France RISES Up AGAINST Macron (clip)

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Sabby Sabs

Sabby Sabs
Mar 20, 2023
Sabby discusses the expanding protests in France, now engulfing most cities, large and small, and showing no sign of disbanding. The French are clearly setting an example that Americans, in particular, show follow. Democracies, as Jefferson warned, need periodic rebellion, or vigorous protests, and certainly an alert citizenry to survive. 

Sabby Sabs (Sabrina Salvati) is a leftist educator, content creator and host of Sabby Sabs podcast. She spent most of her childhood growing up in Germany and saw many benefits of leftist policies. Sabrina does leftist commentary and interviews activists, candidates, entrepreneurs and other change makers fighting political and social issues. Sabrina lives in the Boston area of Massachusetts with her husband. Sabby Sabs podcast is a part of the Revolutionary Blackout Network.

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
PLEASE send what you can today!


Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?
It’s super easy! Sign up to receive our FREE bulletin.  Get TGP selections in your mailbox. No obligation of any kind. All addresses secure and never sold or commercialised. 


Up to You.

^3000US citizens have no real political representation.

We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.

I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.

What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.

And its multitude of minions and lackeys.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


The Slavophile Russian Cosmists: Reds, Scientists and Mystics

Please share this article as widely as you can.

ecological murder • endless wars • ingrained racism & social injustice • worker exploitation • incurable via reforms

by Bruce Lerro

 “This beautiful Earth is no more than a brief resting place between the sea of salt where we were born and the sea of stars which we must now. venture forth”
—-Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the Future


In cross-cultural psychology, the major world divisions are between the West and the East. But what about Russia? Is it closer culturally to Europe or to China and India? As you will find out in this article, the answer is neither.

Absence of a bourgeois spirit, specialization, rationalism or empiricism in Russia

For political and economic reasons, I disagree with Nicholas Berdyaev’s characterization of the Russian “soul” as conflicted spiritually between Dionysian paganism and ascetism or politically between anarchism and despotism. However, what Berdyaev is right about is that Russians are not bourgeois. For Russian thinkers, individual freedom often seems more like a willful license than genuine freedom. In addition, there are two other Western tendencies which have never taken hold in Russia. One is a disembodied transcendental spirituality. Those “cosmists” (to be defined shortly) like Nikolai Fedorov insisted his spirituality include a technological dimension such as the colonization of the planets. At the same time, epistemologically neither philosophical schools such as dry-as-dust rationalism nor bean-counting empiricism ever seriously took hold in Russian philosophy as they did in the West.

Culturally there was the battle between the Slavophiles who emphasized what Russia could teach the West about say, the communal life of peasants. Then there were the Enlighted liberals like Belinsky and Herzen-who tried to show what Russia could learn from the West. The Slavophiles essentially won. This can be seen in the minority status of liberalism throughout Russia’s 19th century, the early 20th century, throughout the Soviet period and even after.

For example, Lev Nikolayevich Gumilyov (1912-1992) argued that Russia’s future as an international power lay not in emulating the Western European and Atlantic powers, but in gathering and uniting the “passionarity” of the steppe peoples in the East.

Young in his book The Russian Cosmists tells us Gumilyov’s views have been a major influence on the neo-Eurasian cultural and political movement prominent since the breakdown of the Soviet Union. He is a source for Russian neo-nationalist thought. Capitalism never got a foothold in Russia except when Russia was invaded by Mordor’s free market fundamentalists after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

What is Russian cosmism?

According to Berdyaev, Russians are preoccupied with eschatology – the kingdom at the end of history. Cosmists were not convinced that we were fixed in present evolutionary time. We can slide backwards in evolution at the change of the moon or setting of the sun. According to Young, tales of vampires and werewolves have haunted Slavic lands at least since the time of Herodotus.

According to George M. Young, Russian cosmism is a blend of political activist speculation, futuristic religious science and utopian outer space colonization. It includes the following assumptions and motives:

  • Active evolution: the present humanity is not the end point;
  • The exploration of the cosmos;
  • A belief in the existence of astral forces;
  • Inclusion of premodern bodies of knowledge like astrology, alchemy and the kabbalah as valuable sources of knowledge;
  • A belief that leading scientists should be involved in the human future
  • Belief in unlimited extension of human physical longevity;
  • Humanity bears the responsibility for our future development on this planet;
  • The existence of a planetary envelope, the noosphere on top of Vernadsky’s biosphere and lithosphere.

Let’s take the example of Aleksandr Sukhovo-Kobylin (1817-1903) who developed his own version of spiritual Darwinism. He argued there were three stages in the development of humanity:

  • Telluric earthbound man who is confined to this planet. He is a captive of gravity and the senses. Sukhovo-Ko claims the practice of “unkinship” is the present state of the world. As fallen humanity we are now natures slaves.
  • Our common task is to become nature’s master. When we do, we become Solar man, inhabiting or solar system.
  • Sidereal man – inhabiting all worlds in the universe.

 He thought that the further we evolve, the smaller our bodies should become.

Individual commonalities among the cosmists

The cosmists were interdisciplinary, self-educated and they spoke many languages. They were optimistic when compared to the gloom-and-doom  that has enveloped the West throughout the 20th century. They included mystic Nikolai Fedorov, who had explored the territory between science and magic; the mystical poet Vladimir Solovyov; rocket scientist pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and geochemist VD Vernadsky. One man, Florensky, was called the Russian Leonardo. He was a groundbreaking mathematician, inventor, aestheticist, an electric engineer and social worker. He wrote a visionary book called The Pillar and the Ground of Truth.

Cosmists’ stormy  Relationship with the Soviet Union

Cosmists were very aware of the Russianness of their ideas and activities. They sensed that their best work would not and could not have been done elsewhere. During the Soviet period the religious cosmists worked in exile like Berdyaev and Bulgakov. Others sharing unorthodox political and economic views were restricted, suppressed and eventually liquidated including Florensky, Bogdanov, Gorky, Setnitsky and Muravyov. The scientific cosmists like Tsiolkovsky, Vernadsky Chizhevsky and Kuprevich were honored in their fields, provided their work did not contradict dialectical materialism. It wasn’t until the 1980s that hidden works from previous periods came out.

A Sampling of Science Fiction Writers, Mystics and Philosophers

Name Accomplishments


Karazin (1773-1842)

The first to call for the human management of nature, including the use of balloons explosive projectiles and maximum control over all meteorologic phenomena







Made accurate, original scientific observations about the northern lights and firestorms and the sun
Odoevsky (1803-1869)



Wrote a futuristic fantasy The Year 4338





Vladimir Solovyov 1853- 1900


Political thinker, mystic, poet, literary critic


He was immersed in Qabalah and the Divine Sophia

He thought the transformation of sexual love onto a higher plane would require the transformation of the entire external environment (in other words, eroticization of matter)


Nikolai Fedorov (1829-1903)



Fedorov wanted to regulating nature and resurrect dead ancestors. He complained that all the time that now goes into attracting a mate and bringing life into the world could be used to restoring life to those who gave it to us.


He wanted to erect great cones on the earth’s surface so that people might be able to control the earth’s electromagnetic field in such a way as to turn the whole planet into a spaceship under human control. We would no longer slavishly have to orbit our sun but could freely steer our planet.

Russian artists who worked on Fedorovian and cosmic themes included the artist Kandinsky, the composer, Scriabin and the poet, Andrei Bely.


Scientific immortalism The search for technological, physical, material solutions to the problem of death. Everything in their view, even thoughts of love, memories of childhood, can ultimately be understood as matter and energy, chemical and electronic impulses and exchanges. Mind is nothing but operations of the brain. Some immortalists are in the business of freezing brains and even entire heads of people who wish to become immortal when adequate technology becomes available.





Sergei Bulgakov (1871- 1944)


He believed the entire world-historical process proceeds from the contradictions between mechanism or thingness (based on necessity), and from nature to the principle of cosmic freedom (the world soul)


The cosmos as it exists is not yet an organism, but human labor can, but not necessarily will, make it so. Through labor humanity introduces a new cosmogonic world creating force equivalent to natural force.

