Analysis: Mass Migration & the Seven-Point Plan of the Left

An analysis by a geopolitical consulting group lays out how the Left’s campaign to open the borders is part of a multi-faceted strategy to bring in a global socialist government.

Geostrategic Analyst George McMillan of the G3 consulting agency explains in a paper titled, “Mass Migration and the ‘Seven P Plan’ of the Left” how the communists plan “to incrementally transform America into a Fabian Socialist welfare state” by 2025.

The seven major institutions that need to be “transformed” are referred to as the “Seven Ps” which are (1) the Professors, (2) the Priests, (3) the Prosecutors, (4) the Press, (5) the Politicians, (6) the Police, and (7) the Parents.

According to McMillan, the Left have already captured 4 of these institutions and plan on seizing the other 3 by the end of 2024.

The paper’s full text is available below:

Preface—the overarching fact pattern

The overarching fact pattern of technology and population growth through history was presented by 1992 economics Nobel laureate Robert F. Fogel. The two primary trends of technology and population growth over time are part of the fundamental atmospheric conditions that all countries are operating in. Furthermore, these two primary trends are the two post-1950s secondary trends of First World manufacturing jobs migrating to the Developing World and the mass migration of people from the developing World to the Developed World. Two things are significant here: First, population growth is drastically outpacing economic growth as the global wages labor equilibrium rate plummets and income disparity is climbing. Secondly, the migration levels are likely to be a tsunami in North America and Europe this decade as people continue to migrate from developing countries to developed countries.

The two variables of technology and population growth over time allow for the correlation of Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government, as they relate to the per capita GNP ratio, signifying economic growth and population growth rates of change, with the Four Category Geopolitical Form outcome measure based on the reality that: (1) First and Second World developed countries are characterized by higher economic growth and low population growth, and tighter wage-labor rate proportions with stable monetary systems; in direct contrast with (2) Third and Fourth World failed states which are characterized by lower economic growth and higher population growth proportions associated with catastrophically loose wage labor rate levels, catastrophically high levels of income disparity, and higher levels of crime and instability. Of course, monetary instability is also strongly associated with Fourth World failed states.

This series of correlations between the three macro behavioral frameworks of Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government, the per capita gross national product ratio depicting economic growth rates of change and population growth rates of change as they relate to the gradations of First, Second, Third, and Fourth World Countries, whose gradations are based on a tight-versus-catastrophically-loose wage-labor continuum. This is increasingly important as the US surpasses $34 trillion in national debt with no way to pay the unfunded Social Security pension fund liabilities for its seniors. The US is likely to experience runaway inflation as the country nears the $40 trillion debt level and as more countries exit the petrodollar exchanges due to the sanctions on Russia, Iran, and China. (For more on this topic, see the “Energy and Geopolitical Realignment” series of articles by George McMillan that were published late 2023 through early 2024—now available on G3Insights.)

Introduction

This paper begins with an explanation of the origins of rational choice models as the basis of strategic planning. Next, it explains the strategic plans of the Left to incrementally transform America into a Fabian Socialist welfare state, as, ultimately, the Left wants to replace the Puritanical Christian institutions with an atheistic curriculum based on the ideas of Rousseau and Marx.

The seven major institutions that need to be “transformed” are represented in terms of the “Seven Ps” which are (1) the Professors, referring to all of the educators at all levels; (2) the Priests, referring to all the religious institutions and theological schools; (3) the Prosecutors, referring all of the government attorneys, judges and justices; (4) the Press, referring to all mass media institutions and personalities; (5) the Politicians, or those individuals running for office whether for or against the sought-after single party; (6) the Police, referring to all government-sanctioned gun carriers, namely the single-party state-directed military and police, as well as all private firearms owners; and (7) the Parent, referring to public educators with capacity to undermine allegiances to family, clan, or nationality.

