The State: It’s Not There For You

By | August 17, 2023


Hi Everyone,

This is not a UFO/UAP related piece, and it’s not really even an article about contemporary geopolitics. Not too much, anyway. It’s more in the line of political theory, and specifically a theory of the State. Don’t ask me why I wrote this — I only started thinking about this specifically as I fell asleep last night. But this morning the thought took hold of me and I am hoping that it’s as worthwhile as I hoped it would be when I started writing it. I think it’s interesting. Not sure if it’s Earth-shattering, but at least to me it’s fresh. I am not aware of other political theorists making these statements, but perhaps because they are just too obvious. Perhaps. 

Anyway, here it is, in written and audio format. I hope you find it worthwhile. 



The State: It’s Not There For You

Richard Dolan


The following article discusses a theory of the State. In it, I don’t discuss political personalities, and certainly don’t get into the matter of past or current political leaders and judge them one way or the other. Obviously our political world does have individuals who we can genuinely call sociopathic or worse, others who may believe in some of the things they say, others who are ideological fanatics, and others who are just mundane team players. And many other types, also. Nor does this article discuss, at least not in any detail, the current globalist revolution as I call it, at least not in an extended or explicit way. I’ve done that before and I am sure I will come back to that. But this is something different – it’s more of a theory of Statehood in general. 


I have become convinced that most of us do not understand the nature of the State, whether in its ancient or contemporary construction. This lack of understanding creates confusion in our society at large and causes many pointless arguments, aside from diverting us from looking at ourselves and our world more realistically. 

It’s not that we completely missed the truth, but that we never really truly got it. Most people haven’t read philosophers of the Social Contract theory, be they Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, or others who modeled their ideas after them, such as Jefferson. Still, the idea of the social contract is deeply embedded in the thinking of most people with even a bare-bones understanding of politics and society. 

The idea of the social contract is a brilliant innovation in political thought, but it doesn’t fully or even truly explain the formation, nature, motives, and actions of the State. 

The Social Contract

The social contract theory, a cornerstone of political philosophy, is a straightforward concept. It proposes an agreement among individuals to give up certain freedoms in exchange for the order and protection provided by the State. This trade-off involves surrendering some personal liberties (like the right to harm others) for the collective benefit of societal stability and safety.

One of the earliest and most influential proponents of this theory was Thomas Hobbes, who wrote his thoughts over three centuries ago in his seminal work, “Leviathan.” Hobbes painted a grim picture of life in a state of nature – without any governing authority – describing it as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To avoid such chaos, Hobbes argued, individuals willingly cede their absolute freedom to a sovereign authority, which he termed the Leviathan. This entity, whether a monarch or a government, is charged with maintaining societal order and survival.

Hobbes’s vision of the ideal society leaned towards totalitarianism, where the State’s power is supreme, and all members of society are subject to its rule. The only alternative, in Hobbes’s view, was anarchy and mob rule. Considering that Hobbes lived through the turmoil of the English Civil War, his preference for a strong, centralized authority isn’t surprising.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau offered a different perspective on the social contract. In his work “The Social Contract,” Rousseau proposed that individuals surrender their natural freedom to the community’s “general will.” The State, in Rousseau’s view, is not a domineering sovereign but a representation of the people’s collective will, a perspective more palatable to contemporary sensibilities.

Rousseau’s theory adds a layer of complexity. While the State represents the general will and aims to promote the collective good, it must also respect individual rights and freedoms. The State’s legitimacy is contingent on the people’s collective will, necessitating a delicate balance between individual rights and collective welfare.

John Locke, both chronologically and philosophically, falls between Hobbes and Rousseau, though he aligns more closely with Rousseau. Locke’s political philosophy also hinges on the social contract theory.

In “Two Treatises of Government,” Locke describes a state of nature where individuals are free and equal, bound only by the law of nature, which prohibits harm to others’ life, health, liberty, or possessions. However, Locke recognized that without an unbiased mediator, this state of nature could lead to disputes. Therefore, he suggested that individuals agree to form a civil society and establish a government to safeguard their natural rights – life, liberty, and property.

