Governing By Emergencies

by Gerry Allan | Jun 21, 2023 | Future, Leadership | 0 comments

“There is nothing so strong or safe in an emergency of life as the simple truth.”
— Charles Dickens

“Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong – these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”
— Winston Churchill

“I think we live in a constant state of emergency.”
— Raheem DeVaughn, American musician

“Every revolution took place in a time when the powers of the people in authority were enlarged because of a supposed emergency.”
— John MacArthur

“A man’s mind will very gradually refuse to make itself up until it is driven and compelled by emergency.”
— Anthony Trollope, 19th century English author

“Constant reevaluation is the bedrock of any emergency response.”
— Leana S. Wen, emergency physician

“’Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.”
— Friedrich August von Hayek

“In a world full of competing emergencies and disasters, it really helps if there is an international locomotive that can help us bring attention – help us bring resources.”
— Jan Egeland, Norwegian diplomat

“Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave national emergency.”
— Douglas MacArthur, U.S. General

“Anytime a large, emergency spending bill makes its way through Congress, the potential for mischief is great.”
— Chris Chocola, American politician

Our world seems to have become an unending series of emergencies. These included 9/11, the Great Recession (2008), and the global frenzy known as COVID-19. Since 2020, we have been in one continuous emergency, requiring extraordinarily drastic measures by government to address, globally. We are living daily in this state of emergency, but where is it leading?

An emergency is a happening, not a way of life, yes? Well, it was, until quite recently. What exactly is an “emergency”? From Wikipedia:

“An emergency is an urgent, unexpected, and usually dangerous situation that poses an immediate risk to health, life, property, or environment and requires immediate action. Most emergencies require urgent intervention to prevent a worsening of the situation, although in some situations, mitigation may not be possible and agencies may only be able to offer palliative care for the aftermath.”

“While some emergencies are self-evident (such as a natural disaster that threatens many lives), many smaller incidents require that an observer (or affected party) decide whether it qualifies as an emergency. The precise definition of an emergency, the agencies involved and the procedures used, vary by jurisdiction, and this is usually set by the government, whose agencies (emergency services) are responsible for emergency planning and management.”

“An incident, to be an emergency, conforms to one or more of the following, if it:

Poses an immediate threat to life, health, property, or environment

Has already caused loss of life, health detriments, property damage, or environmental damage

Has a high probability of escalating to cause immediate danger to life, health, property, or environment”

Living causes many immediate threats to life

Life, as you will have noticed, is full of threats to life. Stepping off a sidewalk to cross the road can get you whacked. Why, even just walking on the sidewalk these days can get you whacked by a bike, or worse yet an e-scooter. This bike/e-bike threat to life exists even on city park trails where I live and walk daily.

Electric mountain bike in action. Definite threat to hikers.
But not an emergency unless you get hit. Just life today.

I am not sure that a threat-free life is actually possible. Something out there is going to get us all, eventually if not sooner.

The “nice” thing about the official, operative definition of “threat” is that just about anything can be designated as a threat, and consequently an emergency. Living is a threat under this overly broad definition. How convenient.

Sensible normal folk would reject such a threat-emergency definition and its application. They would instead insist upon making an evaluation on a case-by-case basis, with facts – and using common sense, which is sadly rather uncommon in our present times. A consensus of knowledgeable, responsible individuals would make the emergency call if necessary. This is kind of how it used to work. No longer.

Fearmongering and hidden agendas increasing rule, aided by agenda-driven media. As the old saying goes, repeat something often enough and it becomes fact in many minds. This is how it mostly works today, like it or not.

This situation has of course not escaped the attention of many observers.

The perpetual emergency is now upon us

Merrill Matthews, Opinion Contributor for The Hill, a top US political website, makes this point explicitly and forcefully: “Biden, progressives and the perpetual-emergency presidency”:

“Progressive lawmakers are once again calling on President Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency, which would give him sweeping new executive powers to do pretty much whatever he wants. It is just one more example of how progressives, who are constantly lecturing the country about the threats to democracy, are eager to ignore the democratically elected members of Congress — and the U.S. Constitution — in order to get their way.”

“According to Bloomberg, ‘An emergency declaration by President Joe Biden would unlock sweeping executive powers, including blocking crude oil exports and placing other limits on fossil fuels.’”

“The catalyst for the latest climate-emergency demand was Canadian wildfire smoke that settled on much of the northeast, including New York City and Washington, D.C.”

“’A president’s emergency powers should not be used wantonly. What we cannot afford, however, is to shy away from tackling the climate crisis just because President Trump misused the National Emergencies Act,’ Democrats declared at the time.”