Classical Marxism focused on taking over the means of production, but Gramsci and Lukács targeted these seven areas to replace traditional Christian cultural institutions with Marxist teachings to further Socialism via the proverbial long-march through the institutions. Many refer to this as “cultural Marxism.”

The Origin of the Rational Choice and Rational Actor Modeling in Game Theory and the Social Sciences

John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern advanced the use of rational actor modeling in their magnum opus work Theory of Games and Economic Behavior in 1944. This text began the sub-discipline of Game Theory by arguing that the Rational Actor Model was the basis for developing a logical plan to achieve goals and objectives for individuals, groups, or nation-states.

Nobel Laureate John Harsanyi advanced both game theory and the use of the rational choice model in his 1969 article “Rational Choice Models of Political Behavior versus Functionalist and Conformist Theories.” Specifically, Harsanyi argued that rational choice models should be used more widely in the social sciences at large rather than being confined to economics and game theory.

Decades later, Herbert Gintis reiterated both the need for a laterally integrated series of micro and macro behavioral theories by advocating for the wider use of Rational Actor-Belief, Preference, Constraint (RABPC) modeling in the social sciences in his 2006 article titled “Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences,” as well as his 2009 book The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences. Gintis highlighted that even after decades of use in the discipline of economics, the RABPC format is still not widely used in the social sciences and that they are much “poorer without it”.

Rational Actor Belief Preference Constraint Models (RABPC)

The reason that the RABPC model is so necessary for strategic planning is that it is one’s “beliefs” that define their goals and objectives, which therefore guides their “preferences”, while their resources—or lack thereof—define their “constraints.” By the sum of people’s beliefs, preferences, and constraints, an actor will select a logical means of achieving his goals and objectives, which can be direct or indirect (overt or covert), or symmetrical or asymmetrical courses of action. For example, in the legal use-of-force model of tactical training, one assesses a threat in terms of his “opportunity, intent, and capability” which is conceptually similar to a RABPC model.

In this comparison, one assesses the threat and risk level of an adversary to then select a proportional response relative to one’s abilities, which is typically expressed in the “opportunity, intent, and capability” protocol in a reactive self-defense situation. However, for a proactive course of action process, such as the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP), this format is best expressed in terms of an RABPC model.

To Von Neumann, Harsanyi and Gintis, Rational Actor modeling is essential to understanding the decisions of two or more adversaries in “strategic interaction” (Gintis, 2009). This form of modeling is employed here to explain the strategic plan of the post-Gramsci (Prison Notebooks, 1930s) and post-Marcuse “New Left” who believe in the efficacy of Socialism and continually develop ways to incrementally “transform America” in terms of the original Left-leaning French philosophers. For instance, the goal of Fabian Socialism has always been to bring about Socialism by incrementally expanding executive branch bureaucracies and social services over time while steadily increasing taxes to further “equality” at the expense of all other variables.

In contrast, Harsanyi in his 1969 article advocated for the wider use of Rational Actor Models in the context of Pareto-style models to reflect trade-offs and opportunity costs so variables become minimized when another variable becomes maximized, which politicians purposely ignore but theorists must accurately depict.

Fabian Socialists

The Fabian Socialists believed that “democratic” processes were the correct path to achieve incremental socialism, as opposed to Marx who believed the only way towards complete socialism and non-market Communism was through violent class revolution to avoid being stuck in market capitalist socialism in perpetuity. With the failure of non-market Communism in the 1990s, the New Left and neo-Liberals doubled down on their incrementalist approach to achieving Socialism via democratic processes.

The Left has always focused on the political organization of the masses in direct contrast to the Christian conservative Right which focused on religious and economic organization reflecting the difference of eternal and temporal beliefs that lead to the idea of the separation of church and state. The problem that the Left faced in the United States and much of Europe is that the labor unions never fully accepted “the atheistic Leftism” of the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage, which Professor Danusha Goska discussed in detail in her 2014 article titled “The Top Ten Reasons I Am No Longer Leftist.”.

