may be, but since they are part of the toolkit of political management, they tend to play an inferior role (see the Conclusions to the Summary Definition in Appendix 1 (A1) above for further detail on this point).
Recall that this relationship is mutually beneficial for these political managers and their special interest clients. However, because their arrangements tend to involve some form of extraction from the public, the relationship can be described as "parasitic mutualism," whereby two (or more) entities transact together to extract resources from others. (See Kennedy 2022c, re: econobiology)
Political Investments. In democratic politics, the investments are made in the form of campaign donations (and other forms of payment, including supplying votes) in the process of conducting what is referred to as "democratic elections," which could be more correctly described as "political investing:" The special interest donor/client ("political investor") makes the political investment with the expectation of a future benefit (to be discussed below in the section "Returns on Political Investments").
This political investing process may be timed with elections which gives the general public a mechanism to feel that they have choices (their "representatives") to control outcomes within the jurisdictions they inhabit. However, what may be overlooked is that political investments obligate the political managers to deliver on their commitments if they wish to preserve their power and self-enrichment in the future. These commitments to the "political investors" can be expected to take precedence over a commitment to the needs of a dispersed voting public with limited financial resources. Effective political management can induce the public to believe that the candidates being presented to them really represent them. This is best done by the candidates mimicking the type of language that resonates with the voting public to gain their trust.
Returns on Political Investments. The special interest donors (political investors) expect to receive benefits for their political investments (Clifton 2021; Hartmann 2022). Potential benefits to be delivered by political managers may involve extractions from others, or some form of deception and manipulation to properly execute.
This can include the following:
Politically-managed promotions and PR to increase sales through propaganda and "public awareness" campaigns.
Above-market profitability/low costs to businesses
Subsidies
Suppression of information that would hurt the reputation and sales of political investors.
Engineered stock price growth.
Engineered supply restrictions (e.g., of product supply to raise prices for special interest clients)
Regulatory and tax preferences
Funding: Budget allocations and budget increases to go to a special interest group or businesses (directly or indirectly; part of these proceeds can then be funneled back into campaign donations to ensure continuity of the funding). Examples include increased funding for dependency groups (social welfare and other recipients), for government entities (or quasi-governmental entities that operate as fronts for other special interests).
Exercising unilateral power of approval/licensing (for professions/occupations, commercial products, services, regardless of merit, quality, expertise, etc.,) that overrides consumer choice. This power allows for: (a) denials of approvals/licensure to give competing special interests monopoly privileges.
(b) withholding approval/licensure until certain concessions are made to benefit others, or to support political establishment (c) approvals/licensure of unsafe products, or practitioners who engage in harmful activities (linked to "Lack of Accountability" detailed next.
Lack of Accountability. As previously noted, political management generally involves absence of accountability for the agents operating within the system because the system itself is largely controlled by political managers themselves, with the aid of the structural/institutional apparatus and toolset as described briefly here.
Important to note is that part of the "return" to be delivered to special interests is to ensure that they do not bear the cost of their actions, in the form of passing on the financial burden/losses onto others, or which in some cases may involve injury and death (e.g., harms to others from: dangerous products placed on the market, the waging of war on civilians, poor educational outcomes/lack of skills, malpractice, etc.). In other words, political investors expect to be given at least some immunity from harms they may cause to the public.
Key to accomplishing this is a politically-managed judicial system to produce intentionally unjust outcomes to protect these special interest clients. Damage Control. If public outcry arises from an injustice (perceived or real), political managers may need to regain public trust by instituting "reforms", prosecutions/show trials of selected scapegoats, etc., but leaving other parties involved in the same alleged crimes untouched and capable of continuing their involvement in future politically-managed operations and their activities related to campaign funding or political voting bloc formation. The politically-managed dynamic as seen in the judicial system may be characterized by rulings that are extraordinarily unjust leniency that are politically “counterbalanced” by similarly unjust rulings of excessive punishment.
On public trust, see next.
Less Obvious Forms of Extraction that may be related to the above:
*Currency debasement that destroys purchasing power of wage earners while enriching initial recipients of the funds (largely originating from excessive government spending; see "Financial Imbalances" below and further writings; a stealth form of officially-mediated theft).
*Other interference in the pricing system to enrich special interests (especially businesses) at the expense of others.
*Pushing ethical and moral boundaries to benefit the special interests (e.g., arms suppliers, pharmaceutical companies, medical establishment, agribusiness, and industrial polluters, etc.) that can result in:
*Violations of bodily sovereignty (including war on civilians; forcing mass acceptance of certain products or practices
*Promoting lack of informed consent
*Allowing for food and environmental contamination
Expanding the Client List
If well-managed, the financial return can reach as high as twenty times the original political investment and can lead to a continuous mutually self-enriching relationship as follows: political investment --> delivery of returns--->political investment.
Astute and successful political managers will work towards growing their client list for more enrichment opportunities. This may include developing new identity groups, and activities may actively expand beyond the borders of the initial jurisdiction.
Later Phases of Political Management
Public Trust and Legitimacy. A politically-managed system only works if the public has faith that their choices can control outcomes and that the system is generally "fair." If at some point the extractive, parasitic and harmful nature of this system becomes obvious to the public, objections may arise, and the politically-managed system loses legitimacy.
The Role of Deception. Therefore, a crucial dimension of political management is the perfection of rhetoric and narratives to maintain systemic dominance. This includes control of information, deception, misdirection, engineered distractions (including the provocation of war and conflict as needed to divert attention away from embarrassments or other problems previously caused by political managers), threats, fearmongering and indoctrination through the educational system. If these tactics fail to produce desired outcomes, then character assassination and physical violence may be employed to suppress dissenting voices and protests. Rhetorical Tools. Deception is multi-faceted but is most successful with rhetoric emphasizing laudable and unassailable goals to convince people that what is being done to them, as well as to others, is justified and good. Examples of effective rhetoric to accept further extractions from the public and forced deprivations/lower standards of living could include: "we must all make sacrifices," "we are all in this together," "for the greater good," "to make the world safe for (democracy)," "to bring (peace) (freedom)" "in pursuit of (humanitarian)(sustainable) goals," "(social) justice," "to combat the evil of x, y, z," "to save the planet," "for the children," "saving lives," "protect others," etc. To repeat, while these goals may appear to be unquestionably laudable, the rhetoric may mask the reality and result in the exact opposite of the proclaimed goal.
It should be emphasized that this same language may also be used with entirely honest intentions, and not always deceptively.
Financial Imbalances. Eventually, the dynamics of political management tend to lead to an unsustainable imbalance characterized by excessive government expenditures to satisfy special interests funded by unrestrained debt monetization and currency issuance until default/bankruptcy or an inflationary bust. This stage may be accompanied by a greatly increasing wealth inequality due to the continual impoverishment of the public over time from imputed ownership fee extractions aka taxes, inflation (i.e., currency debasement and loss of purchasing power) and regulatory barriers, while special interest clients repeatedly have multiplied their returns through pathologically profitable politically-managed relationships. Technological advances may help slow the process of collapse to perpetuate the self-reinforcing dynamics further.
Detail: Monopoly Occupation Scenarios (from #1 of the Toolkit of Political Management above).
Monopoly occupation can arise by various means. A few examples are given in this section. Reference to a "politically-managed entity" means that the controlling entity tends to have key characteristics of the Toolkit of political management: A fundamental feature is that inhabitants/residents of a geographic area cease to be the clients/customers of the managing entity, in favor of internal or external special interest client-donors.
Possible scenarios leading to monopoly occupation status:
Land is taken by force, invaded, and held by the occupying force and/or its representatives/puppets. Residents of the geographic area under control are essentially subjects, to varying degrees and depending in part on political alignments, etc.
Land is not initially "taken" (stolen) but map lines are drawn over geographic areas with intent to provoke conflict among inhabitants for which the 'solution' to conflict is to "establish order" under an overriding politically-managed entity over the geographic area/jurisdiction.
Land may be acquired by voluntary purchase* but the geographic area is assigned a legal monopoly for a politically-managed entity to retain control. The managing entity is a legal monopoly and residents cannot replace them with a new community provider; elections are held to give the impression of a change in management while special interest client-donor relationships are fostered.