Bulgakov’s man is not a creator, but recreator. This is akin to Spinoza’s “Natura Naturans”. He used images of Sophia as the world soul.



The Place of Theosophy and mediumship

Young tells us that even the early Soviet prominent officials, self-proclaimed atheists and materialists showed great interest in studies associated with the occult. For example, Gorky was interested in thought transference and the film-maker Sergei Eisenstein (1898-1948) was a Rosicrucian initiate. For Scriabin and Kandinsky, occult philosophy was a lifetime pursuit that impinged on all aspects of their personal, spiritual and creative lives.

Many of you who have heard of Theosophy may dismiss it as the wild ravings of Madam Blavatsky about cycles of previous races and lost civilizations. In the Anglo-American world of transcendental spiritualism, Theosophy might seem to be the opposite of radical political activity.  But in the Russian Silver Age, Mary Carlson says most educated readers had some acquaintance with spiritualism and Theosophy. Theosophy also claimed that present humanity is not the most advanced in history and vanished races of humanity, Atlantean and Lemurian were physically, mentally and spiritually superior to us.

Theosophists were not insensitive to human suffering. Theosophists were active in mending the clothing of soldiers during World War I  and Annie Besant was a socialist. Some of the principles of theosophy could be interpreted socialistically. Here are four of its characteristics:

  • Spirituality could be divided into exoteric and esoteric. Exoteric religion is religions for the masses based on superstition and controlled by religious elites. Esoteric religion is the core teaching of all the world religions which are only known to a few wise people who have no control over the masses.
  • It is universal brotherhood without distinction of race, creed, sex, caster or color.
  • It is the comparative study of religion, philosophy and science.
  • To investigate the unexplained laws of nature along with the power latent in humanity to tap into the paranormal.

When Marx talked about religion as the opiate of the people, it is directly connected to exoteric religion. Esoteric spirituality’s criticism of priests would have warmed Marx’s heart. The second principle of universal brotherhood was a challenge to racial, religious and sexual hierarchies. Marxists would support that. Thirdly, the fact that the comparative study of religion and philosophy included science would have made room for skepticism about religion that Marxists would favor.


Russian Scientists

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935)

Young called Tsiolkovsky an unpretentious self-made genius. According to Young, he arrived in Moscow from a provincial village in 1873 with no money or friends,  minimum education and was nearly deaf from childhood after a bout of scarlet fever. He visited the library where Fedorov worked every day and joined a group of followers. Fedorov was his ideal teacher spending hours with him discussing his own studies. Fedorov directed his studies towards math, physics and chemistry. Tsiolkovsky was very interested in space travel after studying Jules Verne. He dreamed of an eternal striving outward of humanity to the sun which would allow humanity to be released from the chains of gravity. He began to make rocket boats, rocket wagons and rocket powered spaceships. He wrote narratives about traveling beyond earth by rocket ship and developed mathematical formulas that would make some of his fantasies possible.

Tsiolkovsky wrote papers that would eventually lay the foundation for the 1957 launching of Sputnik. We are informed by Young that his work contained the embryo of nearly all the scientific-technological attainments of the Soviet Union in the exploration of space.  He was able to determine most of the things necessary to make, launch and sustain life inside rockets as we now know them. He also calculated the amount of fuel needed to overcome the earths gravitational pull. Finally, he popularized space exploration with a number of long and short science fiction articles that drew Russian scientists into the field of colonizing the cosmos. Today The Tsiolkovsky State Museum of the History of Cosmonautics sponsors conferences containing 12 sections with people from Russia, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas attending.

Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945)

Vernadsky was well-read in the literature of the world’s religions and in Eastern and Western philosophy. He felt closest to the ancient Greek hylozoic pantheism which finds life in all matter. He read Darwin in English when he was seventeen and mastered fifteen languages. He also read widely in history and world literature.

His main breakthrough was to demonstrate the role of living matter – humans, animals and plants – in the transfer of solar energy into mineral matter. He claimed that life not only evolves from hard mineral matter but in the process of disintegrating over eons contributes to the creation of new matter. With the emergence of the noosphere in human societies in the 19th and 20th centuries, mankind becomes a geological force. It was as part of the noosphere that would guide humanity in a gradual but inevitable evolution. He says that two billion years ago plants containing calcium emerged from the world of minerals. Five hundred thousand years ago, animals with calcium skeletons began to emerge. This development of calcium within living matter was one of the major stages in the geological history of the biosphere. Young says that though Vernadsky is relatively unknown around the world  today, in time he will be considered the equal of Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

Pavel Florensky (1882-1937): the Russian Leonardo

Florensky was called the Russian Leonardo and made major contributions to mathematics, physics, electrodynamics, folklore, philology, marine botany, art history and theory, earth science, and philosophy. He was also a master theorist of avantgarde art contributing to the mathematical, philosophical and theological revolution that was taking place in all the arts from realist to symbolist literature.

In Pillar and the Ground of Truth Florensky explores concepts and images of Sophia the way we experience her as a hint of the heavenly city to be built – the world soul come to earth. He proved to be of major assistance to Lenin in his efforts to electrify Russia. He wrote to Vernadsky in 1929 concerning the biosphere becoming a noosphere or planet of thought. He suggests that interpenetrating the biosphere is what he would all the “pneumatosphere” a sphere of spirit and culture intimately related to, affecting and being affected by the rest of the biosphere. The nephew of Solovyov once remarked that Florensky looks as if he had already lived a thousand years.

Alexander Chizhevsky (1897- 1964)

Like most cosmists he was interdisciplinary, acquiring great skill in music, poetry and painting. He produced hundreds of accomplished impressionist oil paintings, and water colors. Later with friends he went on archeological expeditions in Greece and Egypt.

He had increased humanities’ ability to anticipate changes in the weather. While Tsiolkovsky wanted to know how we can affect the cosmos, Chizhevsky wanted to know how the cosmos affects us and how we are subjected to the laws of nature. His life work would be the study of solar and cosmic influences on human behavior. He was called) Leonardo of the 20th century with discoveries in aeroionization – air purifiers; heliobiology – the effects of solar pulsation on human life and hemodynamics which sheds new light in the circulating of blood through living bodies.

He writes as an uncompromising determinist. Everything of culture and the psyche consists of physiochemical and neurological interactions. Our blood flows with the veins of the cosmos and our heart beats with the pulse of the cosmos. Tsiolkovsky became his mentor and supporter of his publications.

The power of electricity in history

Chizhevsky argued that it is the principle of electricity that affects both culture and history. The power of electrons is to combine, attract and find larger units of matter and energy. Gravity magnetism, spacetime and matter-energy are all electronic. For Chizhevsky, the sun’s influence on the biosphere, including human behavior, is a matter of the transfer of electrons. The discovery that patterns of solar activity – sun storms, and sun stops – coincide with patterns of mass human behavior such as wars, revolutions and epidemics. He calls this new science historiometry. 

Reds on Earth: From the Biosphere to the Noosphere

Animal species activity

Like all other animals, we humans have to earn a living in the environment in order to meet our needs. Each species has a specific activity, a “species activity” unique to itself by which adaptation is accomplished (for example, building dams is the species activity of beavers). All animals work – i.e., they expend energy in a focused way over time in order to survive and reproduce. But the overwhelming majority of animals do not deliberately cooperate with other members of their own species, except in the case of mammals in caring for their young. They complete all processes of work essentially alone. The simple biological strategy of most other animals is to graze, forage, or chase down prey in solitude. Humans, considered in isolation, without society or culture, and relying only on physical prowess, are mediocre competitors to other large-bodied mammals. Other animals can run faster, jump higher, and have greater sensory acuity.

Human species activity is cooperative

It is our social strategies that have made us the dominant large-bodied species on this planet, and these social strategies entail cooperation. It is our ability to cooperate with other human beings that gives us the edge over the rest of the animal kingdom. We cooperate by (a) pooling our resources, (b) creating a division of labor, and (c) working to a common end. Cooperation creates a social whole which is more than the sum of any individual. Human societies emerged as an adaptive strategy of homo sapiens to compensate for our physiological mediocrity. But society does far more than help us to survive and reproduce. Society is responsible for completing our humanization and expanding it over the course of history.