In the article, she explains how the white working class in the US never abandoned its Christian ideological roots, as opposed to post-Rousseau Leftism which is based on removing property rights, marital rites, and religion from society. To Rousseau, the evolution of property rights led to the subjugation of men over other men leading to class inequalities, and the evolution of marital rites led to the subjugation of women, forming the basis of gender inequality.

Since “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” are in the Ten Commandments of the Christian Bible (as if reflects generally in the Abrahamic religions), Rousseau attributed income and gender inequalities to religion and proposed that a “transformation” to atheism without property rights or marital rites was the cure. Rousseau and the Leftist movement have always believed that this “transformation” would lead to a utopian egalitarian society; that the distinctions between men and women are learned rather than innate; and that social norms are reinforced by religion.

The problem from the standpoint of evolutionary theory (e.g. Steven Pinker, 2002) is that all Leftist thought is based on the false premises of the domain-general infinitely malleable hypotheses, as: (1) Leftism ignores the difference between male and female forms of competition for resources and mates as explained in Lionel Tiger’s landmark work Men in Groups (1968); (2) Leftism ignores the family unit as an evolutionarily stable strategy in terms of John Maynard Smith’s 1978 book The Evolution of Sex, and his 1982 book Evolution and the Theory of Games; and (3) Leftist thought ignores Donald Symons’ differences in male and female forms of jealousy associated with their strategies to attract resources and mates for self-survival and survival of the species as expressed in his landmark work Evolution of Human Sexuality (1979).

While union workers may not be well-read on the academic origins of Leftism in evolutionary psychology in the context of differences between the hardwired domain-specific premise (two genders) and the infinitely malleable domain-general premise (infinity genders), or on the use of Rational Actor modeling in classical and evolutionary game theory, they were nevertheless satisfied with the advances in capitalist living standards and the efficacy of collective bargaining in a capitalist system.

In a first-world country, collective bargaining processes generally produced a satisfactory Nash equilibrium outcome in a society in which economic growth was keeping pace with population growth. The blue-collar union workers rejected the 1960s radical Leftist positions of the Vietnam War Era activists that came to define the Democratic Party in the United States, as indicated by their voting trends towards Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and now Trump. As Professor Goska explained in her aforementioned article, the more this trend of blue-collar workers voting Republican persisted, the more the Left switched its strategy from wooing the blue-collar workers to “importing a proletariat” that would vote for the expansion of the welfare state.

All one has to do is to look at Harvard Professor Robert Reich’s 1984 book New Deals which advocated for an industrial policy in the United States during the mid-1980s and contrast it to his more recent advocacy for open borders and denouncement of Trump’s reindustrialization policies. In other words, Reich’s outlook changed in accordance with the Left’s strategy to take power rather than remaining pro-Union on principle.

Mass migration became the means of the Left to incrementally move towards a bureaucratically controlled Socialist state that has nothing to do with building a tighter wage-labor scenario to boost blue-collar salaries and a middle class. This scenario necessitates high economic growth and stable population growth proportions that would dictate a closed border policy rather than an open border policy. Thus, Professor Goska’s premise is correct: The Left is importing a proletariat to vote in socialism so they can rule over the huddled masses as their ‘beneficent’ masters.

Rational Choice Modeling and the “7 P Plan”

Since the objective of the Left is to achieve an egalitarian Socialist utopia by transforming a Christian Capitalist country that is based on devotion to the nuclear family as the micro-level foundation of the meso- and macro-level hierarchies of community and nation, the counter strategy is simply to transform it into an atheistic society with no property rights or marital rites with the hope that all peoples can be indoctrinated into a unified global citizenry. Once one understands the fundamental goals of Leftism, he is prepared to understand how and why Leftism rebrands itself after each failed Marxist experiment in the hope that “socialism will work next time.”