Land is de facto acquired through intentional destruction of the means of self-reliance of existing inhabitants, including of their food production/supply to be forced out and collectively transferred to another location under politically-managed control (also re: forced collectivization)
An existing politically-managed community allows uncontrolled in-migration to establish a power base for an existing (or new) politically-managed entity.
Voluntarily-formed economically-managed communities are progressively converted into politically-managed entities (re: stealth transition) and processes, noted next.
The occupation may also be justified through the process of elections, giving the impression to citizen-residents that they have a choice and control in the management of the occupied territory. The deception of democratic elections as a cover for special interest client-donors is discussed above in this study.
*Note on voluntary purchase: While purchases may appear to be voluntary from the sellers' perspective, the transaction may be non-economic when deception is involved: e.g., the financial means for the purchase involves the creation of currency (legalized counterfeiting/fraud) to acquire the land and/or resources.
A2. PARASITIC MUTUALISM FRAMEWORK (ENTIRE TABLE)
The mutualism framework was presented in the main text in two separate frames as Table A and Table B due to the size of the table. The entire table is shown here but is displayed sideways. For the Notes, to the table see the main text under Frame B.
***
These results are shared as a public service; if helpful consider paying it forward by adding something extra to any donations made to reputable charities, preferably with priority given to the most vulnerable, including defenseless animals. Organizational reputations may be researched through sites such as charitynavigator.org.
The author may also hold positions in securities of companies, including through ETFs, which may have been covered herein. The discussion and any visuals may contain significant errors, are subject to revisions and are provided 'as is' solely for informational purposes, not for trading or investment advice.
Where concerns are raised about laws and regulations that are features of political management this should not imply that non-compliance is categorically appropriate, apart from actions that result in violations of the right of self-defense, privacy, and bodily autonomy.
Where health matters are discussed, this information should not be treated as medical advice nor as a diagnosis of any condition. This preliminary analysis is exploratory; no claims are made as to the validity of data, assumptions, theoretical models, and methodologies; results may be based on prior data that do not reflect the most current market or other events.
REFERENCES
See Kennedy (2022h, epidemiology) for additional references, including on industries that benefit from politically-managed operations (e.g., test kits/testing).
Note: Online references may exclude “https.” Some dates may vary slightly according to time zone differences. If a date is not clearly indicated in an online reference, the most recent year of access will be shown. If an author name is not made available for a page (online), either the online publication name or the name of the principal individual being covered is used. Financial data sources may include Bloomberg, CNBC, the Security & Exchange Commission (SEC), Yahoo! Finance and individual company annual reports. Online or other software employed in analysis may include MathWave Technologies™, Microsoft Office™, SmartDraw™, or other applications. Citations or references do not imply endorsement or agreement with a source or author’s views, or that the authors cited or referenced would endorse or agree with this author. Some the sources cited may be from mass-distribution publications and some studies may not be peer-reviewed; authors may be listed in references according to the order shown in the study and not alphabetically. Some authors may write under pseudonyms or express unconventional or controversial views that counter commonly-promoted narratives but are still referenced for possible insights that may not otherwise be known to the public. If a chapter, study, or section is contained within a book or series, the book/series title will usually be followed by parentheses. Retractions. Note that retractions of peer-reviewed and other studies may occur due to controversy arising when the findings conflict with predominant and accepted narratives rather than the quality of the research; it should also be added that in certain cases such authors and researchers may also be subject to widespread “smearing” and character assassination attempts online and elsewhere.
These references are not a comprehensive listing of resources on the topics covered and some may relate to other studies by the author such as Kennedy (2023): Complex Systems and Pathogenesis: A Multi-layered Etiological Reference due to the potential adverse impacts of politically-managed dynamics on health and well-being.
Abbas, Abul K., Lichtman, Andrew H., and Pillai, Shiv., Cellular and Molecular Immunology, 10th Edition, Elsevier, 2021.
Aboli, Laura., "On Truth, Courage and Empowering Human Resistance against Evil," brighteon dot com/hrreport, January 6, 2024; lauraaboli dot com, 2024.
Adelman, William J., "The Haymarket Affair," Illinois Labor History Society, Accessed 2023; //www.illinoislaborhistory.org/the-haymarket-affair.
Aldén, M.; Olofsson Falla, F.; Yang, D.; Barghouth, M.; Luan, C.; Rasmussen, M.; De Marinis, Y., “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line,” Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, 44, 1115-1126.
Alexander, Paul Elias., (2021a) "150 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted," Brownstone dot org, October 17, 2021 //brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/
Alexander, Paul Elias., (2021b) “More than 170 Comparative Studies and Articles on Mask Ineffectiveness and Harms,” Brownstone Institute, December 20, 2021. //brownstone.org/articles/more-than-150-comparative-studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/.
Alinsky, Saul., (1971), Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, Vintage, 1989.
Almqvist, Ebbe., History of Industrial Gases, Springer 2012.
Antonopoulos, Andreas M., The Internet of Money, (Vol 1, 2) Merkle Bloom LLC, 2016, 2017.
Arendt, Hannah., Totalitarianism, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, 1968.
Armstrong, Jason., Pascu, Ovidiu., The Toxicology Handbook, Elsevier; 4th edition, 2022.
Ateba, Simon., "Dr. David Martin Claims COVID-19 Pandemic Was Pre-Meditated Domestic Terrorism, Speaks at European Parliament Summit," Today News Africa, May 28, 2023. //todaynewsafrica.com/video-dr-david-martin-claims-covid-19-pandemic-was-pre-meditated-domestic-terrorism-speaks-at-european-parliament-summit/ (also see Martin 2021; Watt 2022, 2023; Delaney 2023).
Austin-Fitts, Catherine., “Banking Insider: Why the Culling was Inevitable,” (transcript; interview by Taylor Hudak), Journey to a Better Life, pennybutler dot com, April 25, 2023.
Ayana, Ribka., "Hospital Medicine: Spirochete infections," Cancer Therapy Advisor, accessed online 2022.
Ayyadurai, V.A. Shiva., Hansen, Michael., Fagan, John., Prabhakar Deonikar, Prabhakar., "In-Silico Analysis & In-Vivo Results Concur on Glutathione Depletion in Glyphosate Resistant GMO Soy, Advancing a Systems Biology Framework for Safety Assessment of GMOs," Journal of Plant Sciences 07(12):1571-1589, 2016 (also re: Vivancos et al., 2011, Zanatta, et al. 2020).
Ayyadurai, V.A. Shiva., The System and Revolution, General Interactive, LLC, 2016; "Foundation of Systems," (online course; control systems theory as applied to politics; also, re: the ‘not-so-obvious’ establishment, the “swarm,” and manufactured fake martyrs and heroes) vashiva dot com, accessed 2022.
Bailey, Mark., “Why nobody ‘had, caught or got’ Covid-19, drsambailey dot com, October 16, 2022. (Re; redefinition of ‘cases’, PCR-generated ‘pandemic’; also see Borger, et al., 2020)
Bailey, Sam., "The Truth About PCR Tests," drsambailey dot com, January 13, 2021. (also, re: Portugal court verdict on PCR-based quarantining November 11, 2020)
Baletti, Brenda., 'Definite Causal Link' Between COVID Vaccine Rollouts and Peaks in All-Cause Mortality, New Study Finds," The Defender (Children's Health Defense), September 20, 2023. (re: Correlation Research Canada correlation-canada.org), accessed on web.archive.org, October 29, 2023.
Barnett, Gary., "So What do ‘Libertarians’ and the ‘Right-Wing’ Think of Milei Now?," LewRockwell dot com, December 9, 2023 (also see Butler, P. 2023).
Barnett, Gary., “Milei is Little More Than a Political Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Beware the False ‘Libertarian Hype,” LewRockwell dot com, April 27, 2024.
Barro, Robert J., "Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?", Journal of Political Economy (Vol. 82, no.6), University of Chicago, Nov/Dec 1974.
Benson, Bruce L., The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State, Independent Institute, 2nd Edition, 2011.
Benson, Bruce., "Highway Robbery," Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), July 1, 1993. (re: civil forfeiture; Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984, U.S.)
Berenson, Alex., "Urgent: The cardiovascular death toll from mRNA Covid jabs is hugely underreported, peer-reviewed studies suggest," Unreported Truths (Substack), June 28, 2023; (re: injection-related deaths in young adults).