Cooperation changes human species-activity from work to labor. In laboring, we accept roles in a division of labor. Members of a hunting band agree beforehand that some will join together to frighten the game, while others will wait in ambush. Later, if they have been suc­cessful, they will share the kill with other members of the band who have stayed behind at the campsite. After all is done and they have finished consuming the edible parts of their prey, those members who did not participate in the hunt are expected to engage in other roles, such as sewing the carcass and tanning the leather of the animal.

The planetary noosphere is historical

For most of human history there was no noosphere. But in the last two centuries, our species has built a network of social institutions that reflect on each other (what Chardin called centrapedalization) around the Earth that changes, and is changed by, our biophysical environment. Society becomes akin to what Teilhard de Chardin termed a “noosphere”—a “super-organic” planetary feedback system, a “socio-sphere” nested within the biosphere. A look from outer space would show the noosphere concentrated in cities. Chardin poetically compared the system of cities of communication with electric power links and tied the circulation and electric power lines with the circulation of the nervous system.

It is within this socio-sphere (noosphere) that history takes shape. The dynamics taking place among other animals within the biosphere over time could be called “evolution.” “History” is a unique kind of irreversible and accumulating evolutionary activity that goes with the building of the noosphere. Without a noosphere there would be no history. With the few exceptions of those other animals that have some socio-culture, the human species is the only species on earth that produces history. History consists of socio-cultural systems changing over time.

Summing up:

Non-human animals                  Human beings

         work                                             labor

         little or no cooperation             cooperation: social roles

         biological evolution                   socio-cultural evolution

         evolution without history         evolution with history

Human practice is the accumulating irreversible, recurring and conflicted process by which collective humanity intervenes in the biosphere, noosphere and history for the purposes of satisfying needs and wants. It is conflicted because it is both intentional and unintentional and because there are class struggles over the form and content of the intervention.

Mystics and mechanical materialists

There are at least three ways of understanding the relationship between the biosphere, the mind, the noosphere and the spiritual world. Mystics say that biosphere, mind and noosphere are all creatures of a spiritual world. The epistemological framework for mystics is with the relationship between a spiritual world and an individual. At the other extreme for mechanical materialists, the relationship is between the biosphere and the biological individual. They ignore the mind and the noosphere. Where mystics and mechanical materialists differ is in the ultimate nature of objective reality. For mystics the ultimate reality is the spiritual world. For mechanical materialists it is biophysical nature. But they agree that subjectivity begins with the individual. 

The place and misplace of mind in socio-historical psychology

For Vygotsky and the sociohistorical school, in between the biophysical world and the individual mind is a sociohistorical noosphere layer of reality. It is sociohistorical objectivity of human practice which engages in an expanding feedback loop with the biosphere. Individual subjectivity emerges from and interacts with the historical-social layer of reality. The individual mind does not engage the biosphere directly, only indirectly. The individual mind does not even become a human mind until it is socialized and historicized. For dialectical materialists like Vygotsky, the human mind is created out of a socio-historical network of institutions from birth to death. Vygotsky, Leontiev and Luria claimed that psychological skills first originate through structural, meaningful, cooperative, and recurring forms of labor.

The main function of the mind is externally, not internally, driven. Primarily, the human mind is concerned with the collective engagement of transforming external objects through the laboring process in order to satisfy basic needs. Introspection or self-reflection is the second stage of this process, but it is not the main focus as it is with idealist mysticism. For dialectical materialists the human mind is a function, not a substance (as it is for mystics) of highly organized material bodies – human beings. To say that the human mind is inseparable from society and history is not to say that other animals do not have minds. What it does mean is that without intense social life and verbal language, animal  minds are mostly imprisoned in the present. It is the socialization and historization of homo sapiens that is responsible for making the mind a human mind.

From brains to minds

Before the emergence of the human mind, internality had an origin in matter, specifically the brain. The brain is adaptive responsive to a rapidly changing biosphere where instinct was a less and less reliable resource. There are non-social creatures without brains that have no mind. With the emergence of a central nervous systems, animals developed brains. But is only when animals have a social life and brains, that pre-human minds appear. To be sure, nature was physical, chemical and biological before the brain or the mind appeared. So, the mind is first a product of material nature (the brain) and later through the social and historical practice of human beings, the mind emerges. Then the mind becomes a coproducer through society and history with nature. For materialists, there is no mind beyond nature, society or history. A dialectical materialist, unlike a mechanical materialist does not reduce the mind to the brain. While the brain is a necessary condition for the mind, once the mind emerges through its building of a socio-historic layer of nature, mind becomes more than the brain. With this foundation in place let us return to the cosmists.

God builders and biocosmists

Marxist intellectuals and future Soviet officials including Bogdanov, Anatoly Lunacharsky and Maxim Gorky wanted to redirect the religious character and spiritual energy to the Russian revolution. Gorky says that mysticism and science are not incompatible. They wanted to create a new Adam for a new Eden. In Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons, the character Bazarov contended that nature was not a temple but a laboratory. These “God Builders” wanted to combine non-Euclidean math, subatomic particles and depth psychology. In the arts they wanted to follow Wagner to unite all the arts into a single great pageant. Alexander Bogdanov was a physician, an experimental scientist and a science fiction writer who wrote Red Star which was published in 1908. His major philosophical work was Tektology— which he called the science of organization. It anticipated the work in Western Europe on general systems theory and cybernetics.

Valerian Muraviev (1885-1932) was as much an alchemist as a Marxist.  He hoped for a total alchemical transformation of the individual and the cosmos. He wrote a book called Control Over Time to parallel the discoveries of Einstein.  Muraviev wanted to investigate time, not in a lab but in history and society based on the Russian experience of the revolution and the total reorganization of society. He said it is the collective, not the isolated individual that is the shaper and director of humanity.

Valerian said there are two kinds of time:

  • Inner time – the realm of freedom—under the control of the individual
  • External time – the realm of necessity

The goal of the collective is to expand their control over the whole universe along  with death. Soviet scientists and scholars are to be the guiding force for the common task in science. Valerian said we must create a population of supermen who overcome time. By contrast, bourgeois society focuses on individualcreativity which is the representative of a world-view of commercial interests. This creative industry presently creates objects, not for overcoming time but for passing time.

For the biocosmists the time had come to inhabit outer space and to bring life to all the inhabitants. They viewed the struggle against death as a logical continuation of the revolution’s struggle against bourgeois culture. They agreed with Fedorov that death was not inevitable. 

How Reds Would Explore the Cosmos: The Cosmic Extension of the Noosphere

Beyond technological determinism and humanism

The noosphere could become not merely the realm of interaction between society and the biosphere but rather the interaction between all cosmic civilizations and the rest of the universe. In their book The Universe and Civilization, Sevastaynov, Ursul and Shkolenko lay out what a communist practice would be like in space exploration. When it comes to the exploration of outer space there is a Flatland duality to overcome between the technicist conception which regards the astronautical as a panacea for all the difficulties and hardships of social development. The opposite is romantic humanist whose supporters reject the needs for the development of an astronautic society and insist the focus to be only with man’s earthly problems.

For communists the exploration of outer space is not a stage in the natural evolution of living matter on earth. Rather It is a new stage in social history. The space age is an explosion-like extension into infinity of man’s sphere of practical-critical activity on earth. To one degree or another, the cosmos has influenced and continues to influence the development of mankind and the outer terrestrial environment. But now that applied astronautics has emerged, society is beginning to affect the nature of the cosmos.

Realms of space exploration

The authors say space exploration is now going on in the following fields:

  • Immediate vicinity of near space – the higher layers of the earth’s atmosphere, the ionosphere, the radiation belts and of outer space. This is accomplished though the help of astronomic instruments placed above the atmosphere (extra-atmospheric astronomy).
  • Processes are being studied that are artificially created in outer space by the human species. These include technological devices in flight like growing crystals in weightlessness. Others include medical and biological research done directly in flight or on objects placed in spacecraft.
  • Explorations of Earth from outer space such as meteorological observations and the study of natural resources and aquatic regions.

