Embracing Totalitarianism And Ramifications.

[Karl12]

Quite a refreshing commentary from Harry back in the day but this quote does extremely hold true to what's going on in Europe right now.

• "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear".

HARRY S TRUMAN.

Funnily enough all these evil 1984 shenanigans began when the Queen's son took over and he alone was the absolute first to attempt to initiate the tolalitarian 'great reset'.

Any thoughts on the comment or the content would be appreciated (for or against).

[UltraBudgie]

With pithy quotes like these, I like to find the larger context in which they occur. Not because they're not true in and of themselves, but because it is interesting how the way that truths of the time map to circumstance, and how that mapping changes over time. It provides data on the subtle undercurrents of political society.

Here is that speech, from 1950:

First, I recommend that the Congress remedy certain defects in the present laws concerning espionage, the registration of foreign agents, and the security of national defense installations, by clarifying and making more definite certain language in the espionage laws, by providing an extended statute of limitations (in place of the present 3-year statute) for peacetime espionage, by requiring persons who have received instruction from a foreign government or political party in espionage or subversive tactics to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and by giving broader authority than now exists for the President to establish security regulations concerning the protection of military bases and other national defense installations.

Second, I recommend that the Congress enact legislation permitting the Attorney General to exercise supervision over aliens subject to deportation and to require them, under the sanction of criminal penalties, to report their whereabouts and activities at regular intervals. In a number of cases, aliens under deportation orders cannot be deported because no other country will accept them. A bill pending before the Congress would permit the Attorney General in certain cases to detain such aliens in his custody for indefinite periods of time--not pursuant to a conviction for crime but on the basis of an administrative determination. Such action would be repugnant to our traditions, and it should not be authorized. Present law, however, is inadequate to permit proper supervision of deportable aliens, and should be strengthened as I have indicated.

Under the leadership of the National Security Council, the agencies of the Government which administer our internal security laws are keeping these laws under constant study to determine whether further changes are required to provide adequate protection. If it does appear that further improvements in these laws are needed, I shall recommend them to the Congress.

By building upon the framework now provided by our basic laws against subversive activities, we can provide effective protection against acts which threaten violence to our Government or to our institutions, and we can do this without violating the fundamental principles of our Constitution.

Nevertheless, there are some people who wish us to enact laws which would seriously damage the right of free speech and which could be used not only against subversive groups but against other groups engaged in political or other activities which were not generally popular. Such measures would not only infringe on the Bill of Rights and the basic liberties of our people; they would also undermine the very internal security they seek to protect.

Laws forbidding dissent do not prevent subversive activities; they merely drive them into more secret and more dangerous channels. Police states are not secure; their history is marked by successive purges, and growing concentration camps, as their governments strike out blindly in fear of violent revolt. Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

We must, therefore, be on our guard against extremists who urge us to adopt police state measures. Such persons advocate breaking down the guarantees of the Bill of Rights in order to get at the communists. They forget that if the Bill of Rights were to be broken down, all groups, even the most conservative, would be in danger from the arbitrary power of government.

Legislation is now pending before the Congress which is so broad and vague in its terms as to endanger the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly protected by the First Amendment. Some of the proposed measures would, in effect, impose severe penalties for normal political activities on the part of certain groups, including communists and communist party-line followers. This kind of legislation is unnecessary, ineffective, and dangerous.

It is unnecessary because groups such as the communists cannot accomplish their evil purposes in this country through normal political activity. They will be repudiated by the people as they have always been.

It is ineffective because it does not get at the real dangers from the communists in this country. These dangers come, not from normal political activity, but from espionage, sabotage, and the building up of an organization dedicated to the destruction of our Government by violent means-against all of which we already have laws.

This kind of proposed legislation is dangerous because, in attempting to proscribe, for groups such as the communists, certain activities that are perfectly proper for everyone else, such legislation would spread a legal dragnet sufficiently broad to permit the prosecution of people who are entirely innocent or merely misguided. As far as the real conspirators against our institutions are concerned, such legislation would merely have the effect of driving them further underground and making it more difficult to reach them. Furthermore, if such legislation were held unconstitutional, as it well might be, it would make martyrs out of our worst enemies and create public sympathy for them.

Extreme proposals of this type reflect the widespread public concern about communism which most of our people feel today. In some communities, this concern has resulted in the enactment of unnecessary or unconstitutional laws or ordinances designed to suppress subversive activity.

We must not be swept away by a wave of hysteria.

(excerpt, quote bolded) full speech here: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/pu...ted-states

[Byrd]

With pithy quotes like these, I like to find the larger context in which they occur. Not because they're not true in and of themselves, but because it is interesting how the way that truths of the time map to circumstance, and how that mapping changes over time. It provides data on the subtle undercurrents of political society.

Here is that speech, from 1950:


(excerpt, quote bolded) full speech here: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/pu...ted-states

Thanks, Budgie -- that was lovely research work!  Mad props to you!

[Karl12]

Nice one mate and truly appreciate the effort - as far as I can see the quote was in no way taken out of context (am I missing something?)

• "Laws forbidding dissent do not prevent subversive activities; they merely drive them into more secret and more dangerous channels. Police states are not secure; their history is marked by successive purges, and growing concentration camps, as their governments strike out blindly in fear of violent revolt. Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear".

Understood that all the ATS image archive has rather now been conveniently deleted but objectively speaking this is exactly what's happening in England right now (almost like a playbook).





Cheers.

[Karl12]

Thanks, Budgie

Hey mate I remember had lots of friends on ATS about twenty years ago but you were my only 'foe' back then because I believed you were truly compromised.

Apologies for that so if you want to address the King Charles WEF angle this video was on YouTube until recently - are you a WEF proponent, I don't know but what's your take on it?



https://www.bitchute.com/video/cjy5uY9ufgnd


Would recommend part 1 and part 3 for a truly holistic approach.