Bergsten, C. Fred., "The Dollar and the Deficits," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 88, No.6, Nov/Dec 2009. (re: role of IMF in exchange of unwanted dollars/USD-denominated assets; SDRs).
Berman, Harold J., Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Harvard University Press, 1983.
Bernays, Edward., (1928) Propaganda, Ig Publishing, 2004.
Bernstein, Johnathan A. (Ed.)., Primary and Secondary Immunodeficiency: A Case-Based Guide to Evaluation and Management, 1st ed, Springer 2021.
Besada, Jorge., " Carl Menger's Overlooked Vital Evolutionary Insights," Mises Wire, Mises dot org, April 9, 2024; (Re: analogies between social-economic phenomena and natural organisms, governed by natural processes. Also see Herbert Spencer on the Social Organism 1860; William Stanley Jevons; Leon Walras; Ludwig von Mises 1920; Friedrich Hayek 1945, 1974).
Bezmenov, Yuri., (1984), see Ratner, Paul (2023); Also, re: Antonio Gramsci.
Bible, Holy (Oxford University Press)., The New Oxford Annotated Bible New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 2001.
Block, Walter., "Hats off to Oregon," The Cobden Centre, (cobdencentre dot org), January 8, 2024. (re: prohibition vs. decriminalization of drugs).
Block, Walter., Tipler, Frank., "Javier Milei, Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist," uncoverdc dot com, January 23, 2024 (also see Hoppe 2023, 2024; Kinsella 2023; Barnett 2023, Butler, P. 2023; also, re: nominalism in this study).
Borger, Pieter, et al., "External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results," Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020, (//cormandrostenreview.com), November 27, 2020.
Boyle, Francis A., Biowarfare and Terrorism, Clarity Press, 2005.
Boyle, Francis A., Resisting Medical Tyranny: Why the COVID-19 Mandates Are Criminal, Waterside Productions, 2022.
Breggin, Peter R., Breggin, Ginger Ross., COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey, Lake Edge Press, 2021.
Broze, Derrick., How to Opt-Out of the Technocratic State, Tcr Books, 2020. (re: Samuel Konkin).
Buterin, Vitalik., "Why I Built Zuzalu," Palladium, October 6, 2023 //www.palladiummag.com/2023/10/06/why-i-built-zuzalu/; (re: startup cities, pop-up cities).
Butler, Phil., "Financial Elites Take One Back -- The IMF's Argentina Coup," New Eastern Outlook, December 14, 2023.
Butler, Phil., "The EU is Willing to Go to War over Lithium?", LewRockwell dot com (New Eastern Outlook), January 3, 2024.
Butler, Smedley., (1935) War is a Racket, Independently Published, 2021.
Butler, William Bernard., The Solution to Everything, WilliamBernardButler dot com, December 20, 2023 (re: misalignment of incentives).
Cantillon, Richard., Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général (traduit de l’anglais), 1755.
Carroll, Michael C., Lab 257: The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory, William Morrow, 2005. (Re: Lyme Disease; also see Newby 2020).
Casey, Doug., "The End of the Nation-State," International man dot com, Accessed December, 2023.
Casey, Doug., "On the Failures of the Justice System and a Viable Solution," internationalman dot com, Accessed April 2024.
Casey, Gerard, Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State, MPS, 2012. (re: statism)
CDC, see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)., "Transmission of Parasitic Diseases: Animals (Zoonotic), Blood,” Parasites, //www.cdc.gov/parasites/transmission/index.html Accessed 2022.
Chen, Zhangsen & Zhang, Gaixia & Chen, Hangrong & Prakash, Jai & Zheng, Yi & Sun, Shuhui, 2022. "Multi-metallic catalysts for the electroreduction of carbon dioxide: Recent advances and perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
Chong, Cheng Tung., Ng, Jo-Han., Biojet Fuel in Aviation Applications: Production, Usage and Impact of Biofuels, Elsevier, 2021.
Chossudovsky, Michel., "The Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d'Etat Against Humanity (仕組まれたコロナ危機 in Japanese), Global Research Publishers, 2022.
Chossudovsky, Michel., "WHO Fraud: There Never was a Pandemic," Global Research, January 21, 2023. //www.globalresearch.ca/who-fraud-there-never-was-a-pandemic-february-20-2020-dr-tedros-announced-an-expanding-worldwide-epidemic/5803299.
Christ, Carl., “A Simple Macroeconomic Model with a Government Budget Restraint,” Journal of Political Economy 76 (1) (Jan/Feb 1968), 53-67.
Christ, Carl., “On Fiscal and Monetary Policies and the Government Budget Restraint,” The American Economic Review 69(3-5) (1979), 526-538.
Christian, Diana Leafe., Henson, Dave., Butcher, Allen., Bates, Albert., "Legal Structures for Intentional Communities in the United States," Communities, No. 173, Winter, 2016.
Chudov, Igor., "Pfizer's COVID Vaccine Causes VAIDS in Children, Study Proves," Igor's Newsletter, Substack, August 30,2023 (re: increased susceptibility to bacterial and fungal infections post-injection)
Cleveland Clinic, “Rickets,” my. clevelandclinic dot org, Accessed 2023.
Clifton, Eli., “Top defense firms spend $1B on lobbying during Afghan war, see $2T return,” Responsible Statescraft, September 2, 2021.
Cloward-Piven Strategy, see Piven, Cloward (1971).
Combs Jr., Gerald F., McClung, James P., The Vitamins: Fundamental Aspects in Nutrition and Health, 5th Edition, Academic Press, 2017.
Connett, Paul., Beck, James., Micklem, H. Spedding., The Case against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010. (Also, re: Mercola 2022).
Corbett, James., "James Corbett on the Weaponization of Psychology," Antijantepodden podcast ajp.fm (AJP92), July 26, 2023 (also see Reich 1983).
Cox, Bobbie Anne Flower., "Courts Pave Way for New York Quarantine Camps," Brownstone Institute, November 20, 2023.
Crooke, Alastair., Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution, Pluto Press, 2009.
Crooke, Alastair., “The ‘Last Man’ Teleology and the Fall of the West,” Strategic Culture, September 25, 2023 (also re: Christopher Lasch., Revolt of the Elites 1996; Gordon Hahn).
Crowe, Chris., Getting Away with Murder: The True Story of the Emmett Till Case, Speak, 2018.
Crutchfield, Peter., "Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement," Bioethics, August 29, 2018. (Re: policy and informed consent).
Curtin, Edward., “Numbed by Numbers on the Way to the Digital Palace,” edwardcurtin dot com, August 30, 2023. (re: Jacques Ellul; John Pilger on propaganda)
Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development (CID) Act 1985, 2013; Commercial & Industrial CIDs Act (2014), Davis Stirling dot com //www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/DAVIS-STIRLING-ACT-2014, Accessed 2023.
Deace, Steve., Horowitz, Daniel., Rise of the Fourth Reich: Confronting COVID Fascism with a New Nuremberg Trial, So This Never Happens Again, Post Hill Press, 2023.
Delaney, Patrick., "How the US government built a shadow structure that enabled COVID vax 'bioterrorism,' (4 of 4 in series), Lifesite News, lifesitenews dot com, Feb 1, 2023. (also see Watt, 2022, 2023, Martin 2023).
Desmet, Mattias., The Psychology of Totalitarianism, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2022. (Also, re: Hughes, et al. 2022).
Dopp, Kathy., "Informed Consent is Required for Experimental Vaccines, Face Masks, & PCR Tests," Compilation of Scientific and Medical Research, Data, & Reports by Mathematician Kathy Dopp, Accessed 2021. //www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/Vaccines/InformedConsent
Dowd, Ed., "Cause Unknown": The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022, (Children’s Health Defense), Skyhorse, (publication scheduled December 13, 2022).
Dreisinger, Baz., Incarceration Nations: A Journey to Justice in Prisons Around the World, Other Press, 2017.
Duesberg, Peter., Inventing the AIDS Virus, Regnery Publishing, Inc.; 1st edition, 1996; (Kary Mullis --Foreword).
El Gato Malo., "The Road Back from Serfdom: Is a Road that Leads Away from State-Controlled Money," boriquagato dot substack dot com, April 18, 2024.