Should we try to faithfully reproduce terrestrial conditions in space? “No!” say Sevastaynov, Ursul and Shkolenko. The essence of creative humanity consists precisely of the  ability of humans to change both of our  external and internal nature in any direction we choose. They say:

the construction of cities, excavation of natural deposits, and utilization of underground space for communication may well be characterized as redistribution of the planets’ mass transfer of matter into surrounding space, creation of a porous planet. (97)

This tendency is what Buckminster Fuller called euhemerization – doing more with less.

Cosmicization of human practical critical activity

As human practice extends beyond the terrestrial realm there are new processes to consider. Now the conditions and objects of activity may be both terrestrial and cosmic. The range begins at one extreme with terrestrial objects under terrestrial conditions. At the other are extreme cosmic objects under cosmic conditions. Here are the steps in between.

Earth Moving to Outer Space
Terrestrial subjects (human culture) Cosmic culture
Terrestrial objects (prehuman, extra human nature) Cosmic objects
Terrestrial conditions Cosmic conditions
Terrestrial instruments tools Cosmic instruments

 Here are the full fifteen steps:

  1. The terrestrial subject studies terrestrial objects under terrestrial conditions using terrestrial instruments
  2. Terrestrial subject studies the effect of cosmic conditions on terrestrial objects with the aid of terrestrial instruments. How solar processes affect physical, chemical and biological objects on the Earth (the sun, conscious utilization of cosmic conditions in terrestrial production)
  3. Terrestrial subject uses terrestrial instruments of cognition for studying cosmic objects reaching the earth in a natural way (meteorites and cosmic radiations)
  4. Terrestrial subjects studying terrestrial objects under terrestrial conditions with the help of space instruments (rocket technology and automatic stations for exploring the earth)
  5. Terrestrial subject studies cosmic objects under cosmic conditions using terrestrial technical instruments of cognition (astronomy)
  6. Although the core of practice is humanity’s affect on objects of cognition and results in changes in these objects, nothing of the kind takes place in the case of astronomic observation. The object of cognition astronomy here affects the subject.
  7. Terrestrial subject uses terrestrial instruments of cognition for studying cosmic objects reaching the earth with the aid of spacecraft
  8. The subject undergoing cosmicization uses space instruments for observing terrestrial objects and conditions (permanent orbital stations)
  9. Unmanned recent devices transport cosmic and raw materials and instruments of labor to earth
  10. Automatic cosmic implements are used to process cosmic objects under cosmic conditions for production on celestial bodies and in satellites orbiting earth
  11. The subject undergoing cosmicization uses space instruments of cognition for observing terrestrial objects and conditions
  12. The subject undergoing cosmicization studies the behavior of terrestrial objects under space conditions with the aid of cosmic instruments
  13. The space environment and the conditions of space flight have specific features – weightlessness, vacuum, radiation. There is a need to study living beings under these conditions.
  14. 13) The subject undergoing cosmicization uses cosmic instrument on cosmic objects in his study of the possibility of creating terrestrial conditions (conditions similar to terrestrial ones are created for astronaut on spaceships) This task also arises in the construction of inhabit bases on the Moon and the planets
  15. The highest achievement in science is that the subject who undergoes cosmicization studies cosmic objects under cosmic conditions with the aid of cosmic instruments.


This article begins by arguing Russia is different from the West philosophically in its rejection of both empiricism and rationalism. In addition, economically it has consistently rejected capitalism even when not in its Soviet phase. Politically it has said no to liberalism, and lastly Russians have turned their backs on Western transcendental religions. Next, I have defined Russian cosmism as having eight characteristics. I close the last part of the first section by naming the personal traits these cosmologists have in common, including their multilingual, self-educated, interdisciplinary and optimistic approach. They included mystics, poets, rocket scientists, geochemists, mathematicians, inventors and engineers.

In the second half of the article, I gave a sample of specific cosmists who were science fiction writers, mystics and philosophers including the interest of some in Theosophy.

Next I turned to the cosmitism of four scientists: Tsiolkovsky; Vernadsky; Florensky, Chizhevsky and their various fields of study.

In the last third of the article I turned to a communist theory of how the earth is becoming  a new layer of evolution called the “noosphere”. I closed the article with a visionary description of how communist theory of the noosphere on earth can be extended into the spreading of noospheres to other planets.

Bruce Lerro has taught for 25 years as an adjunct college professor of psychology at Golden Gate University, Dominican University and Diablo Valley College. He has applied a Vygotskian socio-historical perspective to his four books: From Earth-Spirits to Sky-Gods: the Socio-ecological Origins of Monotheism, Individualism and Hyper-Abstract Reasoning Power in Eden: The Emergence of Gender Hierarchies in the Ancient World Co-Authored with Christopher Chase-Dunn Social Change: Globalization from the Stone Age to the Present and Lucifer's Labyrinth: Individualism, Hyper-Abstract Thinking and the Process of Becoming Civilized He is also a representational artist specializing in pen-and-ink drawings. Bruce is a libertarian communist and lives in Olympia WA.

Print this article

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
PLEASE send what you can today!



Don’t forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days.

Up to You.

^3000US citizens have no real political representation.

We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.

I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.

What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.

And its multitude of minions and lackeys.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

Devil’s Advocate: Farewell to Fauci

Please share this article as widely as you can.

ecological murder • endless wars • ingrained racism & social injustice • worker exploitation • incurable via reforms

Jim Kavanagh

Noble Heart

I watched the emergence of Anthony Fauci into international prominence over the past two years with particular interest. He and I are graduates of the same New York City high school, a commonality that gives me some insight into his intellectual formation. Though it was some years after him, I played on the basketball team, too. Somewhere, there’s a picture of me in those cool shorts, that I promise you will never see.

Regis High School is a unique institution. It is a highly selective, academically rigorous, all-boys Jesuit high school on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It is widely considered the best Catholic high school (and one of the best overall) in the country. It gave Anthony Fauci (and me) a strong classical rhetoric-and-logic education in the Jesuit tradition —the Iliad and Odyssey, the Aeneid and Caesar’s Wars, in the original Greek and Latin. It’s an education that, at its best, laid the foundation for logical and critical thinking, and prepared students for the best liberal arts colleges. It also fostered Catholic and Jesuit ethical values, which, of course, have changed over the years.

The Jesuits were formed as the vanguard of the Counter-Reformation and have historically been attached to reactionary politics, but the order is also highly adaptable to the changes in social ideology, while maintaining a consistent commitment to educating the future elite. By the time I was in high school, some good men like Daniel Berrigan, were teaching smart students to see the world through lenses of intellectual and moral honesty, helping them lapse to the left. Like Fidel, who said the Jesuits who ran the high school he attended, “influenced me with their strict organization, their discipline and their values. … They influenced my sense of justice.”

Even more unusual for an academically elite school on the Upper East Side, Regis is tuition-free. Unique, indeed. That’s because it was endowed in 1914, by the widow of New York City mayor Hugh Grant, to offer a free rigorous education to the boys from the city’s poor Catholic (Irish, Italian, etc.) immigrant families. Yup, before it was the home of the UN and Gossip Girl, the East Side was a neighborhood of slaughterhouses and the East Side Kids.

Majestic, and with the serious look of a university, St. Regis was in a class of its own.

So, into the 70s at least, Regis was a school to which middle strata (virtually all white) Catholic families—from dockworkers and firemen to lawyers and pharmacists (Fauci’s father)—throughout the NYC region strove to have their sons accepted. Many kids commuted over an hour each way every day. It was understood as the ticket to a solid professional career. And, indeed, it produced a slew of very smart lawyers, doctors, and professors (not so much bankers) who became loyal alumni. Here's a prototypical testimony—including the “it changed my life” part—from a well-known alumnus:

It was definitely my ticket out of Staten Island, because it got me into a Catholic high school called Regis, which would change the course of the rest of my life. I was extremely lucky to get accepted to Regis, because (a) it’s one of the best high schools in the country and (b) it’s free. For Catholics in New York, Regis is almost like the Watchtower building for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Tens of thousands of kids apply for a hundred and twenty spots in each class. To this day, if a Catholic mother hears that I went to Regis, she will grab my face and say, “God bless! What a wonderful place!” --Colin Jost

This Regis High School background might help you to understand a couple of things about how I understand the phenomenon of Anthony Fauci. First of all: Think you've seen Fauci worship in mainstream media over the past two years?  Nothing compared to the Zoom meetings with my Regis classmates! Anathema is the precise word for any criticism of Anthony Fauci in that circle. When I sent them the link to my anti-mandate article last year, I got a slew of derogatory responses, including this wish to see me die in agony: "My one regret is not being present in the COVID ICU to witness the author struggling for his final agonal breath." From a medical doctor. At a Catholic hospital. Noble Hearts, as we Regians call ourselves. (“My Ours Be The Noble Heart” is the school anthem.)