Originally, Marxism was based on controlling the means of production so the bureaucracies could dole out resources equally. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Leftist thought began to shift in terms of how to take over all cultural institutions and raise secular atheist Marxists devoid of any religious vestiges, e.g. “the new Soviet man.” In the history of Leftist political philosophy and psychology, the contemporary Left is following the “Beliefs, Preferences, and Constraints” strategy of seizing the 7 Ps adapted from the Gramsci-Lucac-Marcuse-Horkheimer-Alinsky thought lineage. The 7 Ps refer to the seven major pillars of society that need to be taken over to realize a Socialist state (Daniel Pipes discussed this topic in terms of a “5 P Plan” in his Middle East Forum circa 2015).

The First “P”—the Professors

The First “P” refers to the “Professors,” or educators at every level, who are targeted to initiate a mass indoctrination of society towards Cultural Marxism; the elimination of organized religion; and a skepticism of classical Greek thoughts on governments, which says that all Government Forms trend towards the perverted Forms of Oligarchy and Tyranny, as opposed to the Proper Forms of idealistic Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Constitutional Democracy.

Marxist belief implies that (a) Marxist Communism or Socialism was the end state of man, and (b) that it would be indefinitely sustainable. The reality is that bureaucrats act nothing like what Marx and Engels predicted, and Communism is merely a permutation of the Tyrannical and Despotic forms of government already explained by Aristotle. In the sense of the Ancient Greek Government Forms theorists, Marxism was in no way the “new form” of government about which Marx and his followers fantasized. Leo Strauss was correct to assert that Bolshevik Marxism was merely a new form of Eastern steppe despotism.

In an aim to remove any skepticism of the efficacy of Marxism, pos-Bolshevik Leftism has steadily removed both comparative analysis of government forms and comparative ideological systems analysis in the University system. In other words, the Left “jettisoned” the scientific project in the social sciences, as explained in Tooby and Cosmides’ “The Psychological Foundations of Culture” as featured in Barkow, Tooby and Cosmides; The Adapted Mind (1992). The purpose of propaganda is not only to purport a biased point of view but to also prevent people from acquiring conflicting information and making up their own minds.

Second “P”—the Priests

The Second “P” is the “Priests”. This refers to the taking over theological schools and replacing their curriculums with the cultural Marxism of Gramsci and Lukács, and subsequently the work of the Frankfurt School and the “deconstructionism” of Derrida and Foucault. The core idea is to replace the self-responsibility of Judeo-Christianity with the hollowness of “do-goodism“ patterned after the passiveness of the beatitudes of Mark Chapter 4 in the Christian Bible.

The purpose of taking over the priesthood in this sense is to make the masses passive to the imposition of Marxism on society, making it “un-Christian” to berate socialistic projects. In terms of Erich Fromm’s magnum opus The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1972), the sadists want to turn society into a sea of passive masochists who accept individual suffering in the name of collective ‘welfare’.

The Third “P”—the Press

The Third “P” refers to the “Press”, namely schools of journalism and communications and media entities. Again the idea is to dominate the information space and eliminate alternative sources of “truth” to shape belief and relegate people to the limited choices to “make socialism work this time” and obey the bureaucrats for “the greater good”.

The problem with obeying the bureaucrats is that once a state is bureaucratically controlled, it becomes easy to: (a) “Make everything easier for the people behind the counter instead of in front of the counter” (Bhagwati, “In Defense of Globalism” 2002); and (b) spot the up-and-comers and get rid of them before their merits make a mockery of the of the elites, resulting in a plummeting of economic production for a government which “pretends to pay people and the people pretend to work”. In terms of Fromm’s Productive-versus-Sadomasochistic character orientation dichotomy, society at large becomes masochistically passive-aggressive en masse. Significantly, Fromm’s character orientation dichotomy correlates directly to The Proper and Perverted Forms of government expressed in Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government.