Ellis, Peter & Hayes, Martin & Macleod, Norman & Schuyten, Stephen & Tway, Cathy & Zalitis, Chris. (2023). "Carbon conversion: opportunities in chemical productions," in Surface Process, Transportation, and Storage, 10.1016/B978-0-12-823891-2.00006-5.
Ellul, Jacques., (1962) Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Vintage, 1973.
Endrulat, Cory., Video summary on societal projection -- Carl Jung, cory - nature is the answer channel, brighteon dot com, April 17, 2024 (also see Jung 1957).
Engelbrecht, Torsten., Köhnlein, Claus., et al., Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical ... Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense, Books on Demand, 2021. Other authors: Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio.
Environmental Health Trust., Scientific Research on Health Effects of Screens and Smartphones to Children, ehtrust.org, May 10, 2020.
Environmental Health Trust., Letter to JAMA on Grimes Review of Radiofrequency Radiation Published in the Lancet, ehtrust dot org, Feb 11, 2022. //ehtrust.org/letter-to-jama-onc-on-grimes-review/
Environmental Protection Agency, United States (EPA), "Atrazine," Ingredients Used in Pesticide Products, Accessed 2022 www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/atrazine.
EPA see Environmental Protection Agency
European Food Safety Authority, "Nanotechnology," Accessed 2023 //www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/nanotechnology (Re: guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials in the food and feed chain: animal and human health.
Fabozzi, Frank J., and Modigliani, Franco., Capital Markets: Institutions and Instruments, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1992.
Fabozzi, Frank J., The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities, 8th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2011.
Farrell, Henry., Newman, Abraham., Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy, Henry Holt & Co., 2023.
France, Liam J., Almegren, Hamid., "The Indirect and Direct Conversion of CO2 into Higher Carbon Fuels," Chapter 10 in Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (Styring, Peter., et al., Eds.), pp 161-182, Elsevier, 2014.
Friedman, David., Leeson, Peter., Skarbek, David., Legal Systems Very Different from Ours, independently published, 2019.
Friedman, David., "Palestine," David Friedman's Substack, (Substack), October 26, 2023 (re: property rights, group vs. individual rights).
Fullilove, Mindy Thompson., Eminent Domain and African Americans: What is the Price of the Commons? Institute for Justice, 2007. (re: displacement of citizens-residents; racial injustice).
Gale, Jim., Food Forest Abundance dot com, Florida, U.S., Accessed 2023 (re: permaculture, permaculture communities; also see Holmgren 2020).
Garai, Joydeb., "Environmental aspects and health risks of leather tanning industry: a study in the Hazaribag area," Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 12 (3), July 2014.
Garcia, Lynne Shore., Practical Guide to Diagnostic Parasitology, ASM Press; 3rd edition, 2021.
Gatti AM., Montanari S (2016) "New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro-and Nanocontamination.” Int J Vaccines Vaccin 4 (1): 0072.
Gatto, John Taylor., Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (25th Anniversary Edition), New Society Publishers, 2017.
Gebel, Titus., Free Private Cities: Making Governments Compete for You, Aquila Urbis, 2018.
Giordano, James., Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense: Practical Considerations, Neuroethical Concerns (Advances in Neurotechnology), CRC Press, 2014.
Glass, Helena., “Congressional Extortion: Aid funds, TikTok & Leveraging Censorship, The Nationalist Voice, helenaglass dot net, April 20, 2024.
Goldberg, Jonah., Liberal Fascism, Crown Forum, 2009.
Gordon, David., Njoya, Wanjiru., Redressing Historical Injustice: Self-Ownership, Property Rights and Economic Equality, Palgrave Macmillan, 2023.
Graziano, Michael J. (Ed.)., Jacobson-Kram, David (Ed.)., Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Testing of Pharmaceuticals, Springer; 1st edition, 2015.
Hallbrook, Stephen., Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State," Independent Institute, 2014.
Hart, Justin., (2023a) "Fauci & Company Can't Refute This: 33 Confirmed Vax Death Case Reviews,” Rational Ground, Substack, March 24, 2023.
Hart, Justin., (2023b) "David v. Goliath in New York," Rational Ground by Justin Hart (Substack, Browstone dot org), September 13, 2023.
Hartmann, Thom., “This is the election you get for 9 billion bucks,” Hartmann Report, October 25, 2022.
Hayek, Friedrich., (1944)., Caldwell, Bruce (Ed.)., The Road to Serfdom (Collected Works, Vol 2), University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Hayek, Friedrich., (1945, 1974) "The Use of Knowledge in Society," The American Economic Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (September 1945), pp. 519-530. Also, re: “The Pretense of Knowledge,” essay presented at the occasion of Hayek’s Nobel Prize in Economics, December 11, 1974, reprinted with permission by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).
Hendrix, Charles., Robinson, Ed., Diagnostic Parasitology for Veterinary Technicians, Mosby; 6th edition, 2022.
Henegan, Carl., Pluddemann., Mahtani, Kamal., "Differentiating viral from bacterial pneumonia," The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, April 8, 2020.
Herman, Edward., Chomsky, Noam., Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Pantheon, 2002.
Hersh, Seymour., "The Nord Stream Pipelines and the Perils of Containment, Seymour Hersh (Substack), February 7, 2024.
Hill, Austin Bradford., “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1965 May; 58(5): 295–300.
Holmgren, David., Essence of Permaculture, Melliodora Publishing, Revised Edition, 2020.
Hopkins, C.J., The Rise of the New Normal Reich: Consent Factory Essays, Vol. III (2020-2021), Consent Factory Publishing, 2022.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann., From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2022.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann., "Foreword: Legal Foundations of a Free Society," Mises Wire (Mises.org), October 24, 2023. (re: Kinsella 2023)
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann., “An Open Letter to Walter E. Block,” LewRockwell dot com, Jan 31, 2024. (re: property rights, collectivism and collective punishment).
Hosseinmardi, Homa., Gasemian, Amir, et al., "Evaluating the scale, growth, and origins of right-wing echo chambers on YouTube," Wayback Machine, November 25, 2020, Original version, arXiv:2011.12843v1 [cs.SI] 25 Nov 2020. //web.archive.org/web/20210110193953/https://export.arxiv.org/pdf/2011.12843.pdf (Also see Wedler, 2021)
Huerta de Soto, Jesus., Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012.
Hughes, David., Kyrie, Valerie., Broudy, Daniel., "Covid-19 – Mass Formation or Mass Atrocity?" Unlimited Hangout, November 29, 2022; //unlimitedhangout.com/2022/11/investigative-reports/covid-19-mass-formation-or-mass-atrocity/
Hülsmann, Jörg Guido., Abundance, Generosity, and the State: An Inquiry into Economic Principles, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2024.
Huston, Wilhelmina (Ed.)., Garzino-Demo, Alfredo (Ed.)., Coers, Jörn (Ed.); Pathogens and Disease, Federation of European Microbiological Societies, FEMS Journals, Oxford Academic, 2022. //academic.oup.com/femspd/issue/80/1.
Huxley, Aldous., (1932) Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited (foreword by Christopher Hitchens), Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2005.
Hwang, Su-Lun; Hwang, Jing-Shiang; Yang, Yi-Ta; Hsieh, Wanhua A.; Chang, Tien-Chun; Guo, How-Ran; Tsai, Mong-Hsun; Tang, Jih-Luh; et al., "Estimates of Relative Risks for Cancers in a Population after Prolonged Low-Dose-Rate Radiation Exposure: A Follow-up Assessment from 1983 to 2005, Radiation Research, 170 (2): 143–48, 2008.
Imanuelsen, Peter., "You literally can't make this up: Renewable energy is a scam," The Freedom Corner with Peter Sweden (Substack), December 29, 2023.
Institute of Medicine and Committee on Food Chemicals Codex, Food Chemicals Codex: Fifth Edition; National Academies Press; 5th edition, 2003.
Ippolito, Michael., "The Bomb and the American Barbarian," Opinion, Crisis Magazine, crisismagazine dot com, April 24, 2024.
Jackson, Grace., Drug-Induced Dementia: A Perfect Crime, AuthorHouse, 2009 (re: iatrogenesis; also see Kohls, 2016, 2024).
Jacob-Lopes, Eduardo., et al., (Editors)., 3rd Generation Biofuels: Disruptive Technologies to Enable Commercial Production, Woodhead Publishing, 2022. (Co-Editors: Leila Queiroz Zepka, Ihana Aguiar Severo, Mariana Manzoni Maroneze).