But what best explains the relevance of Regis to Anthony Fauci is an anecdote regarding my nephew, who applied to the school some years after me. His father, my oldest brother (who had not gotten into Regis and pooh-poohed it, though unavoidably respecting it) wanted his son to go, but my nephew was more interested in going to high school with his friends in Queens rather than commuting to the geeky school in Manhattan. Having passed the exam, my nephew headed into the obligatory personal interview with a Jesuit, who asked him a stock interview question: "Who is the historical personage you admire most?"  Sensing the chance to shock the sensibilities of the old priest and the old man, and to banish the prospect of four years in nerdville, my nephew replied: "Judas Iscariot."  When asked to elaborate, he pointed out that Judas did the dirty but necessary work that nobody else would, though it brought shame and scorn on him from all quarters, and performed the key act without which the rest of the story would not have been able to unfold in the gloriously celebrated way that it did, yada, yada.

My nephew was not showing off his knowledge of a recently discovered Gnostic gospel. He was just being a smart-ass. But, "smart" was the operative word. Much to his surprise—though not to those who are familiar with the intricate wiles of the mind that is known as "Jesuitical"—he was accepted. One can just hear the good fathers: "Now that is the kind of student we want at Regis."

And that is what I heard every time Anthony Fauci spoke: The rhetorical skill that crafts a sinuous and compelling narrative that fixes our attention on the best of a worst case and obfuscates the rest. The ability to deceive and dissemble without (for the most) part saying anything demonstrably false, by soliciting sympathetic identification with what his audience likes to think is true about the subject in question, but above all about how smart he and they are. That is the perfect intellectual persona for the apex medical bureaucrat speaking for the most corrupt corporate-captured “public” agency. Pharma is a devil, and Fauci is the Devil’s Advocate. And I know where he developed that rhetorical (in the classical sense of the word) skill and intelligence.

I also know that, per Fidel, that skill and intelligence, learned in the same place, can be put to better use. I hope other Regis alumni, like Edward Curtin and myself, have done so. Our shared intellectual formation has made the sanctification of Fauci a particularly curious thing for Ed and me to watch unfold, as we discussed in our video, “Fauci's Follies, Covid Policy, and the Left.”


As I’ve focused on watching what’s been most real about Fauci for me—his exercise of the intellectual-rhetorical skills we both learned—I’ve avoided any comprehensive frontal attack on the doctor. RFK, Jr. has done an excellent job of that in his book The Real Anthony Fauci. I dare anyone to read the devastating first chapter of that book, which lays out the unprecedented, dishonest, and cruel campaign Fauci led to suppress treatments and punish doctors who dared to try to treat sick patients instead of waiting for the magic-bullet vaccine, without being shocked at how diabolical his enterprise actually was.

Dr. Fauci and Mr. Hide

That said, right now, I actually want to implore you to Listen to Dr. Fauci: He told you everything you need to know. It’s his evil twin, who appears on TV all the time, that you must be wary of. Indeed, Dr. Fauci should listen to himself.

Here, for example, is Dr. Fauci telling us how difficult it would be to jump over “tried and true” methods in order to develop a vaccine of a different type (i.e., mRNA). It would take at least a decade to make sure such a vaccine was safe and effective, said Dr. Fauci, a few months before Covid-19 appeared in the U.S.:

The following clip is Dr. Fauci, after Covid appeared, explaining how, though it normally takes “five, six, seven” years (note: already slip-sliding down from ten) to prove a vaccine is safe and effective, he and his cohort concocted a vaccine and gave the first injection to a volunteer in 65  days (“rocket speed”—or, per Trump, the father and continuing promoter of these vaccines, don’t forget, “Warp Speed.”)

One might notice, with some critical curiosity, how Fauci could carefully explain that the science requires ten years to make sure a vaccine is safe and effective, and a year later change that to as little as five years, and seconds later declare even that “unacceptable” and 65 days will do. One might remark how amazing it is that the ”speed of science” changes at Dr. Fauci’s discretion. One might, if one weren’t so pleasantly beguiled by the personification of “science” himself.

“Speed of science” is a phrase used by Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets, Janine Small, when she acknowledged at an EU hearing that Pfizer did not know or claim that their vaccine prevented transmission of the Covid virus: “Regarding the question around did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market…No. We have to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.” So, the “speed of science” is really the speed of the market. “The market” is the pace car that determines how fast “the science” can, and must, go. That’s what Ms. Small and Dr. Fauci are saying.

Indeed, one might also notice that Dr. Fauci warns us that the vaccine is not really “acceptable” after 65 days. It will take another “year to year-and-a-half” to “even know if [the vaccine] works.” And after that, to establish that it is safe, you need to do “an extended study, not in a normal volunteer… but in people who are out there in a risk situation” to make sure the vaccine doesn’t actually make people “worse…… more likely to get infected.” [my italics]

The “other element to safety” Fauci is warning about in this clip is the phenomenon known as Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE). As he says, it “would not be the first time…it happened.” In fact, he tells us, ADE is a known danger with mRNA vaccines and a particularly tragic example of it occurred in trials of a vaccine for respiratory syncytial coronavirus (RSV) in 2019 that Fauci specifically alludes to.

He did not specify that, among 20 infants in the vaccinated group for that vaccine trial, 16 required hospitalization and two died (while only one of the 21 participants in the control group was hospitalized). Indeed, a vaccine that “made the children worse.”

Nor did he mention an October, 2020 study on the safety of Covid vaccines in light of those previous disasters, which determined that the spike protein of SARS-CoV, which the mRNA vaccines make your cells produce, "contains several immunodominant sites that can induce non-neutralizing antibodies, including those associated with ADE, or harmful immune responses.”

Indeed, once the decision was made to administer and mandate these vaccines to everyone, Fauci never again evinced the slightest concern about the fact that clinical trials for these Covid vaccines did not fully test for the very serious danger of ADE, as he himself warned they were obliged to.

ADE is a danger that’s been warned about repeatedly by Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, who called the Covid mass vaccination program, "a textbook example for how to provoke antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease." That danger from the Covid vaccines has also been confirmed in a study published this September: “monoclonal anti-S-protein Abs [antibodies]can function as ADE-causing Ab…These results raise the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines targeting the S-protein also induce ADE-causing Abs as well as neutralizing Abs.”

But, once the vaccine is on the market, you just cannot consider if it makes the children or adults worse. The “science” is moving too fast.

Dr. Fauci, or Mr. Hide, his evil alter-ego, certainly did not heed what the authors of that Covid vaccine safety study said, and what Dr. Fauci’s own public statements make clear: “we have learnt the absolute necessity of tracking the comprehensive safety of vaccines before large-scale application, no matter the urgency of the moment” [my italics]. (An admonition that I urge every reader to read again. And again. And sear it in the front of their mind. For the next time. Which is coming.)

This is the science that Fauci knew, told us that he knew, and ignored and contravened—and colluded in censoring and punishing anyone who dared to point out.  Dr. Fauci was called (By whom? we might ask) to become Devil’s Advocate, Rocket Man, Warp-Speed and all. That is what’s “unacceptable.”

This clip is a nice example of Anthony Fauci’s special rhetorical talent: the ability to tell you a truth—that the vaccines he is promoting do not meet the minimum standards of safety that he defined—in a way that avoids recognizing it.  “The vaccines are not safe” becomes “There’s the good news and… the challenge.” No “bad news” about these devils.