Locke’s government operates with the consent of the governed. If the government fails to protect its citizens’ natural rights or acts against their interests, Locke believed that the people have the right to overthrow it and establish a new one. This revolutionary right, integral to Locke’s social contract theory, greatly influenced the American Declaration of Independence, as evident in Thomas Jefferson’s incorporation of this principle.

The Missing Element: The State as The Goal Itself

The social contract theory, a linchpin of political thinking, revolutionized our understanding of State and society. However, it may not fully capture the reality of the State’s existence. The critique often leveled against this theory is that people don’t actively consent to the State’s formation for personal liberty or safety, as critical as these might be.

But there’s much more to critique than that. As we delve deeper, it becomes clear that the State is not a voluntary agreement among individuals but an organic development of human society. It traces back to our very beginnings in prehistory, rooted in the principle of collective societal power. While individual benefits do arise, they are secondary to the State’s primary function – survival and power in the highly competitive and territorial landscape of human existence. This fundamental truth holds as much relevance today as it did during the reigns of ancient God-Kings or the Roman Empire.

The State’s role has always been to channel the collective power of its society to compete against other States engaged in the same struggle. Through the historical maze, a pattern emerges: the State embodies society’s survival instinct. It’s a paradoxical entity that craves power not merely to uplift its citizens, but to ensure its own survival. It’s a creature of dominance, and any benevolence it shows towards its subjects is essentially a byproduct of its relentless quest for survival and power.

This perspective may lack the optimistic undertones of the social contract theory. However, it offers a more realistic view of what the State truly represents – an entity born out of necessity and survival, rather than an agreed-upon construct for individual benefit.

Ancient Epochs

The inception of the State, at its core, can be traced back to the dawn of human ritual, which began at least 40,000 years ago, if not earlier. This may seem unconventional, but rituals serve as a unifying force that organizes separate individuals into a collective unit. More than just numerical unity, rituals foster unity of mind and purpose. It was this ability to organize into large collectives that gave Homo sapiens a decisive edge over competitive human groups such as Neanderthals and Denisovans in the quest for territorial domination. Thus, the ultimate human power principle, E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one), comes into play. I’ll return to that concept later. 

As societies evolved and became more complex, ancient civilizations such as those led by God-Kings also demonstrated this principle. Ancient Egypt is a prime example where the Pharaoh, perceived as a God-King, held the critical role of preserving Ma’at, the universal order. The survival of the Egyptian State was deeply interwoven with the Pharaoh’s ability to effectively execute these duties.

A similar pattern can be seen in ancient Mesopotamia, where the King was viewed as an earthly representative of the gods. His responsibilities encompassed maintaining order, enforcing laws, and leading the military. The survival of the Mesopotamian city-state hinged on the King’s ability to shield it from external threats and internal chaos.

In ancient India, the concept of Dharma, or duty, dictated societal organization. The King, seen as a divine figure, was charged with upholding Dharma and ensuring social order. The State’s survival rested on the King’s shoulders, specifically his ability to uphold these duties effectively.

Ancient China saw the Emperor as the “Son of Heaven,” a divine figure with a divine mandate to rule. The State’s survival was contingent on the Emperor’s effective rule and the maintenance of the Mandate of Heaven.

The Roman Empire, a behemoth birthed amidst the struggle for supremacy, had a need for survival that spurred the creation of an ironclad military, efficient governance, and infrastructural wonders like roads and aqueducts.

The Persian Empire under leaders like Cyrus the Great and Darius expanded their territories through conquests, consolidating power and establishing an effective administration primarily for the survival of the state.

The Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan epitomized the relentless pursuit of power. Its survival hinged on ruthless military campaigns and centralized control.

The Byzantine Empire, under the Emperor Justinian, sought to regain the lost glory of the Western Roman Empire. The centralization of power, codification of laws, and military prowess were primarily aimed at the state’s survival and expansion.