Jacobs, Jill (Ed.)., Cohousing Legal Toolkit 3.0, JillJacobsLaw dot com, 2016.
Jaxon, Paul (Ed.)., Principles and Practice of Bacteriology, Murphy & Moore Publishing, 2022.
Jeffries, Donald., Masking the Truth: How Covid-19 Destroyed Civil Liberties and Shut Down the World, Lulu dot com, 2023.
Jeftovic, Mark., "Cantillon Overdrive... And The Bitcoin Breakout," Zero Hedge, Accessed October 29, 2023.
Johnstone, Caitlin., "Most Propaganda Looks Nothing Like This," caitlinjohnstone dot com, May 28, 2023.
Johnstone, Caitlin., "Violent Extremists Get Called "Moderates" by a Violent Extremist Empire," caitlinjohnstone dot com dot au, March 29, 2024.
Jung, Carl., (1957) The Undiscovered Self: The Dilemma of the Individual in Modern Society, Berkley, 2006.
Katz, Kenneth D., EMRA and ACMT Medical Toxicology Guide, Emergency Medicine Residents' Association; 2nd Edition, 2022.
Kennedy, Raoul., Economic Distortion Dynamics, KDPAmazon Publishing, 2017.
Kennedy, Raoul., Debt Management Analytics: A Cautionary Tails Framework, KDPAmazon Publishing, 2021.
Kennedy, Raoul., (2022a) “Epidemiological Notes: Mass Testing and the Coding of “Positives,” System Analytics, March 24, 2022. //raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/epidemiological-notes-on-mass-testing
Kennedy, Raoul., (2022b) "Complex Systems Notes 1: Polarity and the Architecture of Political Management," System Analytics, June 15, 2022. //raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/complex-systems-notes-1-polarity
Kennedy, Raoul., (2022c) "Complex Systems Notes 2: Political Management Risks and Comparative Systems," System Analytics, 2022. //raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/complex-systems-notes-2-political
Kennedy, Raoul., (2022d) "Complex Systems Notes 3: Later-Phase Political Management, Debt-Monetized Spending and Technology-Enhanced Potential Trajectories," System Analytics, 2022. //raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/complex-systems-notes-3-later-phase
Kennedy, Raoul., (2022e) “Complex Systems and Geopolitical Notes: Multipolarity, Humanity and Pathways to the 22nd Century,” System Analytics, 2022. //raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/complex-systems-and-geopolitical
Kennedy, Raoul., (2022f) “Volcanic Systems Notes: Endless Winters and Extinction-Level Events,” System Analytics, 2022. //raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/volcanic-systems-notes-multi-year
Kennedy, Raoul (2022g)., “Econobiology Notes: Symbiotic Pathogenesis within Economic Systems,” System Analytics, 2022.//raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/econobiology-notes-symbiotic-pathogenesis (This study).
Kennedy, Raoul (2022h)., “Epidemiological Notes Continued: Three Years of Mass Testing and The Coding of “Positives,” System Analytics, Substack 2022. //raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/epidemiological-notes-continued-three
Kennedy, Raoul (2022i)., "Climatological Notes and Preliminary Evidence from Fat Tails," System Analytics, Substack, March 28,2022. //raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/climatological-notes-global-warming
Kennedy, Raoul., “Complex Systems and Pathogenesis: A Multi-layered Etiological Reference,” System Analytics, 2023. //raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/complex-systems-and-pathogenesis.
Kennedy, Jr., Robert., The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race, (Children’s Health Defense), Skyhorse, 2023.
Kinsella, Stephan., Legal Foundations of a Free Society, Papinian Press, 2023 (Forward by Hoppe, 2023; also re: Leoni, Bruno, Freedom and the Law; Nozick, Robert Anarchy, State and Utopia; Rothbard, Murray, The Ethics of Liberty).
Kirsch, Steve., (2022a) "Why won't the CDC or FDA reveal the VAERS URF?" monograph, skirsch dot com, 2022. *URF=underreporting factor.
Kirsch, Steve., (2022b) “Two and 3-year-old with seizures is “the new normal”, Steve Kirsch’s newletter, substack.com, July 5, 2022.
Klaassen, Curtis., Watkins, John., Casarett and Doull's Essentials of Toxicology, McGraw Hill /Medical; 4th edition, 2021.
Klimov, Pavel B., Barry O'Connor, Barry., "Is Permanent Parasitism Reversible? —Critical Evidence from Early Evolution of House Dust Mites," Systematic Biology, Volume 62, Issue 3, May 2013, Pages 411–423, //doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt008
Klok, Frederikus., Pai, Menaka, Huisman, Menno, Makris, Michael., "Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia," Lancet Haematol. 2022 Jan; 9(1): e73–e80. //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8585488/
Koenig, Peter., "The Criminal Insanity of Climate Change," lewrockwell dot com, August 28, 2023. (original on Global Research: globalresearch.ca).
Kohls, Gary., "Kris Kristofferson's Dramatic Cure of his Incurable Alzheimers Disease," Duluth Reader, August 18, 2016; (re: iatrogenesis; also see Jackson 2009; Kohls 2024)
Kohls, Gary., "Drug-Induced Dementia is not Alzheimer's Disease," LewRockwell dot com, January 2, 2024 (re: iatrogenesis; also see Jackson (2009); Kohls 2016).
Kornbluh, Peter., Pinochet desclasificado: Los archivos secretos de Estados Unidos sobre Chile, Editorial Catalonia, 2023. (Also, Re: The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability, 2019).
Kotkin, Joel., "Our Neufeudal Future," firstthings dot com, January 2022.
Kotlikoff, Lawrence J., “America’s Fiscal Insolvency and Its Generational Consequences,” Testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, 2015.
Krishnan, NR., Kasturi, AS., “Iatrogenic Disorders,” Med J Armed Forces India. 2005 Jan; 61(1): 2–6.
Krueger, Anne O., "The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society," American Economic Review 64 (1974): 291-303.
Kumar, J. Senthil., Ponmurugan, P. (Editor)., Kanna, A. VInoth (Editor)., A Primer on Earth Pollution: Pollution Types and Disposal, Bentham Science Publishers, 2020.
Kurzweil, Ray., “The Law of Accelerating Returns,” Kurzweil DOT net, March 7, 2001.
Kuznets, Simon., Modern Economic Growth: Rate Structure and Spread, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1966.
Lansdown, Alan., The Carcinogenicity of Metals: Human Risk Through Occupational and Environmental Exposure (Issues in Toxicology, Volume 18), Royal Society of Chemistry; 1st edition, 2013.
Lasch, Christopher (1996) see Crooke, Alastair (2023).
Latypova, Sasha., (2024a) "How to Fake Pandemics" Series Due Diligence and Art (Substack, sashalatypova.substack.com), Part 1 January 18, 2024; Part 2 February 2, 2024.
Latypova, Sasha., (2024b) "Prather Point Interview: Jeffrey Prather show, February 8, 2024," Due Diligence and Art (Substack; sashalatypova.substack.com), February 17, 2024; and Jeffrey Prather dot com //jeffreyprather.com/breaking-latypova-reveals-dod-prep-act-democide/(also re: chemical toxins/weapons labelled as "viruses").
Latypova, Sasha., (2024c) "Lead me in your truth" -An interview with Sasha Latypova," RefugeOfSinners channel (Rumble), February 19, 2024, //rumble.com/v4ebpp0-lead-me-in-your-truth-an-interview-with-sasha-latypova.html. (re: transfection via injections of plasmid DNA; infertility concerns).
Law Library (The)., Food Additive Regulations - Incorporation by Reference of the Food Chemicals Codex, 7th Edition (US Food and Drug Administration Regulation) (FDA), 2018 Edition, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018.
Leake, John., McCullough, Peter., The Courage to Face Covid-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Counterplay Books, 2022.
Leake, John., "Bedfellows: Pharma and U.S. Gov. Agencies. Best Understood as a Species of Fascist Corporatism." Courageous Discourse, Substack, April 15, 2024.
Lenzer, Jeanne., "Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis," BMJ 2012; 344: e3989, June 7, 2012. //www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3989.