Karma Chameleon

Dr. Fauci’s shape-shifting science and rhetorical escapism were well on display in his notorious, blatantly contradictory, public statements about masks. Here’s his famous March, 2020 60 Minutes conversation with Dr. Jonathan LaPook about masks:

There is nothing ambiguous about what Fauci said here: “people should not be walking around with masks.” Dr. LaPook emphasizes how important it is to be clear and definitive with such a public statement: “You're sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.” And Fauci repeats and elaborates: “There's no reason to be walking around with a mask… wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences—people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

There is no doubt Fauci meant what he said here, since he had said the same thing in a February, 2020 email to a colleague who asked about wearing a mask while travelling: “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material…I do not recommend that you wear a mask.”

And there’s no reason Fauci shouldn’t have said this, since it is consistent with the known science and the explicit statements of virtually every public health official in the world at the time.

Like the Surgeon General, Jerome Adams, who tweeted in February, 2020: “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus,” and also said on national television: “Not only are you not preventing yourself from getting a disease, you may be increasing your chance of getting a disease by wearing that mask.” And epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, member of Joe Biden's COVID-19 Advisory Board, who told Christiane Amanpour on PBS in August, 2021: “Those cloth pieces you hang over your face…have very limited impact in reducing the amount of virus that you inhale in or exhale out…The science is first…telling people that in fact just putting a face cloth covering on is going to protect you is simply not true.” (My favorite: “It’s like throwing sand at a chain link fence.”) And public-health professor, Lisa Brousseau, who said: “What we're seeing is a lot of magical thinking, a lot of wishful thinking. Cloth masks are wishful thinking.”

It's a point that was made by many others, some of whom can be found here. Fauci’s statement on 60 Minutes was not ill-considered, mistaken, or dishonest. He was carefully and honestly communicating the scientific truth that he and all his colleagues knew.

But then, a few months later, in an interview with Katherine Ross on TheStreet in June, 2020, Fauci said that he had been lying in the 60 Minutes interview—noble-lying, of course, for the sake of the brave healthcare workers:

Well, the reason for [telling people not to wear masks] is that we…were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the … the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way [sic],… we did not want them to be without the equipment that they needed. So there was not enthusiasm about going out and everybody buying a mask or getting a mask. We were afraid that that would deter away from the people who really needed it.

A noble lie from a Noble Heart.

Much of the criticism of Fauci’s contradictions starts with accepting this story—Fauci’s story—that he lied to the public about masks in March 2020, but only did so for the sake of healthcare workers. Bad enough, since, as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya—one of the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration, against whom Fauci launched a media campaign to smear as "fringe epidemiologists"—said on Jimmy Dore’s show

Once you've lied like that, you're done, your credibility is shot, right. He basically is saying he's telling people scientific facts…in order to manipulate their behavior, rather than to tell them the truth…I mean there's not much in public health that you have, what you have is your credibility…and once you've shot that credibility, for whatever purpose—in order to, in this case, to manipulate the public,…I don't know why you would trust him again.

True that. But it’s actually worse. As Dr. Bhattacharya also pointed out: “The irony…is that he was telling the truth” on 60 Minutes

We know Fauci was sincere in the 60 Minutes interview because, as we said, he was saying the same thing privately in emails. And we know he—and all the others saying the same thing—didn’t make up all the reasons he was giving why masks are ineffective, because, as Bhattacharya points out, in his exchange with Dore:

JB: Before 2020, there were dozens of randomized trials with masks—including N95 masks, and cloth masks, and surgical masks, in the community and in settings like in hospitals, and it is very difficult to find evidence from…good randomized studies, that masks protect against viruses like [the flu and Covid]...So he was reflecting the pre-2020 consensus on masks, based on a huge body of high quality research. He was telling the truth in that [60 Minutes] clip. [his emphasis] 
JD: So when did the consensus change?
JB: Uh, sometime around April 2020. And not based on any scientific studies. It just changed.

In the 60 Minutes interview, Fauci, giving a first, unprepared response, told us the science he knew, which was the scientific consensus at the time. He was sure of it, and knew people were listening really closely. In the later “admission,” Fauci was actually lying about lying—"confessing” to a lie in order to hide the truth of what he had previously said, which was inconvenient to the case he was now pushing,which involved elaborate charades of double- and triple masking. All of which was not dictated by changes in “the scientific consensus” or a new mass of “substantial data” in the one month from March to April, 2020, but by the newly crystalized profit and political imperatives (more fearmongering to get acceptance for mandatory vaccination, more obsessive Trump-bashing to divide and confuse).

The distinctive Faucian rhetorical signature here is that nobody—at least very few, honest scientists like Jay Bhattacharya and similarly trained rhetoricians like myself among them—even noticed this possibility. Fauci led everyone—even harsh nemeses like Jimmy Dore and Kim Iverson—to swallow the criticism of him that he proferred, sweetened with his noble-hearted “noble lie” defense. Beyond lying, Fauci misleads, and gets away with it.

The bottom line is: No matter when you think he lied or misled, Anthony Fauci’s prime objective was not to tell you the truth, but to manipulate your behavior. Not the work of a scientist, but of a medical bureaucrat. A Devil’s Advocate.

But you have to notice the rhetorical shape-shift. I say again, we should listen to Dr. Fauci, the scientist, who knows and tells us the science that his alter-ego, Mr. Hide, the Pharma-captured medical bureaucrat, misleads us away from. 

Here, for example, Dr. Fauci explains—again repeatedly and emphatically, after being asked to confirm—that there is no better immunization than natural immunity gained from infection: “If she got the flu for 14 days she's as protected as anybody can be because the best vaccination is to get infected yourself… She should not get [the flu vaccine] again. she doesn't need it because …the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself”:

Dr. Fauci is here confirming the adaptive power of the natural human immune system that his evil twin elsewhere deprecates and that the drugs he pushes degrade. He had to change—actually forget and make you forget and not notice the forgetting—a definitive scientific knowledge he emphatically stated, to push the new-model infinite vaccine subscription program. 

Here's the good doctor telling us that there is no danger to the vaccinated from the unvaccinated, or even from the infected—because that’s how actually effective vaccines work:

(Sorry for the goofy video. Best I could find.)

That observation had to be memory-holed by Mr. Hide, lest it lead you to notice precisely that the Covid “vaccines” do not work the way he himself told you to expect, and that mandates for these vaccines are therefore entirely unjustified.

And here is Dr. Fauci, in December, 2021, in response to a question about the number of children’s hospitalizations, explaining how Covid cases are overcounted:

“If you look at the children who are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with Covid as opposed to because of Covid. And what we mean by that: if a child goes in the hospital, they automatically get tested for Covid, and they get counted as a covid-hospitalized individual, when, in fact, they may go in for a broken leg or appendicitis or something like that. So it's overcounting the number of children who are hospitalized with Covid as opposed to because of Covid.” [his emphases]

This overcounting process regarding children that Fauci describes and warns us against is in fact the deliberate policy he and the CDC and public health authorities explicitly ordered for everyone throughout the pandemic. As White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx declared: ”If someone dies with Covid-19, we are counting that as a Covid-19 death.” And as the Illinois Director of Public Health directed: “Even if you died of a clear alternate cause…it's still listed as a Covid death…that does not mean that was the cause of the death [her emphasis].” “Clear alternate cause” included things like intentional injury and poisoning, motorcycle accidents, and gunshot wounds. As one epidemiologist told The Atlantic in September, 2021: “Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don’t belong in the metric.” But there they are.

So, Fauci is revealing nothing new in this clip with MSNBC's Ayman Mohyeldin. He is telling us what he and other pharma-captured medical bureaucrats knew, and ordered, to be the case all along—that, by deliberate policy directive, Covid case and death counts are completely unreliable and make it impossible to know how many people were infected with or died from Covid-19. It’s just that you hadn’t noticed it, because it was kept from your attention. It’s just that, in this clip, Dr. Fauci and MSNBC were now willing to state it on air, publicly. In the Christmas season of 2021, the time had come to assuage the public’s anxiety a bit—not because there were any new scientific facts, but because the political value of Covid feamorngering played differently in the time of Biden than of Trump.

So, Dr. Fauci told you the truth about the scientifically ridiculous, contrived-to-fearmonger Covid case/death count, a truth that devastates the fundamental rationale for all the radically disruptive social policies he and his cohorts put us through for over two years—but he presented it in a way that discourages you from noticing that that’s what it means, while preserving his ability to manipulate your behavior. And it worked, didn’t it? How many people noticed that?