In each of these examples, the State’s survival was inexorably tied to the leader’s ability to maintain order, enforce laws, and lead the people. And, we must add, foster a sense of collective identity. This last is very important. 

We see, in other words, the State as an entity striving for its own survival, centralizing authority, and organizing its citizens either to compete with other societies or quite simply maintain as much power for as long as possible.

Through the passage of time, this fact about the State never diminished. Some of these things, such as the building of roads and codification of laws and much else, of course provided great benefit to individuals, but this was an incidental result to the main goal of enhancing the power of the State.

Entering the Modern Era

As humanity embarked on the era of science and industrialization, a significant increase in individual freedoms became necessary. This new societal organization thrived on technological innovation, leading to a wealthier society, improved weaponry, and enhanced territorial control capabilities. This change necessitated a loosening of certain controls, particularly over innovators, whose contributions to societal power were immediately evident. Notably, Great Britain and the fledgling American nation epitomized this strategy.

This transformation didn’t occur instantly but evolved over several generations. The gradual concession of liberties to citizens, aligned with the social contract theories of Locke and Rousseau, did not alter the ultimate principle. That is, the State required maximum innovation from its citizens to enhance its global power projection, all in competition with other nations with similar ambitions.

The British Empire’s expansion during the 18th and 19th centuries was spurred by competition with European powers. Centralized authority, a formidable navy, and citizen mobilization were all geared towards the Empire’s survival and global power expansion. The proliferation of English law and language were incidental outcomes. While the immense wealth generation within British society certainly benefited many inhabitants, the expansion of British power was primarily driven by the United Kingdom’s need to outcompete other national rivals.

Similarly, the course of the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte’s rise marked a shift towards centralized power. The Napoleonic Code, military efforts, and remarkable administrative reforms were primarily for the French State’s survival and expansion. There were many benefits for French society, but these were all within the context of Napoleon’s efforts to ensure the French State’s power and dominance.

The same is true for the history of the United States. This might seem counterintuitive initially, as the American government functioned on the basis of limited federal power over the people for many years. However, relaxing many controls over (white) Americans during those early years led to a tremendous economic expansion and general power expansion. This power expansion was initially directed against the continent’s native population and later against other nations.

The American Civil War triggered a significant centralization of power in the federal government during the 19th century. As clearly stated by Lincoln, the primary goal was the Union’s survival, with individual states or citizens’ welfare playing a secondary role.

In the twentieth century, the needs of the State dominated virtually every nation’s actions. The most obvious examples are well-known dictatorships. Under Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet Union epitomized power centralization, developing a robust military-industrial complex primarily for the state’s survival. Hitler’s Germany pursued relentless power for state survival, with economic recovery and infrastructure development serving as means to reclaim its global position. In China, leaders like Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Xi Jinping have shaped modern China, centralizing power and organizing citizens for state survival.

Throughout history, from ancient empires to modern superpowers, it becomes clear that the state is an organic representation of society’s need to compete. The state’s pursuit of power for survival has been consistent. The well-being of the people, though important, remains incidental to the state’s survival.

A Contemporary Example: The European Union

The European Union is a distinctive blend of multiple nation-states, serving as a prime example of the concept that a State represents a society’s need to compete with other societies. The EU’s trajectory underscores the drive towards the centralization of authority, not primarily for individual welfare – although it is often portrayed that way – but for the collective power and survival of the 

Initially, the EU was introduced to Europeans as a simple economic group, a free trade area known as the European Economic Community or Common Market. However, it quickly morphed into a centralized political union with its own central bank and single currency. This transformation wasn’t designed mainly for the welfare of the individuals within these nations, though that’s how it was presented to the public. Instead, it was a strategic move to enhance the collective power and global influence of these states. I would additionally argue that it served as a tool for the U.S.-led western coalition of financial elites to further project their power.

This shift from a free trade area to a centralized political entity was methodically executed, each stage presented as an isolated event to avoid alarming the public, a stepping-stone approach.