“Yes, there are times when a president needs to use the executive authority to declare an emergency. And there are general rules and practices that guide the decision to declare a national emergency. But they are meant to address an unforeseen, temporary emergency. They are not meant to implement long-term policy initiatives, which is exactly how progressives want to use a climate emergency [emphasis added].”

This, it seems, states the essential point regarding the misuse of emergency definitions and powers to implement long-term policy initiatives.

Seems that we became the United States of Emergency in the 1990-99 timeframe. And have remained in this state right up to the present. Why?

**A standard, largely fact-free*, political battle**

Politics is just what people do. It is part of human nature that evolved over eons. It is embedded in us, and cannot be changed or removed, but only redirected. Emotions and personal beliefs are central. Facts, assuming that real facts are available, are too often irrelevant. Made-up “facts” can be very powerful, and are often used by both sides. Big money spread around the right places is even better.

Governing by emergencies, then, is simply another political battle tool of opposing groups. In the most serious cases, it is a kind of war, non-violent for the most part. Nothing new in any of this except for the present high-tech context. Human nature and its tendency toward political warfare remains unchanged.

*Fact-free: It is so often the case that the actual facts of a situation are hard to determine, and often impossible. People make up “facts” to support their case. That’s just what humans do. So, this means that the “facts” as presented are likely to be heavily biased or misleadingly incomplete, on all sides. That’s just the way the world works.

John W. Whitehead via The Burning Platform has another view: “Rule by Decree: The Emergency State’s Plot to Override the Constitution”:

“Rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.” — Justice Neil Gorsuch

“We have become a nation in a permanent state of emergency.”

“Power-hungry and lawless, the government has weaponized one national crisis after another in order to expand its powers and justify all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.”

“COVID-19, for example, served as the driving force behind what Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch characterized as ‘the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.’”

There are probably many more views on what’s going on here. Likely, most with a decent set of supporting “facts” and of course an appropriately urgent agenda.

The boy who cried “wolf” is no longer just an Aesop fable

Once a cautionary tale about making false claims, with the result that subsequent true claims are disbelieved, alarmism has become a standard part of the governing game. This, as Aesop pointed out, makes the alarms less effective the more they are repeated. At some point, almost nobody who matters or cares is paying attention or heed.

Applied to everything-emergencies, this is likely to lead to emergency-OD and an Aesop-type fade. If everything is an emergency, then nothing is an emergency but is simply life as usual in rather turbulent times.

However, as the preceding excerpt argued, the endless stream of “emergencies” we are experiencing may have an ulterior motive: the concentration of executive power into a dictatorship of some sort.

A bored boy tending sheep cried “Wolf!” to get attention. He did it again and people came. A third time and the boy was ignored. Goodbye flock. Lesson: A liar will not be believed, even when telling the truth.

Tyler Durden via The Brownstone Institute raised just such a concern in “United States: Fifty Little Dictatorships”:

“But while the smoke clears, a more insidious development is taking place. The largely unknown Uniform Law Commission (ULC) has proposed a law that would drastically increase executive power in the United States and reduce citizens’ legal right to resist unconstitutional edicts.”

“The ULC is an influential interstate organization that works to make state laws more uniform. Since 2021, the group has worked to draft a ‘Model Public Health Emergency Authority Act.’”

“The impetus for this initiative was the ‘uncertainty about the legal authority of governors and other state officials to enact certain emergency laws and declarations’ during Covid, according to journalist David Zweig. ‘The legal ambiguity around many pandemic declarations resulted in new legislation in many states that explicitly clawed back public health powers from governors and executive branch officials.’”

“In response, the ULC seeks to codify a system that shields and promotes unchecked executive authority. Zweig writes, ‘It wants the legal authority that’s given to governors to be clear. And a memo indicates that the ULC expects the adoption of the Act will result in people suing only if the Act itself wasn’t followed, rather than suing based on a claim that the governor’s actions were unconstitutional.’”

“The Act threatens to strip Americans of their legal ability to oppose mandates, lockdowns, or other government orders. It offers total deference to governors in deciding what constitutes an emergency. No evidence would be required for state leaders to impose arbitrary and irrational limits on human liberty. Schools, businesses, and churches would be subject to the whims of executive power.”

“The ULC plans to vote on the Act in July [2023], and passage threatens to strip Americans of their constitutional rights.”

“Now, the ULC proposes granting governors more power for when the next emergency arrives. There is no reason to expect angelic behavior in the next crisis. The attempt here is to end what most annoyed the ruling elites during the Covid crisis: the relatively decentralized response due to American federalism. One state (South Dakota) did not go along at all. Others bailed on the lockdown agenda after a few weeks. As time dragged on, some states tried to hang on to the crisis for as long as possible while others moved on with life as normal.”

