Although current facilities are mostly officially declared and managed as POW camps or reception centers for illegal immigrants and refugees, a review of information on emergency laws, Executive Orders, camps, and black sites makes it clear that the actual target group for which this massive effort is being undertaken is hardly foreign prisoners of war, but rather free-thinking Americans of all political persuasions who refuse to submit to unconstitutional 'Political Correctness' and insist on their democratic right to free speech. They are people like Martin Luther King Jr., whose commitment was: “When you are right you cannot be too radical”. / Martin Luther King, Jr., reference www.wisdomquote.com In the actual meaning used by Luther King, the word 'radical' has absolutely nothing to do with doctrinaire, rigid fundamentalism and fanaticism that includes a readiness for violence. 'Radical' derives from the Latin word 'radix' = root and stands for 'thorough' and thus sustainable, by addressing problems at their root, that is, at their causes. Radical in Martin Luther King’s sense are autonomous individuals who do not allow themselves to be rattled by the taboos artificially established by power-seeking actors to narrow the free thought of citizens.
The overall impression after some internet research into concentration camps and emergency laws in the US is that all people who critically question the unsolidary political and economic manipulations of the powerful are systematically spied on, recorded in lists according to ideological profiles, and threatened with repression and far worse. The very next major crisis could turn this potential danger into an acute one overnight. / Cf. inter alia Caroline Rausch America 2016: Concentration Camps, Lists of Citizens, and Guillotines, in iPatriots, reference https://ipatriot.com/america-2016-concentration-camps-lists-citizens-guillotines/?
However, this crisis is pre-programmed due to the contradictions accumulated over more than a century and a half by money-rule. Global and specifically US national debt has been pushed even higher in the course of low and negative interest rate policies, as politicians feel even less of the pressure as their debt policy leads ever deeper into dependency and vulnerability to crisis.
Against this background, the sprawling application of harsh lockdowns and other economically damaging and money-wasting measures during the COVID-19 pandemic appears as an irresponsible hazard that significantly increases the probability of a major crisis.
The contradictions of the capitalist system and their underlying reasons have always been hidden from the public to the best of their ability, but due to their gigantic scale, they inevitably face a massive exposure. Thus, as stated above, the financial elites face a choice between a disingenuous pseudo-solution and an honest actual solution. The latter stems from the realization that their approach of relying on the anti-principle of conquered power is fundamentally unsuited to securing truly sustainable formative influence on the planet. Only a very large free association emerging from an alliance of consistently democratic nations (namely according to Chapter A 27) can truthfully proclaim: “We have the power and we will never surrender it again.”
To continue pursuing disingenuous, irrational options would require those in power to constantly conceal the contradictions of the system and mask facts behind a false facade. However, as more and more hidden or twisted facts come to light, this anti-strategy is heading toward a timeout; it will very soon become rationally impossible. Yet, irrationally, anything is possible. As any fantasy film shows, even the rationally impossible can be surreally realized—in staging that arbitrarily links cause and effect before the eyes of the audience. That the instrument of staging belongs to the repertoire of money-rule is nothing new. Among other things, the activities of Western intelligence agencies in the realm of alleged anti-terrorism provide ample examples—see, among others, research by historian Alfred McCoy, books by Noam Chomsky, or publications (at least until a few years ago) of independent periodicals such as the British The Guardian—here an example from June 2015: “On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting”. / Kenan Malik, The sectarian terror group won’t be defeated by the western states that incubated it in the first place, The Guardian, 3 Jun 2015.
The truth to be concealed is largely identical with the political connections outlined in this book. Among these, China’s ongoing technological overtaking process will very soon no longer be concealable—bringing the question of blame for the American shortfall into focus. The most obvious propagandistic scapegoating points to China—yet false accusations alone will not suffice in the long run. The staging required for concealment would have to assume gigantic proportions, because in such a barely unravelable conglomerate of staged and real scenarios, massive damage to the US by China would have to be made plausible. Optimistically assuming enough restraint that only manageable physical damage is intended, an encounter on an electronic level—a cyberwar—comes first and foremost into consideration. Whether with destructive intent or not, the 'fitting' assertions have already been propagated. These include, notably, the claim that the Chinese government can gain access to data on military facilities through Huawei technology installed in the US.
In the event of an actual cyberwar or even conventional war, the lesson formulated in Chapter A 21 'Preservation of Power through Disintegration' regarding the wars in Korea and Vietnam applies analogously: “that especially for a divided country, there can hardly be anything worse than when its US-allied part is 'defended' against the other, communist part.”
The facts surrounding Executive Orders, emergency laws, and concentration camps raise the fear that for American citizens too, there could hardly be anything worse than being “defended” by the very forces proclaiming their concern for national security at every opportunity. “The CIA has increasingly expanded its role, including covert paramilitary operations. One of its largest divisions, the Information Operations Center (IOC), has shifted focus from counter-terrorism to offensive cyber-operations”. / Central Intelligence Agency, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency
The aspect of disarming the population also belongs to the context of emergency laws and Executive Orders. Without being able to go into detail about the extremely controversial debate, the following should be considered:
Jefferson had already noted: “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” / Thomas Jefferson, reference https://www.keepinspiring.me
Participants in protest movements that intensified in late 2021 due to the frequency of mass shootings and advocate for stricter gun laws should consider that such acts of madness were virtually unknown in the 1950s and 1960s—despite extremely loose gun laws. The root cause of violence lies in the mismanagement of civilization, which has brought about an erosion of psychological stability.