The EU’s plans to expand and include more member states, such as Sweden, Finland, Austria, and then the Eastern European countries, is another reflection of the State’s need to compete. By broadening its membership, the EU is effectively bolstering its collective power and influence, enhancing its competitive position on the global stage.

The EU’s focus on defense and security, including its close collaboration with NATO, mirrors the State’s pursuit of weaponry and organization of its citizens for defense purposes. Its security strategy isn’t primarily about protecting individual citizens but ensuring the collective survival of the EU.

So, the development and strategies of the EU align with the historical pattern of States prioritizing their survival and power over individual welfare. Despite modern complexities, the fundamental principle remains: the State exists to compete, and its actions are geared towards this end. 

Future studies of the EU will have to consider the seemingly irreversible harm that entity has done to itself over the last several years, to the extent that increasing numbers of analysts now question its long-term ability to survive. I personally think it comes down to a failure of the EU’s recent and current leadership actually to promote and implement policies designed to do the things that a State needs to do to remain strong and actually project power. Instead it has undertaken policies that appear objectively to engage in self-harm, apparently and mostly at the direction of its sponsor, the United States. In other words, the incipient EU State has abandoned its primary function to promote policies that expand its power in a variety of ways and now appears to be paying a steep price.

Even so, you never know. Despite the carnage it has brought upon itself, the EU might have more staying power than people realize. The power of coercion can be profound. We shall have to see. 

The State Does Its Own Thing

Earlier, I talked about the State as a natural manifestation of society’s need to compete. But there’s more to it than that. The State isn’t just an organic outgrowth of society’s survival instinct. It develops its own life, independent of the people’s collective will – a concept that Rousseau introduced us to over 250 years ago.

Picture the State like a child of human society. Its first job is to protect its parent society from threats. To do this, it taps into society’s strength. In the process, the State prioritizes its own survival, even above the welfare of its people. However, if it messes up so badly that it impoverishes its people and weakens society, it stands in danger of being replaced – either by another nation or through a people’s revolution. So, it’s in the State’s interest to keep its people content and strong enough to avoid such outcomes.

But here’s the thing. The State operates according to its own rules, not primarily for its people’s happiness. It uses all available means to foster a shared identity among its citizens and enhance its coercive powers – both against its people and other nations.

If you’re skeptical, think about how many nations throughout history and today have failed to keep their people happy, contradicting social contract theorists’ beliefs. Some of these States didn’t last, but others did and still do – and not just those labeled as “dictatorships” by the West.

The reason so many States regularly disregard the “will of the people” is simple: it’s not part of the State’s core mission. We’d like to think it is, but it’s not. The State’s primary goal is to survive and expand its power by any practical means. Any benefits to the people are usually welcome side effects, but they’re ultimately incidental. And when these benefits are welcome, it’s usually because content people are more likely to support the State.

However, history has repeatedly shown us that the people’s happiness is not the State’s top priority, nor is it crucial for its continued existence. What matters most is the State’s ability to use all available societal tools to maximize its power, which usually involves collective control of the people.

“E Pluribus Unum”: A Timeless Principle of Statehood

Indeed, the State’s role in fostering unity and shared identity among its people is a timeless necessity, irrespective of the era’s diversity or inclusivity. This principle is encapsulated in the phrase “E Pluribus Unum,” which translates to “Out of Many, One.” A recurring theme throughout history, this concept signifies the unity that arises from diversity, painting a picture of a collective society born out of individualities.

One of the most striking examples of this is found in the Roman Empire. Despite its sprawling territories and diverse cultures, Rome managed to create a shared identity among its people. This was achieved through political integration, cultural assimilation, and the propagation of common laws, customs, and values. Oh, and of course torture and terror. Hey, those dissidents weren’t going to crucify themselves. Eventually, the resultant Roman identity transcended regional and tribal allegiances, creating a sense of belonging to a larger, unified entity.