It's a sinuous and compelling narrative that Fauci creates, misleading even when true.

Of course, with the omnibus memory of the internet, it’s impossible to hide all the shape shifts. At some point, even a classical rhetorician like Fauci loses the sinuous thread of rhetorical obfuscation and runs into the stubborn bull of a plain-old lie:

“I didn’t shut down anything.”

“I recommended to the president that we shut the country down.”

Devil’s Playground

So, as he leaves the stage, Dr. Fauci’s narrative has become significantly less compelling, and is effectively deconstructed by his own contradictory statements and logic.

My summary take on Fauci is that he’s a self-admitted deceiver, dissembler, and, ultimately, liar. He has played a central role in creating what is a social, political, and epistemological (undermining our ability to know how to know), as well as medical, disaster from which it is going to be very difficult for U.S. society, public health, and scientific practice to recover.

The reality of what may be the worst iatrogenic medical disaster in history is becoming harder to ignore in the wake of multiple reinfections of the multiply vaccinated, all-cause morbidity and mortality statistics, myocarditis and DNA-transcription studies, Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, negative vaccine effectivity, evident harms from lockdowns and masking, etc. The appearance of articles like the NYT’s “Why Many Americans Turned on Anthony Fauci,” which ridicules the insistence that “skepticism of the good doctor must have been everyone’s fault but his own,” is a sign of the establishment trying to handle “a growing willingness by mainstream observers, and even the ‌Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to admit that the public health response to Covid-19 was in many ways a failure.”

Anybody who, at this point, does not see, based on what Fauci himself has told us, the incompetence and incoherence of the whole Covid project of which he was a prime director, including how unsafe and ineffective the vaccines are and how scientifically ridiculous and politically pernicious the mandate and passport policies were and are, is a stubborn and dangerous fool, who will be fooled again—by their attachment to effectively religious, anti-scientific ideologies about magic potions and omniscient saints.

But it is not over. Multiple responsible parties, including Fauci himself, are trying to pretend they didn’t say and do the things they did. Meanwhile, the worst of the policies—vaccine mandates and passports that fire people from jobs, eject them from schools, prevent them from moving about freely and travelling—are still being enforced for no good reason, preventing, for example, women travelling to get an abortion and 30-50% of black kids in D.C. from going to school. If more people are coming to understand that these mandates are not justified, few are willing to admit that they never were. People are still rushing to get an insufficiently tested, still-officially-unapproved genetic therapy treatment for themselves and their children that will not prevent infection or transmission, will have to be readministered (because it will make them more likely to get Covid) after a few months, and does carry significant risks of harm that were never tested for. People still think censoring Jay Bhattacharya, Robert Malone, and Joe Rogan is a good idea, Ivermectin is a horse dewormer, and there’s something “progressive” about California making it illegal for doctors to disagree with Dr. Fauci or any of his successors.

And, sorry, “If only we knew then…” won’t wash. Fauci and his fanboys and girls helped to hide, ridicule, censor, and punish the science and scientists that were available, and to which they’re all turning now, Great Barrington Declaration and all. I’m pleased to note that the article I wrote over a year ago, which was based on science that was available before mandates were instituted, and was greeted by derision and death wish by my and Fauci’s fellow alumni, has stood up quite well—better, in fact, than Fauci’s train of contradictory pronouncements.

Per Kim Iversen’s excellent take: You don’t get away with “If only I knew then…,” when you rejected the knowledge then, when a) You were presented with, and superciliously dismissed, the data and the analyses that were available, and b) Your attitude was actually: “I don’t want to know!” or “There’s nothing else to know, and you’re a moron for suggesting there is!”

Fauci is not the only pharma/government-approved expert to tell you, in their own voice, what you need to know about how wrong they were. 

Here is Dr. Science’s partner, the Vaccine King, in May, 2022, telling us clearly the truth that Covid was never the apocalyptic threat it was fearmongeringly presented as, and would have had to be to justify the draconian and discriminatory policies he and Fauci championed. Rather, it was “a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like flu.” Something Gates pretends not to know was demonstrated early on by scientists like John Ioannidis (as I noted in my article a year ago):

And here’s Gates again, at the World Economic Forum in May, 2022, telling us the simple truth (and again pretending not to know that many of us said this early on) that the radically discriminatory and disruptive vaccine mandates and passports are pointless, because the vaccines do not prevent transmission:

The urgent question is how not to get fooled again by deceivers and dissemblers who make the best of a terrible case, obfuscate the rest, and skillfully play to what we like to think is true about complex scientific questions, and about ourselves. To avoid that, we have to notice it’s happening.

Because this incidence is not yet over, and it is going to happen again.

The state—including this American capitalist-imperialist state—is adept at finding “emergency” reasons that seem socially reasonable to force-extract enormous profits and take tighter control of our lives. And the best educational institutions of this state are adept at producing smart spokespersons who can, with all sincerity, appeal to our sense of rationality and social responsibility, and convince us that resistance to their emergency measures is stupid and selfish. 

Specifically, having tasted this level of profit, the pharmaceutical industry and its captured state agencies will find another “emergency” and another sympathetic character with a  harmonious (tough forked) tongue to present as “America’s Doctor” and “the most trusted man in America,” who’ll tell you—and force you—to take your medicine. 

The best way to deceive people is not to lie all the time, but to tell enough of the truth to effectively manipulate their behavior. As Bob Dylan sings “Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.” In my metaphor above, the devil of Pharma comes as a healer (for profit). Or a philanthropist. And sometimes his advocate comes as a man of science. 

Jim Kavanagh edits The Polemicist. Follow him on Twitter @ThePolemicist_ .

Print this article

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
PLEASE send what you can today!



Don’t forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days.

Up to You.

^3000US citizens have no real political representation.

We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.

I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.

What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.

And its multitude of minions and lackeys.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

CIA Agent Reveals How They Plant Lies In News Media

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Print this article

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
PLEASE send what you can today!

Up to You.

^3000US citizens have no real political representation.

We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.

I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.

What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.

And its multitude of minions and lackeys.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读



Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.

China: Xi Gets Ready for the Final Countdown

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Pepe Escobar

October 18, 2022

President Xi Jinping’s 1h45min speech at the opening of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing was an absorbing exercise of recent past informing near future. All of Asia and all of the Global South should carefully examine it.

The Great Hall was lavishly adorned with bright red banners. A giant slogan hanging in the back of the hall read, “Long Live our great, glorious and correct party”.

Another one, below, functioned like a summary of the whole report:

“Hold high the great flag of socialism with Chinese characteristics, fully implement Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, carry forward the great founding spirit of the party, and unite and struggle to fully build a modern socialist country and to fully promote the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

True to tradition, the report outlined the CPC’s achievements over the past 5 years and China’s strategy for the next 5 – and beyond. Xi foresees “fierce storms” ahead, domestic and foreign. The report was equally significant for what was not spelled out, or left subtly implied.

Every member of the CPC’s Central Committee had already been briefed about the report – and approved it. They will spend this week in Beijing studying the fine print and will vote to adopt it on Saturday. Then a new CPC Central Committee will be announced, and a new Politburo Standing Committee – the 7 that really rule – will be formally endorsed.

This new leadership line-up will clarify the new generation faces that will be working very close to Xi, as well as who will succeed Li Keqiang as the new Prime Minister: he has finished his two terms and, according to the constitution, must step down.

There are also 2,296 delegates present at the Great Hall representing the CPC’s over 96 million members. They are not mere spectators: at the plenary session that ended last week, they analyzed in-depth every major issue, and prepared for the National Congress. They do vote on party resolutions – even as those resolutions are decided by the top leadership, and behind closed doors.

The key takeaways

Xi contends that in these past 5 years the CPC strategically advanced China while “correctly” (Party terminology) responding to all foreign challenges. Particularly key achievements include poverty alleviation, the normalization of Hong Kong, and progress in diplomacy and national defense.

It’s quite telling that Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who was sitting in the second row, behind the current Standing Committee members, never took his eyes off Xi, while others were reading a copy of the report on their desk.