Leoni, Bruno. Freedom and the Law, 1st Ed., Princeton: d. Van Nostrand, 1961 (also re: Kinsella (2023); Nozick, Robert., Anarchy, State and Utopia; Rothbard 1981).
Levinson, Warrant, Ching-Hong, Peter., et al., Review of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, 17th Edition McGraw Hill / Medical, January 13, 2022; Co-authors: Elizabeth A. Joyce, Jesse Nussbaum, Brian Schwartz.
Lewis, David., Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits, Skyhorse, 2019.
Light, Donald W. and Lexchin, Joel and Darrow, Jonathan J., "Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs," Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, June 2013, Vol. 14, No. 3: 590-610. //ssrn.com/abstract=2282014.
Lindo, Jason., Padilla-Romo, Maria., "Kingpin Approaches to Fighting Crime and Community Violence: Evidence from Mexico’s Drug War," Research Briefs in Economic Policy No. 31, Cato Institute, July 29, 2015.
Ling, C., Hamilton, J., Khandelwal, B., "Feedstock and pathways for alternative aviation fuels." Aviation Fuels, 1–22, 2021.
Luongo, Tom., “Why War Bonds are Returning to Europe,” Gold, Goats ‘N Guns (tomluongo.me), February 20, 2024.
Mackay, Ian R. (Ed.)., Rose, Noel R. (Ed.)., Encyclopedia of Medical Immunology: Immunodeficiency Diseases, 1st edition, Springer, 2020. Also: Jordan Scott Orange (Editor), Javier Chinen (Editor).
Macleod, Alasdair., "Understanding the Difference between Credit and Real Money," MacleodFinance Substack, February 26, 2024 (mirrored at lewrockwell dot com, February 27, 2024).
Malone, Robert W., Lies My Gov't Told Me: And the Better Future Coming, Skyhorse Publishing. 2022.
Malone, Robert W., “New diagnosis codes for COVID-19 immunization status. Just what does ICD code Z28.310: Unvaccinated for COVID-19 mean?” Who is Robert Malone, Substack, January 26, 2023.
Margulis, Jennifer., Wang, Joe., “How Much Harm is Too Much for a Vaccine: We Already Have the Criteria,” Epoch Times, December 2, 2022. (Re: Hill, Austin Bradley criteria for causation)
Martin, David., (2021a) “Dr. David Martin-Attorney General Document- Filing Instructions for U.S. and Commonwealth Nations, Published by Auto on 23 December 2021,” unshackledminds dot com. //unshackledminds.com/dr-david-martin-attorney-general-document-filing-instructions/.
Martin, David., (2021b) //www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Criminal-Conspiracy-of-Coronavirus.pdf
Martin, David., see Ateba (2023).
Marx, Karl (1867) Capital, Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy, Penguin Classics, Reprint Edition, 1992.
Maté, Gabor., Maté, Daniel., The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture, Avery, 2022.
McAdams, Daniel., "Tripwire Tripped in Syria--Now What?" ronpaulinstitute dot org (Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity), Janary 30, 2024.
McCarthy, Ken., Sharav, Vera (contributor)., The Nuremberg Code: 75th Anniversary Commemorative Edition (Multi-Language Edition), Independently Published, 2022.
McChesney, Fred., Money for Nothing: Politicians, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion, Harvard University Press, 1997. (also re: Tullock 1967, 1993 and Krueger 1974 on rent-seeking).
McCullough, Peter A., "Fatal Massive Multiorgan Inflammation in a Teenager after COVID-19 Booster," Courageous Discourse, Substack, April 8, 2023 /petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/fatal-massive-multiorgan-inflammation.
McKay, Michael., “Mask Toxicity: German Study Finds Permanent & Deadly Damage by CO2 Re-breathing to Children, Adolescents, Pregnant Women, and their Unborn Babies, lewrockwell dot com, September 27, 2023 (also see Alexander, Paul 2021b).
McMaken, Ryan., Breaking Away: The Case for Secession, Radical Decentralization, and Smaller Polities, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2022.
McMaken, Ryan., "Radical Decentralization was the key to the West's Rise to Wealth and Freedom," Mises Wire (mises dot org), June 26, 2023.
McMaken, Ryan., (2024a) "Why Open Borders Don't Work for Small Countries, " Mises Wire, Mises dot org, January 9, 2024.
McMaken, Ryan., (2024b) “A Short History of the Right to Self-Determination,” Mises Wire, February 3, 2024.
Meerloo, Joost., (1956) The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing, Must Have Books, 2023.
Meningitis Research Foundation, “What's the difference between bacterial and viral meningitis?” Meningitis Research Foundation, June 2019.
Mercola, Joseph., “Bombshell Study Confirms this Daily Drink Lowers IQ, Epoch Times, September 21, 2022. (Re: fluoride; also see Connett, et al., 2010)
Mises, Ludwig von (1912)., The Theory of Money and Credit (translated from the German,1912), 1934
Mises, Ludwig von., (1920) Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (original: "Die Wirtschaftrechnung im sozialistischen Gemeinwesen", Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaften 47 (1920)), Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012.
Mises, Ludwig von., (1931) The Causes of the Economic Crisis and Other Essays, LVMI, 2006.
Mitchell, Daniel., (2017a) "Social Security's Creeping Fiscal Crisis," International Liberty, July 17, 2017.
Mitchell, Daniel., “Jeff Sessions is Wildly Wrong on Civil Asset Forfeiture,” Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), July 27, 2017. (re: Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984, U.S.)
Moore, Patrick., Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom, independently published, 2021.
Morse, Karen., Comprehensive Handbook of Bacteriology: A Short and focused Revision and Reference Note for Essentials of Clinical Bacteriology, independently published, 2022.
MRF see Meningitis Research Foundation.
Nader, Ralph., Cutting Corporate Welfare, Seven Stories Press, 2000.
Naked Emperor, The., "Controlling the 'Mark' after a Con Trick," The Naked Emperor's Newsletter (Substack), January 22, 2023.
National Cancer Institute, "Aflatoxins," National Institutes of Health (NIH), Accessed 2023. //www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/aflatoxins
National Library of Medicine, "Squalene", PubChem (Compound Summary), accessed 2023. //pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/squalene
Nature Immunology, “Pathogenesis: Of host and pathogen,” Nature Immunology, Volume 7: 217, March 2006. (Editorial, author(s) not listed).
Nehls, Michael., The Indoctrinated Brain: How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom, Skyhorse, 2023. (Naomi Wolf, Foreword)
Newby, Kris., Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons, Harper Wave, 2020; (re: Willy Burgdorfer; also see Carroll, Michael 2005)
Nevradakis, Michael., “’Reckless’: McDonald’s, Walmart, Taco Bell Fueling Antibiotic Resistance Crisis,” The Defender, Children’s Health Defense dot org, December 15, 2022.
Ngo, Andy., Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, Center Street, 2022.
Nickson, Elizabeth., "Burn Back Better; It's Not Climate Change, it's Psychopathy," Welcome to Absurdistan, Substack, September 9, 2023.
Njoya, Wanjiru., "Self-Ownership and the Right to Self-Defense," Mises Wire, March 23, 2024. //mises.org/mises-wire/self-ownership-and-right-self-defense (also re: Gordon and Njoya 2024).
Njoya, Wanjiru., (2024b) "Freedom of Contract and Property Rights," Mises Wire (mises dot org), April 27, 2024.
Njoya, Wanjiru., (2024c) "Defending Individual Liberty," LewRockwell dot com, May 3, 2024.
North, Gary., (1968) Marx's Religion of Revolution: Regeneration Through Chaos, Institute for Christian Economics, 1989.
North, James., "The mainstream media distorted our anti-Vietnam War protests 50 years ago. They're following the same strategy today," mondoweiss dot net, May 5, 2024.
Nushida H, Ito A, Kurata H, Umemoto H, Tokunaga I, Iseki H, Nishimura A. "A case of fatal multi-organ inflammation following COVID-19 vaccination," Legal Medicine (Tokyo), 2023 Mar 20;63:102244. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2023.102244. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36990036; PMCID: PMC10027302. //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S134462232300054
Oliveira J., Reygaert WC., "Gram Negative Bacteria,"[Updated 2022 Oct 8]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538213/
Orwell, George., (1945), Animal Farm, Signet 2004.