Fast forward to the Middle Ages, when political fragmentation was rampant. However, a shared religious identity, promoted by the Church, served as a unifying force. Despite the political divisions, people across different regions felt a sense of unity and shared purpose because of their common faith.

The concept of nation-states, which emerged around the time of the French and American Revolutions, further evolved the idea of a collective identity. This time, the emphasis was on shared political ideals and principles rather than cultural or religious homogeneity. In both France and America, revolutions were spurred by a vision of unity based on common political beliefs and aspirations for freedom and equality.

Interestingly, the phrase “E Pluribus Unum” has its roots in the American Revolution. It encapsulates the essence of the revolution – the forging of a single, united nation from a diverse group of colonies. 

Thus, whether it’s the expansive Roman Empire, the religiously bound societies of the Middle Ages, or the politically driven modern nation-states, the State’s role in fostering unity from diversity remains a constant. It is this unity, this shared identity, that contributes to the survival and prosperity of the State.

Our Current Trajectory

In today’s world, where everything is becoming more interconnected and countries are trying to work together on a global scale, it’s important to think about the role of the State. The State is like an entity that seeks to survive, gather authority, and bring its people together to compete with other entities.

While there is a push towards a global identity, it’s not as simple as just diluting national identities. Globalization has certainly made things more blurred in terms of trade, communication, and culture, but the idea of the nation-state still holds strong in many parts of the world. National identities, cultural differences, and political systems all continue to play important roles in global affairs, especially outside of the Western world.

You know, one thing that Americans might not fully grasp is the deep historical connection that many people in Asia and Africa have with their ethnic groups and nations. These connections go back thousands of years, long before written history even existed. It’s not just about their current national identity; it’s about a rich history that stretches across countless generations. Losing that heritage is something they might not be too thrilled about.

But here’s the thing: as technology advances and economies become more intertwined, the traditional idea of national sovereignty is facing a serious challenge. We see this with the rise of supranational entities like the European Union, where countries are pooling their sovereignty in certain areas. It’s too early to say for sure, but this could be a transformation rather than an elimination of the nation-state concept. The State still remains the primary governing unit, but within a framework of shared rules and “norms” that go beyond national borders.

This is one key to understanding our world today. The drive for a State to ensure its survival is always there, but which State are we talking about? Particularly in Western nations, national governments have become somewhat subservient to a transnational system, and we can see the emergence of a supranational State, much like the birth of the Sun in our Solar System.

As societies become more interconnected, we’re witnessing the expansion of collective identities that go beyond national boundaries. It’s a different kind of identity from the traditional ethnic or national identity, but there’s still an imposed collective identity. We see this in the promotion of global citizenship and the various self-described identities encouraged in our world today. The emerging unipolar State recognizes that people still need identities, and those identities can be manipulated for the benefit of the State.

This shift towards a unipolar State is largely driven by the imperatives of our technological revolution and the creation of a digitized, data-driven international economy and society. And, of course, the inherent need for the State to ensure its own survival. In this case, it involves combining previously separate States to maximize power projection.

There are different ways to interpret our world, but one perspective is that we’re witnessing a competition between traditional nation-state structures (like Russia, China, India, and much of the Global South) and the Western-dominated multinational behemoth that seeks to manage a unipolar global system. It’s essentially a battle for survival between these two distinct forms of the State, and the outcome is still uncertain. It’s important to note that observing this conflict doesn’t mean taking sides; it’s simply highlighting one of the key struggles in our world today. As they say, it is what it is.

One thing that remains true is that astute State managers understand the importance of appeasing the people with their policies. However, this isn’t the sole driver of State action. Well-governed States do promote policies that are beneficial to the people to avoid popular uprisings and dissatisfaction, but these actions are ultimately motivated by their own goals.

That being said, recent years have shown that many States don’t pay too much attention to the will of the people and still manage to maintain power. This holds true for national governments across the board, regardless of whether they’re part of the Western world or not. But as I mentioned earlier, Western governments are now implementing policies to enhance not only their own power but also that of the new transnational State. The goal is to maximize power projection both domestically and internationally.