Three things are of note here: First, socialism always ends up being tyrannical; second, there is a direct correlation between Fromm’s character orientation dichotomy and Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government, with the two frameworks leading to a coordinated micro-macro behavioral model; and third, when correlated to the per capita gross national product ratio and the Four Category Geopolitical Model, all of Tooby and Cosmides’ objectives to coordinate the social sciences can be achieved.

Why No Autopsies on Failed Marxist Experiments?

Every time Socialism was tried, the consequences were catastrophically bad: mass famines, concentration camps, and massive loss of human life, as discussed in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1973 book The Gulag Archipelago. Although the aversion to performing autopsies on the failed Marxist experiments was not discussed by Tooby and Cosmides in “Psychological Foundations of Culture,” they did explain how the “1960s liberals took over the department chairs” and immediately “abandoned the scientific project“ in the social sciences.

The scientific method entails three major phases: (1) a priori hypotheses and the formulation of a research design, (2) testing and careful observation, and (3) ex-post analysis and theoretical reformulation.

The ideological experiments of the Twentieth Century were the biggest live scientific experiment in history that essentially pitted the Montesquieu-Hume-Smith-Kant thought lineage against the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage. The end result was that the Bolshevik bureaucrats used the Communist system to punish age-old ethnic and religious rivals more than promote equality and steadily got rid of the up-and-comers by sending them to the Gulags, all while people had to wait in long lines to get food rations. In the end, the economy did not produce enough goods to actually pay people and raise living standards, so the system collapsed in on itself.

In this brief explanation, one can see that performing autopsies on failed non-market Communist and market Socialist experiments at a macro level is rather simple (the more complicated microanalysis of technological innovation and economic development aspects of this topic are discussed in other papers). Had the University system followed the scientific procedures, the university system would have compared the key free-market theories of human nature against the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage and discarded the latter on both the abstract philosophical level (pertaining to ultimate cause) and the empirical social scientific level (pertaining to proximate cause). But did the Left advance the scientific method or did they choose to change electoral power strategies?

As Allan Bloom wrote in The Closing of the American Mind (1988), the Left moved into the soft philosophical and social sciences with “no objective measures and standards” to reduce what little objective measures and standards were developing in favor of subjectivity and theoretical interpretations. Bloom’s book in 1988 was consistent with Tooby and Cosmides’ 1992 article, which explained how the Liberals in the philosophical and social sciences abandoned the scientific method altogether—alongside objectivity—and discarded Cartesian methods used to test and measure competing hypotheses.

The Socialist Utopian Left resisted performing autopsies on the failed Marxist experiments to avoid subjecting the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage to rigorous examination because they do not want people to understand why bureaucracies routinely produce increasingly psychopathic power-hungry leaders. This produced a sociopathic group of followers beneath them consistent with Fromm’s Productive-versus-Sadomasochistic character orientation framework, where Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government and Fromm’s character orientation frameworks covary.

Moreover, the routine failure of centrally planned systems affirms the metaphysics that man is not the supreme power. With the erosion of scientific methods, the Western University system no longer has a testable method of course-correcting to arrive at accurate theories of human nature.

As this paper has indicated, Tooby and Cosmides’ Integrated Causal Model of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology merge directly with Fromm’s character orientation dichotomy, Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government, and the per capita gross national product ratio depicting economic rates of change and population growth rates and the Four Geopolitical Form Categories. Ergo, the methodology needed to reorient the University system is actually not difficult to construct if the goal of the system was to produce objectively testable theories and models.

However, the Left is seeking power, not trying to create accurate theories and models of human behavior. Their goal is to import a new proletariat to turn “red states” into “blue states.” Using the Baconian scientific method to elucidate the nomos-physis distinction of discerning the “ideals of man” in contrast to “the laws of human nature” is not their goal.

The Fourth “P”—the Prosecutors

The Fourth “P” is the “Prosecutors”. This refers to the push for all law school professors, government attorneys, judges, and justices. Returning to the ideals of Rousseau in his “Essay on Inequality” mentioned earlier, he attributed property rights as the means by which men subjugate other men and marital rites as the means by which men subjugate women, creating class and gender inequalities.