O'Toole, Zoey (Ed.)., Holland, Mary (Ed.)., and Anonymous (author)., Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth, The Turtles Team, 2022.
Perkins, Tim (Ed)., Recent Progress in Organismal and Molecular Malacology, States Academic Press, 2022. (Re: molluscs; see Tosti, et al., conotoxins/synthetic toxins)
Phelan, Janet., At the Breaking Point of History: How Decades of U.S. Duplicity Enabled the Pandemic, Trine Day, 2021.
Pilger, John., "Silencing the Lambs: How Propaganda Works," johnpilger dot com, September 8, 2022.
Piven, Frances Fox., Cloward, Richard., Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare, Random House, 1971 (re: Cloward-Piven Strategy).
Plimer, Ian., Green Murder: A Life Sentence of Net Zero with No Parole, Connor Court Publishing, 2021.
Plimer, Ian., "Geologist Professor Ian Plimer demolishes the human-induced 'global boiling' narrative," Galactic Storm channel, brighteon.com, accessed 2023. //www.brighteon.com/255d59e2-a269-4fdd-acd8-c744852262ec (detail: in Japanese: このビデオで、Plimer 先生が指摘するのは、1.人間による二酸化炭素の排出量は、全体の排出量の約3%です。2.地球の二酸化炭素の量は、大気中全体の約0.04%です;過去には、この割合は, 20%まで登っていました。結論として、人間や二酸化炭素による地球の温暖化ほ、ほぼ関係ないと考えられます)。
Price P.W., Evolutionary Biology of Parasites, Princeton University Press, 1980.
Propublica., “’Ticking Atomic Bomb’: 50+ Uranium Mills Still Dumping Cancer-Causing Toxic Waste into US Rivers,” Children’s Health Defense dot org, December 8, 2022.
Pulmonology Advisor (Contributing Writer)., "Distinguishing Viral from Bacterial Pneumonia Using C-Reactive Protein," Pulmonary Advisor, May 2, 2019.
Quinn, Jim., "Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Blood," The Burning Platform dot com, November 14, 2023. //www.theburningplatform.com/2023/11/14/rich-mans-war-poor-mans-blood/
Rao, Vikram., Vizuete, William., Particulates Matter: Impact, Measurement, and Remediation of Airborne Pollutants (Emerging Issues in Analytical Chemistry), Elsevier; 1st edition, 2020.
Rappoport, Jon., "How are Viruses Discovered and Identified in the First Place? The Earthshaking Etienne De Harven Interview with Celia Farber," Jon Rappoport's Blog, December 31, 2022.
Ratner, Paul., "39 years ago, a KGB defector chillingly predicted modern America," bigthink dot com, January 13, 2023. (re: Yuri Bezmenov interview 1984). Also, re: Antonio Gramsci.
Reich, Walter, "The World of Soviet Psychiatry," New York Times, January 30, 1983; //www.nytimes.com/1983/01/30/magazine/the-world-of-soviet-psychiatry.html (also see Corbett 2023).
Reisman, George., Why Nazism was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian, TJS Books, 2014.
Reverby, Susan., Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy, The University of North Carolina Press; Reprint edition, 2009.
Rickards, James., The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System, Portfolio, 2017.
Rockwell, Llewellyn, Jr., “Rothbard on War,” LewRockwell dot com, November 13, 2023 (re: Rothbard, Murray., The Ethics of Liberty).
Ropke, Wilhelm., Crises and Cycles (adapted and revised by Vera C. Smith), William Hodge and Co. Ltd., 1936.
Rose J., “Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System?” Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, (Sci. Publ. Health Pol. Law), Vol. 3 (2021), pp. 100-129. (Re: underreporting factor URF -estimate of 31).
Ross, A. Catherine., Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, Jones & Bartlett Learning; 11th edition, 2013.
Rothbard, Murray., "Society without a State," The Libertarian Forum, Vol 7.1, January 1975 (re: Lecture at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, Washington, DC, December 28, 1974).
Rothbard, Murray., “On Freedom and the Law,” in Raico, Ralph (Ed.), New Individualist Review (1961), Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981 (see Leoni, 1961).
Rothbard, Murray., The Mystery of Banking, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2nd Ed., 2008.
Rothbard, Murray., Anatomy of the State, Liberty Australia, 2012 (also re: Rockwell 2023).
Rose, Larken., Most Dangerous Superstition, The., Larkin Rose Publisher, 2011.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques., (1762) Du Contrat Social, TAZIRI, 2016 (Principes du Droit Politique).
Rummel, R.J., Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900, Routledge, 1997.
Sakitani, Hiroyuki, The Truth about Vaccines, Shuwa System, 2021 (in Japanese).
Sargant, William., (1961) Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing - How Evangelists, Psychiatrists, Politicians, and Medicine Men Can Change Your Beliefs and Behavior, Malor Books 2021 (Pelican Books 1961).
Scheiderich, William., (Ed.), Fraser Cynthia (Ed.), Callies, David (Ed.), Eminent Domain: A Handbook of Condemnation Law, American Bar Association, 2014.
Schinckus, Christophe., "From DNA to Economics: Analogy in Econobiology," Review of Contemporary Philosophy, January 2018.
Schumpeter, Joseph., (1950) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy: Third Edition, Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2008.
Seneff, Stephanie., Nigh, Greg., Kyriakopoulos, Anthony., McCullough, Peter., “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The Role of G-Quadruplexes, Exosomes, and MicroRNAs,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 164, June 2022. *Re: prion disease
Seneff, Stephanie., Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate Is Destroying Our Health and the Environment, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2022.
Sharav, Vera., See McCarthy, Ken.
Sheldrake, Rupert., Science Delusion Coronet, Digital original edition, 2012.
Shellenberger, Michael., Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, Harper, 2020.
Sherin, Joseph., Srinivasan, Krishnamoorthy., et al., "A review on source-specific chemistry, functionality, and applications of chitin and chitosan," Carbohydrate Polymer Technologies and Applications, Volume 2, 25 December 2021. Co-authors: R. Paranthaman, J.A. Moses, C. Anandharamakrishnan.
Skidmore, Mark., “The role of social circle COVID-19 illness and vaccine experience… an online survey of the U.S. population,” BMC Infectious Diseases, 23, Article No. 51, updated January 2023.
Smith, Brandon., "Rothschild Wants Merger Between Corporations, Governments and AI to "Save Capitalism," alt-market dot us, November 29, 2023.
Smith, Brandon., “The US Economy Looks Good on Paper – Here’s Why it’s Actually a Disaster in Progress,” (lewrockwell dot com March 15, 2024), originally published at Birch Gold Group, birchgold dot com, March 7, 2024.
Smith, Charles Hugh., Self-Reliance in the 21st Century, Independently Published, 2022.
Smith, Charles Hugh., (2023a) "We're Living in a Neofeudal Bubble," oftwominds dot com, September 5, 2023.
Smith, Charles Hugh., (2023b) "Our Neofeudal, Neocolonial World," oftwominds.com, October 26, 2023.
Smith, George., “From the Invisible Hand to the Invisible Sleight-of-Hand,” LewRockwell dot com, November 26, 2023.
Smith, George., “We Need to Do with the State What We’ve Done with Slavery,” LewRockwell dot com, April 23, 2024. (re: statism).
Solzhenitsyn Aleksandr I., The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956 I-II, Harper & Row; First Edition, 1973.
Somin, Ilya., The Grasping Hand: "Kelo v. City of New London" and the Limits of Eminent Domain, University of Chicago Press, 1st Ed., 2015.
Sowell, Thomas., Social Justice Fallacies, Basic Books, 2023.
Spencer, Herbert., (1860) "The Social Organism," The Westminster Review, January 1860. (Also see Besada 2024 on Carl Menger).
Spiers, Edward., Agents of War: A History of Chemical and Biological Weapons, 2nd Edition, Reaktion Books, 2021.
Spooner, Lysander., (1882) Natural Law*, Gale: Making of Modern Law, 2010 (*Long-Form Title: Natural law, or, The science of justice: a treatise on natural law, natural justice, natural rights, natural liberty, and natural society: showing that all legislation is an absurdity, a usurpation, and a crime).