If we do eventually reach a true unipolar global system dominated by one overarching State, we’ll need to closely monitor developments to see if any of the ideas discussed here need to be revised. My personal belief is that the State will always have something to worry about, and its survival in the face of threats will continue to be the primary motivation for its actions.

Regarding the World of Today

This thing about the State needing to always ensure it’s survival. There is a practical element of this in today’s world. That is the unending perceived need of the various great powers in the world to outcompete with each other in terms of military and economic matters. We have seen this in every era of human history through the end of the Cold War. Then for a little while we thought that just maybe we had moved past such an era. One silly historian even called it the end of history. 

Well as we see, this never ending struggle among states is one of the key factors driving so much of our world today. We all talk about the AI revolution. Well, this is driven probably by military competition as much as by any other factor. Corporate competition is right in there, too, but no question that military motives and reasons of State have a tremendous effect on this. 

State competition has an effect on many other things. There will be a day when we can peer more deeply into the international nature of the UFO coverup and I would fully expect that an international rivalry has comprised a significant part of it. Indeed, we are hearing such rumors more and more. 

What we are seeing now in the development of the State is that it is acquiring tools for coercion and control that no previous States have ever been able to contemplate. The capability for population control has never been greater, and that’s saying something. Or perhaps it may equal the level of public control exercised by the ancient God-Kings. Except over vastly greater numbers of people, within the context of a fully digital and data-driven society in which all factors and human resources — that means, people — are monitored, measured, and allocated according to State needs. Anyway, this can easily be the world we are moving into. One that is further managed by strong AI with the ability to know our next move before we do. 


None of what I’ve discussed means that various States can’t implement policies that people desire. Of course they can and sometimes they still do. But the idea of the State as somehow in service to the social contract is very much in need of a rethink. According to the concept of the social contract, the state is seen as the fundamental entity that deserves our allegiance and respect. However, it is important to note that the actions and motivations of states do not always align with the idea of serving the social contract. States have their own objectives and seek to maximize their power and ensure their survival.

Throughout history, states have sought to unite their citizens under a shared identity and purpose, fostering a collective consciousness. They also strive to maximize their available resources in the pursuit of power. This principle remains relevant today, even in an era characterized by calls for diversity and inclusion.

While the state plays a crucial role in maintaining order and promoting policies for public happiness, its ultimate motivation is to maintain or expand its power. The state is an integral part of human civilization and is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.


18 thoughts on “The State: It’s Not There For You

  1. Matthew Redhead

    I found this insightful. I have long seen large institutions as being like a form of self-perpetuating AI (I have worked in government, banks and consultancies), where individual humans play the role that our physiological systems do within our bodies. White blood cells for instance don’t ‘know’ what the purpose of their activity is – they just do what they do to keep the system going and keep it alive. When we think of it this way, it’s easy to understand how so many working within businesses and government institutions instinctively seek to attack and cover-up issues which might be damaging to the overall ‘organism’, without there need to be a grand conspiracy in every case. The instinct is to keep the institution alive, no matter what.

  2. Bjofod

    Wow, very interesting stuff Richard. Anything is possible if the state is the ultimate thing to preserve and expand. Even wars and 911. But who is the state. In my view it is the unseen power behind the curtain. The power we do not know but feel more and more.

    In medieval europe and up nearly to this day we had a political power that all the kings of europe had to be «inside» with. That was the real state of europe. The Vatican. Count the number of murders and pain they was behind and ask why they still is observed as a spiritual power or even god.

  3. William May

    Great history lesson Richard. This needs to be a book for college use. I know there are plenty of books with this information but not as well laid out for everyone to understand.

  4. SunPower

    I admittedly haven’t put as much thought into your thesis as you have, RIchard. I did catch a few things along the way in the form of words you’ve defined slightly differently than I understood. And in a way that flows with your thesis better. E.G. you said Dharma means Duty and I always understood it to refer to Path (a personal path in life) and it never would refer to a bunch of powerful bullies opting for control.
    Also “Game Theory”, the computer program supposedly replacing, remote viewing, as the defense industry’s predictive arm, operates (as I understand) by assuming contries are run by individuals that have their own best interests to guide their decisions. It is reportedly about 98% accurate at predicting what a country will do next. The problem with this would be to say which individual(s) is/are actualy “In charge”.