“In all the post-gaming in the elite narratives, this point sticks out the most. The next time, they want an all-of-society response, no stragglers and refuseniks. The efforts by the ULC are part of rigging the system toward that end. Instead of 50 ‘laboratories of democracy’ they want 50 mini-dictatorships carrying out the orders of the elites in Washington, DC.”

Overstated, or a vital heads-up?

Whatever can we do about this situation?

Even if we are pretty sure that something especially nasty is behind all of this emergency stuff, it seems far from clear that there is much of anything we can do to change and improve things. Whatever is in motion at this moment is enormous and probably unstoppable – until it self-destructs. We can only hope.

Throw the bums out [and elect some new bums]?

Elections are a distraction. At best, elections solve almost nothing; at worst, they just make things a whole lot worse.

The problem here is that we are dealing with human nature. Elections can’t change or “fix” human nature. It’s just who we are, and probably will be for some eons to come.

Well, not quite. Some creative folks are trying to “fix” humans via technology – creating “transhumans” to replace us old-fashioned bums-type humans. Will they succeed?

A transhuman doing whatever it is that transhumans do.
Waiting for instructions?

What is a “transhuman”?

As Wikipedia helpfully explains, “transhuman” means “transitional human”:

“One of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught ‘new concepts of the Human’ at The New School of New York City in the 1960s, used ‘transhuman’ as shorthand for ‘transitional human’. Calling transhumans the ‘earliest manifestation of new evolutionary beings’, FM argued that signs of transhumans included physical and mental augmentations including prostheses, reconstructive surgery, intensive use of telecommunications, a cosmopolitan outlook and a globetrotting lifestyle, androgyny, mediated reproduction (such as in vitro fertilization), absence of religious beliefs, and a rejection of traditional family values.”

It gets worse, as always.

Firstly, who is “FM” in reality (assuming reality in some form still exists)?

“FM-2030 (born Fereidoun M. Esfandiary; 1930-2000) was a Belgian-born Iranian-American author, teacher, transhumanist philosopher, futurist, consultant, and Olympic athlete. He became notable as a transhumanist with the book Are You a Transhuman?: Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World, published in 1989. In addition, he wrote a number of works of fiction under his original name F. M. Esfandiary.”

Secondly, what is transhumanism? Wikipedia again:

“Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement which advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies that can greatly enhance longevity and cognition.”

“Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics of using such technologies. Some transhumanists believe that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the current condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings.”

“Another topic of transhumanist research is how to protect humanity against existential risks, such as nuclear war or asteroid collision.”

“Julian Huxley was a biologist who popularized the term transhumanism in an influential 1957 essay. The contemporary meaning of the term ‘transhumanism’ was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, a man who changed his name to FM-2030. In the 1960s, he taught ‘new concepts of the human’ at The New School when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles, and worldviews ‘transitional’ to post-humanity as ‘transhuman’. The assertion would lay the intellectual groundwork for the British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futurist philosophy in 1990, and organizing in California a school of thought that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.”

A worldwide transhumanist movement?

Just what we need today, yes? Or maybe not. Possibly it might be better to stick with the bums-type humans.

Globalists, Great Resetters, and emergencies

The huge efforts being made today to create an endless series of emergencies, which will of course merge rather quickly into some kind of permanent, continuous state of emergency, don’t make sense to me. Unless these are simply powerful tools being used by globalists to achieve world domination as quickly as possible.

World domination seems to be dead ahead whether we like it or not. The various globalists and Great Resetters are already very far along on this path. Their biggest problem as I see it is that they have to achieve a “critical mass” of control before any sufficiently strong resistance can get organized. For them, slow and incremental just won’t work.

What will undoubtedly work is a stream dramatic crisis events that can frighten the global population into compliance with centralized control and surveillance. Such crisis events will be labelled “emergencies” so as to require immediate and major responses before the situations get “completely out of control”.

I can’t help but suspect at this point that the whole COVID exercise was a test of just such a strategy. It worked – probably far beyond the hopes and expectations of its instigators. Fear-driven populations are readily controlled.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” — Rahm Emanuel

And, if no suitable crisis presents itself in a timely manner, why you can just create one by any of a number of well-proven approaches. If you are really in a rush, you can generate a whole bunch of these together.

How will we know whether this conjecture is indeed the case?

Likeliest evidence is the very near-term occurrence of either a number of major crises simultaneously, or of a single whopper crisis (hopefully not WW III).

The good news in all of this emergency-crisis stuff

The bad news of course is that the world dominators are so far along on their path to global rulership that they are almost certain to achieve it in large measure. These are ruthless but very clever and determined people.