Srinivasan, Balaji., The Network State: How to Start a New Country, Kindle Edition, publication date July 4, 2022 (Separate summaries of the Network state prior to publication: Terry Goldberg/Bethany Kay/Charles Morris/William Noah/Bolaji Sigurdsson & Nate Powell).
Steward, Karen., "Gram Positive vs Gram Negative," Technology Networks (Immunology and Microbiology), October 21, 2022. //www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/articles/gram-positive-vs-gram-negative-323007
Stockman, David., The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, PublicAffairsTM, 2013.
Stockman, David., “Why the Monetary Mission Should be Left to the Free Market,” LewRockwell dot com, David Stockman’s Contra Corner, accessed October 28, 2023.
Stockman, David., "How the Fed Wrecked the Dream of Homeownership, " Internationalman dot com, Accessed December, 2023.
Stockman, David., "Why the US Needs a “Secure Border With a Wide Gate," David Stockman's Contra Corner (LewRockwell dot com), January 1, 2024.
Stockman, David., "High and Dry on Main Street," David Stockman's Contra Corner, March 1, 2024 (mirrored at LewRockwell dot com March 9, 2024).
Stone, Katherine., Kuttner, Robert., "The Rise of Neo-Feudalism," Prospect dot org, April 8, 2020.
Taibbi, Matt., Hate, Inc.: Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another, OR Books, 2021.
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas., Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, Random House, 2012. (Re: iatrogenics)
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas., Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life, Allen Lane (Penguin), 2018. Re: GMOs, ecocide.
Taleb, Nassim., Principia Politica, monograph, fourth draft, November 2019 (re: on rent seeking (Fig 8); also see Tullock 1993 and Krueger 1974).
Tagarro, Alfredo., Moraleda, Cinta., et al., “A Tool to Distinguish Viral from Bacterial Pneumonia,” The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal: January 2022 - Volume 41 - Issue 1 - p 31-36 ( co-authors: Domínguez-Rodríguez, Sara; Rodríguez, Mario; Martín, María Dolores; Herreros, María Luisa; Jensen, Julia; López, Agustín; Galán, Juan Carlos; Otheo, Enrique).
Thaler, Richard., Sunstein, Cass., Nudge: The Final Edition, Penguin Books, 2021.
Thomas, Jeff., "Democracy-the Illusion of Liberty," internationalman dot com, accessed December 2023. (also see Hoppe 2022; Kotkin 2022; Stone and Kuttner 2020; Smith 2023).
Thomas, Lewis., The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher, Penguin Books, 1978.
Thomas, Russell (Ed.)., Waters, Michael D. (Ed.)., Toxicogenomics in Predictive Carcinogenicity (Issues in Toxicology, Volume 28) 1st Edition, Royal Society of Chemistry; 1st edition, 2016.
Thompson, Sarah., "To Cure or Not to Cure," LewRockwell dot com, May 4, 2024 (legal monopolization of medical practices, e.g., American Medical Association 1847).
Tosti, Elisabetta., Boni, Raffaele., Gallo, Alessndra., "Pathophysiological Responses to Conotoxin Modulation of Voltage-Gated Ion Currents," Marine Drugs. 2022 Apr 23;20(5):282.
Tremblay, Rodrigue., "The Digital Revolution of Artificial Intelligence: Beneficial Economic Creative Destruction or Systemic Dehumanization," rodriguetremblay100 dot blogspot dot com, March 6, 2024.
Triantafyllidis, K. Katsikas., Giannos, P., Mian I.T., Kyrtsonis. G., Kechagias, K.S., "Varicella zoster virus reactivation following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review of case reports," Vaccines, 9 (9) (2021). (also, re: immunodeficiency).
Tucker, Jeffrey., Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty, Foundation for Economic Education, 2017. (also, re: Sowell 2007, 2010; Goldberg 2009).
Tucker, Jeffrey., "From Capitalism to Corporatism," dailyreckoning dot com, March 15, 2024.
Tullock, Gordon., "The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft," Western Economic Journal 5 (1967): 224-232.
Tullock, Gordon., Rent Seeking, Edward Elgar, 1993.
United States Congress, Chemical Weapons Convention (Treaty doc. 103-21): Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Third ... April 13, May 13 and 17, June 9 and 23, 1994 (Senate Committee), Palala Press, 2015.
Virkki R, Juven T, Rikalainen H, Svedström E, Mertsola J, Ruuskanen O., “Differentiation of bacterial and viral pneumonia in children.,” Thorax. 2002 May;57(5):438-41.
Vivancos, P.D., Driscoll, S.P., Bulman, C.A., Ying, L., Emami, K., Treumann, A., Mauve, C., Noctor, G. and Foyer, C.H. (2011) "Perturbations of Amino Acid Metabolism Associated with Glyphosate-Dependent Inhibition of Shikimic Acid Metabolism Affect Cellular Redox Homeostasis and Alter the Abundance of Proteins Involved in Photosynthesis and Photorespiration," Plant Physiology, 157, 256-268; also, re: Ayyadurai, et al., 2016, Zanatta, et al., 2020.
Voslensky, Michael., Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class, Doubleday, 1984.
Waggy, Madge., "Great Propaganda," madgewaggy.blogspot dot com, March 1, 2024.
Washington, Harriet., Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present, Anchor, 2008.
Watt, Katherine., "American Domestic Bioterrorism Program," Bailiwick News, bailiwicknews dot substack dot com, April 29, 2022 (last updated October 24, 2023). (also see Delaney 2023; Martin 2023).
Watt, Katherine., "Legal Walls of the Covid-19 Kill Box: Militarization of Public Health and Public Health False-Front for Military Campaigns as Viewed through the Covid-19 Lens," Presentation on January 24, 2023 (re: bailiwicknews.substack.com; Brighteon dot com //www.brighteon.com/11da0bce-50f5-43a7-84c4-f8b5f945575b).
Webb, David Rogers., The Great Taking, independently published, 2023.
Webb, Whitney., One Nation Under Blackmail, Vol. 1, Vol 2., Trine Day, 2022.
Wedler, Carey., "How I became a "right-wing" extremist," Carey Wedler channel, Facebook, January 20, 2021. //www.facebook dot com/watch/?v=1130923307363547; (also see Hosseinmardi., Gasemian, et al., 2020).
Weinstein Sara B., Kuris, Armand M., "Independent origins of parasitism in Animalia," Biology Letters, 12-20160324, July 1, 2016. //royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0324.
White, L. Reichard., “Voir Dire, Jury Nullification, Dred Scott & Donald Trump,” LewRockwell dot com, April 20, 2024.
Wigington, Dane., Geoengineering: A Chronicle of Indictment, Geoengineering Watch, January 1, 2017. (also re: geoengineeringwatch.org).
Wimer, Andrew., "Institute for Justice Dismantles Philadelphia Forfeiture Machine," Institute for Justice dot org, September 18, 2018. (re: civil forfeiture; Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984, U.S.); //ij.org/press-release/institute-for-justice-dismantles-philadelphia-forfeiture-machine/
Wolf, Naomi., The Bodies of Others: The New Authoritarians, COVID-19 and the War Against the Human, All Seasons Press, 2022. (also see Nehls 2023).
Woods, Thomas., “Neocon Control is Slipping Away,” libertarianinstitute dot org, April 23, 2024.
Wriston, Walt., The Twilight of Sovereignty: How the Information Revolution Is Transforming Our World, Scribner, 1st Ed., 1992.
Zambon, Veronica.,"Pellagra: Everything you need to know," Medical News Today, March 20, 2020. (*Medically reviewed by Cynthia Taylor Chavoustie, MPAS, PA-C).
Zanatta, C.B., Benevenuto, R.F., Nodari, R.O. et al. "Stacked genetically modified soybean harboring herbicide resistance and insecticide rCry1Ac shows strong defense and redox homeostasis disturbance after glyphosate-based herbicide application," Environmental Sciences Europe 32, 104 (2020); also re: Vivancos, et al., 2011, Ayyadurai, et al., 2016.
END
A subsequent study that incorporates the econobiological systemic dynamics of this study is as follows: Kennedy, Raoul., “Complex Systems and Pathogenesis: A Multi-layered Etiological Reference,” System Analytics, 2023. https://raoulkennedy.substack.com/p/complex-systems-and-pathogenesis
For a video summary of this study, see https://youtu.be/mfT9bATYJtA