    How would you incorporate “Game theory” into your thesis?

  5. Peter Squire

    Yes thank you for that article Richard, which was thought provoking.

    As far as the social contract goes I too have been thinking about where I stand as regards this. Certainly the implementation of fifteen minute cities, connected with CBDC and universal basic income, attached to a vax passport is my red line where all deals are off..

    When this happens that’s the end of my social contract with these globalist psychopaths. In effect it will be a declaration of war made by government to its citizens. At the very least it’ll be a hostile act by governments igainst its citizens.

    The parallel society or economy here I come if that happens.

  6. Lauren2844

    Excellent article written by an excellent writer. I’ve lived outside the United States (most of the time) since 2017. I’ve been back to the U.S. 8 times.. Florida, Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, Colorado. The way people here in Europe speak of the United States is alarming. I’ve asked hundreds of people not only their opinions but there families and acquaintances opinions about the U.S. Almost all see the U.S. as a laughable failing Empire. They see our president as a complete buffoon and know the banks, pharmaceutical industries, Defense departments and especially the intelligence agencies run the United States. We are not taken seriously on the world stage anymore. However what terrifies me most is that once Saudi Arabia elimates the PetroDollar… Its finished. The U.S. will collapse. The last card holding up the U.S. house of cards is the petrodollar. Robert Kennedy just admitted “once that happens the 1930’s great depression will look like a cake walk.”
    What’s terrifying is people in the U.S. have no idea what true suffering is. To not have Any food, electricity or housing because the infrastructure collapses is what nightmares are made of. Who is gonna go to work if there paycheck is worthless? This is why the elites love islands and extremely hard to reach places. I pray this doesn’t happen to my beloved U.S. but the corruption there is banana Republic bad..
    1st World Countries have 1 thing in common and that’s a Majority sized Middle Class. When a once functioning Country no longer has a middle class revolutions can occur and real collapse can happen. Our Middle class got obliterated in the 2000’s and the covid lockdowns and clot shots took out what little was left. Now America’s Majority is the working poor. Over 65% don’t have a savings account or even $500.00 in the bank as a safety back up. This is instability at its worst and unfortunately i think the U.S. is in for terrible times.. i hope I’m wrong.

    1. itsmeRitaC

      I agree with you at last, Lauren. A revolution won’t happen in the homeland however. People are way too divided amongst themselves. It will just crash and burn. That has been my assumption. What amazes me are people still having kids at this time.

  7. Lauren2844

    Richard could you talk about what would happen to the U.S. if Saudi Arabia stopped the Petrodollar? I believe you could give some good insight.

  8. Lauren2844

    Richard could you talk about what would happen to the U.S. if Saudi Arabia stopped the Petrodollar? I believe you could give some good insight..

    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      Yes, that is a good topic and at least not something that would divide our community along ideological lines. And yes it is important. I’ll try to put something together.

      1. itsmeRitaC

        I thought they are going off of petro dollar. My own thoughts have been that the reversed engineered technologies are gradually going to replace petro dollar. Or somehow this private corporation tech would be what the u.s. tries to use. I never said it out loud though, and it may just be very off the wall and not even plausible. 🙂

        Anyway, i think the petro dollar is the basis of ‘our enemies’ list. I believe zero about Russia or China from the media. Most all media in fact.

        Karma is karma. The u.s. has it big, big time.

  9. Robert McGwier

    Thank you for this Richard. I freely admit I rarely think of this question and topic deeply. I come to this because I am parsimonious with my thinking time. So when I ask myself what is the alternative and the only alternative to the state I see is chaos and the loss of the institutions we have become utterly dependent on, I move on because I have no answers.


Leave a Reply