Cheers.

[sahgwa]

Nice one mate and truly appreciate the effort - as far as I can see the quote was in no way taken out of context (am I missing something?)

Understood that all the ATS image archive has rather now been conveniently deleted but objectively speaking this is exactly what's happening in England right now (almost like a playbook).

Cheers.

The irony is that the new fascism has come in the guise of antifascism and they are too stupid to see that they are perpetuating it.
The hyper problem is that now the progressives are the ones censoring and truly believing they are 'saving democracy' and 'fighting fascism' in doing so.
the irony is so palpable its nauseating and you cant do anything to help their thought processes.  its all going according to programming.

[Karl12]

The irony is that the new fascism has come in the guise of antifascism and they are too stupid to see that they are perpetuating it.
The hyper problem is that now the progressives are the ones censoring and truly believing they are 'saving democracy' and 'fighting fascism' in doing so.
the irony is so palpable its nauseating and you cant do anything to help their thought processes.  its all going according to programming.

Yes mate the Rockefellers and their ilk's antihuman antics famously went 'left' a few decades ago - that's not to say they still don't own both wings of the bird lol (see black nobility families).

It's all absolutely nauseating and all absolutely about division.

Read a long, long time ago that what these families are after is 'a permanent social turbulence' so they can enact a 'tabula rasa' (clean slate).

Absolute insecure monsters and apparently they even kept Hegelian locked up before he came up with his dialectic.

Cheers.

[Byrd]

Hey mate I remember had lots of friends on ATS about twenty years ago but you were my only 'foe' back then because I believed you were truly compromised.

Apologies for that so if you want to address the King Charles WEF angle this video was on YouTube until recently - are you a WEF proponent, I don't know but what's your take on it?



https://www.bitchute.com/video/cjy5uY9ufgnd


Would recommend part 1 and part 3 for a truly holistic approach.

Cheers.

My take on the whole WEF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum) is that it's kind of a "think tank" and that while it identifies problems and suggests solutions, it's not powerful enough to make a huge impact.  It's not really guiding things and its ability to control global directions is very limited.  Yes, corporate heads (some of them) and world leaders (some of them) attend, but when they go home all those grand ideas and so forth run up against political and economic reality.

You can look over some of the keynote concepts from 2024 and see how few of them are actual lockstep global policy: https://hrme.economictimes.indiatimes.co.../107066898

One of the key insights at the conference was (direct quote) "To be successful both now and in the future, say many experts, businesses need to reform their practices to be less vulnerable to the increasing risks posed by climate change."

Sounds pretty logical to me... y'know, like farmers need to maybe change some farming practices as the overall weather changes (our planting "zones" have shifted northward over the past 40 years.)  But I don't see evidence that anyone demanded anyone do this.  Or the insights that quantum computing will change a lot of things about business and the big corporations (the ones most able to get this tech) should start considering the implications (https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/04/...a-reality/)

I don't see any governments (or anyone) legislating things to get into lockstep with this.

They wrote about the benefits of DEI and had good statistics on how it raises the overall economic situation of everyone in a country.   You might have noticed that a lot of world government and companies didn't suddenly roll over and do DEI (America isn't the whole world.)

So, I view it like I do any academic conference -- some good suggestions, some interesting research, some goofball suggestions, lots of stuff that would bore you to tears.  It's an important place to make contacts -- and contacts are important if you need information or technology access (you know this on a personal level -- you've got a friend or acquaintance or business who is absolutely someone you go to if you need... advice on real estate investing or on fishing locations or on car maintenance.)  If your computer falls apart, there's probably someone who can help you fix it or might give you an old machine.

...that's... if you've got friends.  If you've made everyone mad, they'll just leave you alone and not cut you any deals or even kinda cheat you a bit if you really make them mad.  So it's helpful to go and schmooze around.

Some groups will implement the information while others will ignore it.  But it doesn't actually make global policy, unlike political groups in power in any given nation.

So a global think tank that shuffles out some interesting stuff and does some future projections that can be useful to some businesses and governments under some situations.

And that's my take on it.


(sorry...didn't watch the video.  Don't have the patience for that.)

[Karl12]

Not surprised you didn't watch the video mate but appreciate the reply and that was a sincere apology in the last post.

Respectfully disagree with many of your points but it's a bit difficult as we are absolutely not on the same page about subject matter (such as stakeholder capitalism).


For what it's worth would also say this is an important interview on Trumpton (and King Charles Great Reset) developments from the man that exposed the Trilateral Commission.

On my latest broadcast, I sat down with Patrick Wood of Technocracy.news to unpack two jaw-dropping developments that should have every American on high alert: President Trump’s stunning decision to make the U.S. an associate member of the Commonwealth—headed by King Charles III—and the sinister influence of technocrat Curtis Yarvin on the MAGA inner circle. These aren’t isolated events; they’re threads in a tapestry that could lead to a Eurocentric world government, a technocratic dystopia, and the end of America as we know it. Let’s dive in.

Interview

:beer:

[sahgwa]

Not surprised you didn't watch the video mate but appreciate the reply and that was a sincere apology in the last post.

Respectfully disagree with many of your points but it's a bit difficult as we are absolutely not on the same page about subject matter (such as stakeholder capitalism).


For what it's worth would also say this is an important interview on Trumpton (and King Charles Great Reset) developments from the man that exposed the Trilateral Commission.


:beer:

Is the USA really joining the Commonwealth IE AGAINST our whole raison d'etre and constitution , even as an 'associate' really a done agreed on deal? 
I have been warning against the false independence MAGA false isolationism get everyone on the left emotional distraction while we move towards technocracy for a while now.