Since “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not commit adultery” are in the Ten Commandments. according to Rousseau, it is the Abrahamic religions that promote inequality and should therefore be replaced with an atheistic state with no property rights or marital rites.

From a Rousseauian perspective, the goal of law school professors and government attorneys, judges, and justices is to ameliorate all property rights, and martial rites, and demonize all religions equally over time to achieve the utopia of Rousseau and Marx. In reality, they wish to ameliorate the Judeo-Christian morality that is closely associated with First World cultures in order to turn them into Marxist utopias.

Currently, the Soros-affiliated city attorneys in San Francisco, Philadelphia, and New York are moving to release offenders without bail, and not charging protestors, looters, or shoplifters, making the big cities in the US unlivable for many. Stores continuously go out of business and many people are moving out as foreign migrants are routinely flown and bussed in, contributing to overcrowding and degrading access to, and quality of, public services.

The Fifth “P”—The Politicians

The Fifth “P” is the “Politicians”. This is most pertinent to the current mass immigration and the border issues, about which Leftists continually gaslight citizens that there is no mass migration at the US-Mexican border. Danusha Goska’s explanation is that the Left is importing a Proletariat to turn the Red States into Blue States, and thereby achieve the single-party socialist state to ensure their power in perpetuity, regardless of the consequences. As Victor Davis Hanson has explained in several interviews, the Left has already used mass immigration to turn California from a Red State into a dark Blue State in just three decades—so, it is a strategy with a proven track record of success.

It is that success they wish to replicate across all 50 states to achieve their Socialist utopia. They merely need to turn Texas and Florida into Blue States to achieve this “Fifth P”, since they already have the first Four accomplished.

The Sixth “P”—the Police

The Sixth “P” is the “Police,” or all gun carriers including law enforcement, military, private security, citizen watch groups, and private gun owners. Since the Left does not believe in private property, the God-given “natural right” of self-defense—or even that there is a God— it does not accept the separation of church and state, where there is no valid Church, but only the State.

Instead of religion, the Left begets compliance by importing the masochistic ideology that: (a) people do not need to defend themselves, because (b) the government will protect them and provide for them; and (c) they should be totally passive with no instincts for self-preservation, or that of their family, their clan, or ethnicity.

In other words, since the Left follows the infinitely malleable premise of human behavior, it does not understand how the two primary human evolutionary drives in the pursuit of resources and mates translate into the pursuit of “economic gain” (Downs, 1957) and “social status” (Veblen, 1899); nor that these are hardwired innate drives that work best in free market capitalist systems based on “perfect competition.” In contrast, both Plutocracies and Socialism are based on the concentration and centralization of wealth and power, consistent with Aristotle’s Perverted forms of Tyranny and Oligarchy, as opposed to an idealistic “utopia.” While the Seven P Plan may be a rational choice to attain a Socialist State and a global ‘utopia’ in terms of post-Rousseau and Marxist Leftism, the reality is that it will lead to another Socialist catastrophe no matter how many times the Left rebrands Marxism.

The coming problem is that Marx believed that Communist revolution can only be achieved through violent uprising; so it is predicated on dominance instincts for survival, rather than on forms of cooperative, constructive competition for resources and mates. In sum, the world is witnessing Spengler’s “decline of the West.”

The Seventh “P”—the Parents

The Seventh “P” is the Parents. The primary goal of Rousseau was to get rid of property rights, marital rites, and religion to foster a society where “spouses and children are held in common,” and cared for and raised in state-run education systems. The objective is to shift the natural loyalties of children away from their parents to the state. The goal of Leftism is to achieve a one-world government by getting rid of the nuclear family en route to ending all clan, ethnic, and national identity hierarchies, the accomplishment of which they believe will allow the masses to “imprint” to the state as if people were Konrad Lorenz’s geese which follow the first moving object they see (Journal für Ornithologie, 1935). Ideally, citizens would identify the state itself as the ultimate mother and father of the people.