Anyone can download the software program “Tor” from the internet, which was originally considered spy-proof and offers access to the so-called darknet, among other things. There one finds societal fringe phenomena and definitely criminal activities presented, such as contract killing, hard drugs, extreme pornography, satanism—and weapons. Observers have long assumed that the darknet is controlled by the NSA just like the normal internet—functioning effectively as a filter, trap, and manipulation tool. Insofar as drug and arms trafficking are monitored there, it remains (very) doubtful until the trustworthiness of the intelligence services is audited whether this occurs in the interest of democratic nations.
US states with liberal gun laws exhibit lower violent crime rates than others with strict restrictions.
95% to 99% of people would agree with the view that private gun carrying in a pacified, fair, and secure society of the future (see Chapter A 34. “Classless Society?”) would be unnecessary and should be abolished. Private use would then be limited to the sphere of target shooting sports.
By contrast, the state dominated by financial interests exposes its citizens to growing security gaps, as politics, police, judiciary, and a psychologically amateurishly managed prison system barely have ordinary crime under control—while effectively leaving far more dangerous crime at higher levels completely in the dark. Worse still, with its chaotic accumulation of emergency laws, Executive Orders, mass confinement facilities, and agencies endowed with unconstitutional executive power, the state itself has built up a serious hazard potential that threatens its own citizens.
Throughout the post-WWII era, the media have used almost every terror attack and mass shooting as an occasion to call for further tightening of gun laws. The explanation forces itself upon us that under false pretenses, regulations are once again being promoted that run counter to the interests of honest citizens.
Only after dismantling the security risks accumulated under the current system are further pushes to restrict private gun carrying appropriate. Until then—meaning by no means before the repeal or reform of emergency laws and decrees—weapons in the hands of honest democratic citizens represent an important safeguard for the nation and the preservation of peace.
However hypothetical or real the risks accumulated with emergency laws and mass detention facilities may be—regarding potential scenarios, the following is clear:
First, members of the Jewish faith community would be in danger, after media have subtly fueled antisemitism for decades by drawing a picture of an aggressive and untrustworthy Israel, while suppressing the truth that this country and Zionism are systematically disadvantaged precisely by the centers of dominant financial power—namely Great Britain, the US, and the UN—see Chapters B 7 and B 10. (Addendum on May 28, 2025: Only Donald Trump put an end to this.)
Second, generally all free-thinking American citizens would be endangered, namely all “Patriots”, “Radical Democrats”, “Radical Constitutionalists”, and all genuine—that is, non-Leninist—left-wing opponents of the current system. Perfidiously, it is precisely these groups (including many Jewish citizens) who fall prey to the misconception that behind the power of Big Money stands 'Jewry'. This dangerous misconception fosters antisemitism while simultaneously instilling unfounded feelings of guilt in Jewish citizens.
Third, current President Joe Biden would be endangered. If he were shot in an assassination like Kennedy, Vice President Kamala Harris would automatically take office. She, however, stands for radical gun control laws, which would substantially facilitate control by Big Money during a civil war. And what could provide a more suitable pretext for such a legislative initiative than the assassination of the President?
Fourth, the Chinese electronics company Huawei would be particularly endangered because it embodies the fair counter-concept to the oligopolies of dominant financial corporations—proving its superiority on the free market. (Indirectly, this also applies to US high-tech companies and logistics giants, since a staged scenario would necessarily have to show casualties on the US side.)
Fifth, China itself would be endangered. For China stands for expanding economic avenues of development for its citizens, whereas the US stands for diminishing ones. Through this living benchmark of a largely free market-oriented and technologically leading China, the proponents of money-rule increasingly face an explanation gap. Unfortunately, it follows that a flourishing China independent of global financial interests—alongside a remaining world even more firmly dominated by oligopolies—does not represent an acceptable constellation from the perspective of money magnates. For the Chinese leadership, three options arise from this: first, to bow to the power elites and integrate into their UN world-state; second, together with the “Western” nations, to end the rule of financial elites; or third, to let things continue as before. While the first option would lead to tensions and armed conflict inevitably in the medium to long term, the third option would immediately bring the incompatibility between the free-progressive Chinese system and the anachronistic claim to financial dominance clearly onto the table—and with it, the risk of a gigantic war.
Sixth, the people of Iran would be threatened for reasons that have nothing to do with a sincere defense of civilization and its free-democratic foundation (on the contrary)—see Chapter B 8 near the end.