Compared to the achievements, success of the Xi-ordered Zero-Covid policy remains highly debatable. Xi stressed that it has protected people’s lives. What he could not possibly say is that the premise of his policy is to treat Covid and its variants as a U.S. bioweapon directed against China. That is, a serious matter of national security that trumps any other consideration, even the Chinese economy.

Zero-Covid hit production and the job market extremely hard, and virtually isolated China from the outside world. Just a glaring example: Shanghai’s district governments are still planning for zero-Covid on a timescale of two years. Zero-Covid will not go away anytime soon.

A serious consequence is that the Chinese economy will most certainly grow this year by less than 3% – well below the official target of “around 5,5%”.

Now let’s look at some of the Xi report’s highlights.

Taiwan: Beijing has started “a great struggle against separatism and foreign interference” on Taiwan.

Hong Kong: It is now “administered by patriots, making it a better place.” In Hong Kong there was “a major transition from chaos to order.” Correct: the 2019 color revolution nearly destroyed a major global trade/finance center.

Poverty alleviation: Xi hailed it as one of three “major events” of the past decade along with the CPC’s centenary and socialism with Chinese characteristics entering a “new era”. Poverty alleviation is the core of one of the CPC’s “two centenary goals.”

Opening up: China has become “a major trading partner and a major destination for foreign investment.” That’s Xi refuting the notion that China has grown more autarchic. China will not engage in any kind of “expansionism” while opening up to the outside world. The basic state policy remains: economic globalization. But – he didn’t say it – “with Chinese characteristics”.

“Self-revolution”: Xi introduced a new concept. “Self-revolution” will allow China to escape a historical cycle leading to a downturn. And “this ensures the party will never change.” So it’s the CPC or bust.

Marxism: definitely remains as one of the fundamental guiding principles. Xi stressed, “We owe the success of our party and socialism with Chinese characteristics to Marxism and how China has managed to adapt it.”

Risks: that was the speech’s recurrent theme. Risks will keep interfering with those crucial “two centenary goals”. Number one goal was reached last year, at the CPC’s 100th anniversary, when China reached the status of a “moderately prosperous society” in all respects (xiaokang, in Chinese). Number two goal should be reached at the centenary of the People’s Republic of China in 2049: to “build a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious.”

Development: the focus will be on “high-quality development”, including resilience of supply chains and the “dual circulation” economic strategy: expansion of domestic demand in parallel to foreign investment (mostly centered on BRI projects). That will be China’s top priority. So in theory any reforms will privilege a combination of “socialist market economy” and high-level opening, mixing the creation of more domestic demand with supply-side structural reform. Translation: “Dual-circulation” on steroids.

“Whole-process democracy”: that was the other new concept introduced by Xi. Translates as “democracy that works”, as in rejuvenating the Chinese nation under – what else – the CPC’s absolute leadership: “We need to ensure that people can exercise their powers through the People’s Congress system.”

Socialist culture: Xi said it’s absolutely essential “to influence young people”. The CPC must exercise ideological control and make sure the media fosters a generation of young people “who are influenced by traditional culture, patriotism and socialism”, thus benefitting “social stability”. The “China story” must go everywhere, presenting a China that is “credible and respectable”. That certainly applies to Chinese diplomacy, even the “Wolf Warriors”.

“Sinicise religion”: Beijing will continue its drive to “Sinicise religion”, as in “proactively” adapting “religion and the socialist society”. This campaign was introduced in 2015, meaning for instance that Islam and Christianity must be under CPC control and in line with Chinese culture.

The Taiwan pledge

Now we reach the themes that completely obsess the decaying Hegemon: the connection between China’s national interests and how they affect the civilization-state’s role in international relations.

National security: “National security is the foundation of national rejuvenation, and social stability is a prerequisite of national strength.”

The military: the PLA’s equipment, technology and strategic capability will be strengthened. It goes without saying that means total CPC control over the military.

“One country, two systems”: It has proven to be “the best institutional mechanism for Hong Kong and Macau and must be adhered to in the long term”. Both “enjoy high autonomy” and are “administered by patriots.” Xi promised to better integrate both into national strategies.

Taiwan reunification: Xi made a pledge to complete the reunification of China. Translation: return Taiwan to the motherland. That was met with a torrent of applause, leading to the key message, addressed simultaneously to the Chinese nation and “foreign interference” forces: “We will not renounce the use of force and will take all necessary measures to stop all separatist movements.” The bottom line: “The resolution of the Taiwan issue is a matter for the Chinese people themselves, to be decided by the Chinese people.”

It’s also quite telling that Xi did not even mention Xinjiang by name: only by implication, when he stressed that China must strengthen the unity of all ethnic groups. Xinjiang for Xi and the leadership mean industrialization of the Far West and a crucial node in BRI: not the object of an imperial demonization campaign. They know that the CIA destabilization tactics used in Tibet for decades did not work in Xinjiang.

Shelter from the storm

Now let’s unpack some of the variables affecting the very tough years ahead for the CPC.

When Xi mentioned “fierce storms ahead”, that’s what he thinks about 24/7: Xi is convinced the USSR collapsed because the Hegemon did everything to undermine it. He won’t allow a similar process to derail China.

In the short term, the “storm” may refer to the latest round of the no holds barred American war on Chinese technology – not to mention free trade: cutting China off from buying or manufacturing chips and components for supercomputers.

It’s fair to consider Beijing keeps the focus long-term, betting that most of the world, especially the Global South, will move away from the U.S. high tech supply chain and prefer the Chinese market. As the Chinese increasingly become self sufficient, U.S. tech firms will end up losing world markets, economies of scale, and competitiveness.

Xi also did not mention the U.S. by name. Everyone in the leadership – especially the new Politburo – is aware of how Washington wants to “decouple” from China in every possible way and will continue to provocatively deploy every possible strand of hybrid war.

Xi did not enter into details during his speech, but it’s clear the driving force going forward will be technological innovation linked to a global vision. That’s where BRI comes in, again – as the privileged field of application for these tech breakthroughs.

Only this way we can understand how Zhu Guangyao, a former vice minister of finance, may be sure that per capita GDP in China in 2035 would at least double the numbers in 2019 and reach $20,000.

The challenge for Xi and the new Politburo right away is to fix China’s structural economic imbalance. And pumping up debt-financed “investment” all over again won’t work.

So bets can be made that Xi’s third term – to be confirmed later this week – will have to concentrate on rigorous planning and monitoring of implementation, much more than during his previous bold, ambitious, abrasive but sometimes disconnected years. The Politburo will have to pay way more attention to technical considerations. Xi will have to delegate more serious policymaking autonomy to a bunch of competent technocrats.

Otherwise, we will be back to that startling observation by then Premier Wen Jiabao in 2007: China’s economy is “unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated and ultimately unsustainable”. That’s exactly where the Hegemon wants it to be.

As it stands, things are far from gloomy. The National Development and Reform Commission states that compared to the rest of the world, China’s consumer inflation is only “marginal”; the job market is steady; and international payments are stable.

Xi’s work report and pledges may also be seen as turning the usual Anglo-American geopolitical suspects – Mackinder, Mahan, Spykman, Brzezinski – upside down.

The China-Russia strategic partnership has no time to lose with global hegemonic games; what drives them is that sooner rather than later they will be ruling the Heartland – the world island – and beyond, with allies from the Rimland, and from Africa to Latin America, all participating in a new form of globalization. Certainly with Chinese characteristics; but most of all, pan-Eurasian characteristics. The final countdown is already on.

(Republished from Strategic Culture Foundation by permission of author or representative)

Pepe Escobar is a columnist at The Cradle, editor-at-large at Asia Times and an independent geopolitical analyst focused on Eurasia. Since the mid-1980s he has lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore and Bangkok. He is the author of countless books; his latest one is Raging Twenties.

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
PLEASE send what you can today!


Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?
It’s super easy! Sign up to receive our FREE bulletin.  Get TGP selections in your mailbox. No obligation of any kind. All addresses secure and never sold or commercialised. 


Up to You.

^3000US citizens have no real political representation.

We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.

I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.

What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.

And its multitude of minions and lackeys.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License