The good news is that millennia of ruthless, clever, and determined people have crashed and burned ultimately – a consequence of overreach and excessive optimism. As you might expect in our overly-defined world, there is a term for excessive optimism: the optimism bias:

“The optimism bias refers to our tendency to overestimate our likelihood of experiencing positive events and underestimate our likelihood of experiencing negative events. … Research consistently supports that most of the population (estimated around 80%) exhibit an optimistic bias that arises in a variety of circumstances.”

“While over-optimism can negatively impact us each individually, aggregation of overoptimism on a larger level can have an exponentially devastating impact. We can see this in how optimism bias impacts financial markets. Cognitive neuroscientist and optimism expert Tali Sharot posits that the optimism bias was ‘one of the core causes of the financial downfall in 2008’. Financial analysts and investors had unrealistic expectations of financial growth and success. Banks continued to engage in high-risk decision making and contributed to the growing economic bubble and its ultimate crash.”

Egotistical excess, which is especially prevalent among rulers, ruler-wannabes, and assorted followers, has led to the welcome downfall of so many such people. Failure is inevitable at some point, so history teaches. Much pain and suffering is experienced by the masses while this outcome is being ruler-generated, but it will come.

This seems to be a great weakness of so many self-defined great people.

Direct resistance is futile, and potentially fatal

Thanks to high-tech (digital) machinery being integrated into every facet of our daily lives, the prospects for being able to opt-out in some fashion seem especially dim. We are going to become almost fully surveilled and thus controllable. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) will replace physical money in quite short order, with the resulting ability of CBDC issuers, aka government, to use digital money as a means of targeted and complete control.

Resist in a noticeable manner and your access to money will be reduced or even eliminated. You will have only black markets and bartering to conduct exchanges of vital goods and services. The price for such resistance will almost certainly be severe. Or, as has happened so often in past, the worst offenders are summarily dispatched in the fatal sense.

Pretty bleak outlook, yes? Very discouraging for those who might want to push back in some way. Is there no hope – no hope at all?

I think that there are solid grounds for hope. What I see possibly working is what we might call “resistive cooperation”. This means some degree of cooperation with the-powers-that-be so as to survive and be functional – subject to personal tolerances, beliefs, and resolves, but to do so in the least helpful, most resistive ways possible.

As I have suggested before (see, for example, here), these people are intelligent but not smart. They are error-prone and hubris-bound. The world today is immensely more complex than at any time in past. Our complex system is highly interconnected and very fragile. Small disturbances can cause huge changes and even system collapse. We have greater numbers of people who are far more interconnected than ever before. Chaos rules to a major extent.

The powers-that-wannabe cannot possibly control all of this in a way that is anywhere close to what they intend. Ultimate failure is certain. Unintended consequences adverse to their schemes are assured. They are too few to micromanage such population scale and complexity. They can only control things at the macro level. Their systems and organizations work only for large groups and with gross approaches.

They must move very quickly to consolidate gains and secure sufficient control before large numbers of people realize what is happening and start to push back – hard. They are few, and the masses are very many. Moving quickly ensures that they will make many mistakes, some of which may begin their ultimate self-destruction. They are intelligent but not smart.

So, is there anything we can do to resist, to push back?

Reason and facts won’t work. Commendable but impractical exhortations will not work. Emotion and fear dominate so many interactions today. Responses on all sides are consequently instinctive rather than carefully considered.

Surely there must be something that we can do that is both practical, given the way things seem to be headed, and also constructive.

My quite extensive reading to see what others might suggest here has so far come up with very little of a practical, constructive nature. Lots of prepper stuff that doesn’t seem workable in a world domination scenario. Lots of rebellion and violence-oriented stuff that seems likely to generate strongly negative and harsh responses. Perhaps you have some better ideas, but the old engineer in me keeps thinking about what might work in our rapidly unfolding new reality.

An example of what’s out there by way of such guidance is excerpted in Related Reading below (Mike Adams). Probably good-to-do stuff, but I find so little of it relevant to a now-likely world domination scenario.

The best that I have come up with, for myself at least, are these:

Agility – ability to move and change direction quickly; few strong ties
Adaptability – ability to function creatively in a wide a range of situations
Resilience – ability to survive and recover from hard hits

Groups and relationships should therefore be kept small, diverse, and flexible.

Bottom line:

It seems pretty clear, again to me at least, that we are heading rapidly into a state of continuous “emergencies” that require “globally-coordinated responses”. This almost certainly involves world domination by one of the contending power groups – WEF, UN, WHO, … – unless a nuclear WW III messes with their plans.

What I don’t see are any practical, constructive, non-violent ways to survive and actively resist. These rulers are not playing games and are quite open about their world domination aims. My rather lame ideas noted above are really just thinking and pondering. I will keep looking, thinking, and maybe even pondering – and let you know if I find anything that might be helpful.