It is the obliteration of the nuclear family based on male and female complementary traits that are behind the current diversity, equity, and inclusion trend prevalent in schools. The Left wants to replace property rights, marital rites, religion, and the concept of the family unit, with open marriage and atheism aimed to destroy all intimate relationships that come between an individual and his devotion to the state.

This is inapposite to Luther’s idea of the necessity of faith in God based on a direct personal relationship and with any conception of Jesus or a personal savior that is not the state. Marxism, and Tyrants in general, always demand a direct allegiance to state power and never want to compete with any higher power that could challenge their dominion over their subjects.

The “Transformation of America”

In closing, the Left has essentially accomplished four of the Seven Ps, and all they have to do is to flood a few Red States and turn them Blue to seize the last 3 Ps by bureaucratic force. Hence, the push for LGBT inclusion in the military in conjunction with the astounding stand-down orders for law enforcement during the Antifa BLM George Floyd riots. Furthermore, sophisticated forms of mass operant conditioning are being put into practice to render people passive to both mass immigration policies and to Leftist mobs, which turn the current Republic, a “Constitutional Democracy” (the Proper Form), into a mob-rule Democracy (the Perverted Form).

The current situation is drawing the Left ever closer to a cascade event: All it takes is to turn enough Red States into Blue States to control the US presidency; allow for the nomination of Soros-affiliated attorneys to the Supreme Court; facilitate the gutting of the military; and continue driving of the US towards insolvency and higher taxes to usher in Socialism. That is why the border patrol has been turned into a regiment of social workers who facilitate illegal immigration as opposed to proper law enforcement agents who secure the border. The left wants the last Ps of the Politicians, the Police, and the Parents to achieve their current iteration of the French Revolution—and they believe they are close to achieving it with this strategy.

The Left has been pursuing the Cloward-Piven Plan as expressed in “The Weight of the Poor” (The Nation, 1968), which argues that the path to Socialism was to establish more state and federal welfare bureaucracies and to expand the welfare rolls in order to push the United States toward bankruptcy and compel a radical increase in taxes to achieve to Utopian Socialist state. The Cloward-Piven Plan has occurred concurrently with the 7 P Plan and the US is now at $34 trillion in debt with higher levels of inflation coming in the near future.

The Left thinks they are on the verge of victory in regards to transforming America, meanwhile, the neoconservatives who now vote Democrat are actively pursuing an Operation Cyclone-style regime change-destabilization policy in all of Eurasia. In one sense, the Neocon goal is to keep the United States as the sole superpower, but in another sense, it is to advance the EU and NATO Eastward to block all of Russia’s ports and petroleum pipelines. The purpose of the Eastward expansion is two-fold: It is an attempt to break apart Russia so the US can maintain geostrategic dominance, but also to stop the Orthodox revival that has been occurring since the fall of the Soviet Union. In other words, the Left is trying to end Christianity in North America and usher in the Socialist state, while also conjuring a war between the Catholic Ukrainians and Orthodox Russian-speaking Ukrainians, all with the end goal of thwarting the Orthodox revival inside Russia itself and securing US hegemony in Europe and Eurasia.

While these global aspects are covered more in-depth in the articles series “Energy and Geopolitical Realignment” also published by G3Insights, the focus here on the “Seven P Plan” is intended to guide readers through the 2024 election cycle in the US. The goal of the ruling coalition of neoconservatives, neoliberals, and the Left in the United States is to “transform America,” as well as Europe and the Russian Federation, in one fell swoop this year; but it is also a perfect storm of schizophrenic domestic and foreign policies that is highly unlikely to leave the US a global power for much longer.

Read the document:

George McMillan Seven P Pla… by Jamie White