After Putin allowed himself to be provoked into a military intervention in Ukraine, the emotionalization against Russia already driven by the media experienced an avalanche-like escalation. This avalanche grows as more and more companies and organizations get swept along. Yet a direct intervention by NATO cannot initially be justified to citizens solely by the Russian invasion. Keeping in mind the experiences with the filter and propaganda apparatus of the Creel Committee near the end of World War I, it is foreseeable that continued stoking of emotions will be able to produce this acceptance—notably through an attack supplying militarists with pretexts, which could easily be blamed on the Russians. The target could be, for example, the gas pipeline between Norway and Poland—so noted with correction dated Nov 12, 2022.
Yet even without the short-term creation of an emotional acceptance for “total war”, the trend—without a course correction, specifically in the West—points with very high probability toward a nuclear war. The German parliamentary decision of April 27, 2022, regarding weapon deliveries to Ukraine accelerates the already foreseeable reversal of the conventional balance of forces—which means an approaching danger of nuclear war—see Commentary D 1 on the Ukraine War. Irrespective of this, the war is characterized by the same phenomena known from other conflicts with “Western” involvement: unreliable information, the appearance of multiple distinct militias, and the taking up of operational combat positions in populated settlements, namely residential areas and near schools and hospitals. High civilian casualties and mass flight are the consequence.
For entirely different reasons, a civil war threatens in the US. In its foreseeable chaotic environment, the true triggering mechanisms of a nuclear war against China would remain even easier to conceal. (Note of May 28, 2025: The threat of civil war is temporarily averted due to the clear election result in favor of Trump in November 2024 and his correct positioning in the Middle East conflict.)
The democracy left behind by the Founding Fathers promised all US citizens a life in freedom, whereas today all of that is threatened: democracy, freedom, and even life itself. Near the end of Chapter A 27, it was noted: “It must enter political consciousness that 'Western' democracies, despite their constitutional checks and balances, have so far fulfilled this central purpose of the democratic system only unsatisfactorily—namely to ensure that exclusively those individuals gain real power who have earned the trust of the citizens. Comparing the US in this essential—indeed vital—aspect with allegedly less free and less democratic China, the Middle Kingdom performs remarkably well. For 'grassroots democracy' at the level of local candidate nomination filters out quite reliably the many opportunistic individuals (estimated at 80% worldwide) who prioritize personal advantage over community interests. If such a grassroots selection were also to take place on the 'Western' political stage, the representatives of Big Money could never have gained such immense political influence at the expense of the democratic state—nor could the shiftable selection criterion of so-called Political Correctness have established itself, which in truth signifies obedience toward financial elites.”
Likewise, the Chinese system of Social Scoring (including face-recognition cameras), criticized in Western media, represents an interesting attempt to revive the control of socially compatible behavior—which has functioned inadequately since the emergence of the first cities—using the means of technical civilization. In the West, people have found it remarkably difficult to embrace such possibilities (see beginning of Chapter A 27).
Instead, with the NSA, CIA, further US intelligence services, and rapidly expanding social networks, a secret “social” surveillance system has been allowed to emerge and grow gigantically without criticism. The notion that there should not exist a second silence wall behind the official secrecy of intelligence services—one that even excludes their own employees—can be considered naive.
While self-inflicted doubts must exist regarding an activity of this secret system that genuinely serves citizens' interests while systematically refusing transparency, the Chinese can largely trust that their politicians and authorities act in the public interest.
The current actions against corruption and waste under Xi Jinping appear suitable to align the already relatively reliable administrative apparatus even more clearly toward the authentic representation of citizen interests. However, before the victory of politicians' solidarity over their self-interest, a literal construction site remains in China as well: the liberation of the construction industry from the rule of oligopolies and the prudent management of the existing real estate bubble—see Annex C 1.
Yet for mastering this great challenge as well, the Chinese nation possesses a crucial prerequisite: an open-minded patriotism. Of this, after decades of systematic erosion, hardly anything remains in the “West”—resulting in collapsing solidarity and growing mutual distrust.
Article 24 of the Chinese Constitution states: “... The state advocates the civic virtues of love for the motherland, for the people, for labour, for science and for socialism; it educates the people in patriotism, collectivism, internationalism ... ”.
Open-minded patriotism is also the foundation of respectful and understanding relations between nations. For Western states, it is therefore a tremendous stroke of luck to find in China, precisely at this historical turning point, a great role model and at the same time the ideal partner with whom they can jointly found a new era—one of peaceful coexistence, cooperation, and trust-building. In sharp contrast to nationalists, patriots of different nationalities do not hate each other; rather, they respect and value one another because they represent shared values and bring understanding for each other through more successful avoidance of hypocrisy.
For this cooperation, as well as for the peaceful overcoming of money-rule, establishing the aforementioned minimum solidarity within “Western” societies is indispensable—as a fundamental condition for the democratic capacity to act of the nation. Just as conservatives freed from hypocrisy will have to open themselves to many forward-looking insights of Karl Marx (aside from his misevaluation of private property), leftists cannot bypass the realization that the anti-patriotism cultivated for decades and now escalated into hysteria is a perfidious instrument of power exercised by Big Money at the expense of major nations and their integrative power. Contrary to what leftists are constantly told (in order to domesticate them in the interest of financial elites), anti-patriotism can by no means appeal to Marx. For he had merely overestimated the international solidarity of workers.