Reviving the Spirit of Existential Rebellion in a World of Propaganda, Lies, and Self Deception

“Search for nothing anymore, nothing
except truth.
Be very still and try to get at the truth.

And the first question to ask yourself is:
How great a liar am I?
– D. H. Lawrence, Search For Truth
Like existential freedom, honesty and truth-seeking demand a perpetually renewed commitment. No one ever fully arrives, and all of us are blown off course on the journey.  Even when we think we have reached our destination, we are often startled by the enigma of arrival, and must set sail again.  We are all in the same boat. The search for truth is a process, an experiment, an essay – a trying without end.

Yet surely it is not an exaggeration to say that most people are liars and self-deceivers.  Honesty, while touted as a virtue, is practiced far less than it is praised.  There is almost nothing that people are less honest about than their attitudes toward honesty.  Few think of themselves as dishonest, and even to hint that someone is so is received as a great insult that usually elicits an angry response.  So most people follow the advice of the character Jean-Baptiste Clamence from Albert Camus’ The Fall: “promise to tell the truth and then lie as best you can.”  In that way you satisfy your own and others’ secret desires for deception and play-acting, and other people will love you for it.

However, it is widely accepted that political leaders and the mass media lie and dissemble regularly, which, of course, they do. That is their job in an oligarchy.  Today we are subjected to almost total, unrelenting media and government propaganda. Depending on their political leanings, people direct their anger toward politicians of parties they oppose and media they believe slant their coverage to favor the opposition.  Trump is a liar.  No, Obama is a liar.  And Hillary Clinton.  No, Fox News. Ridiculous! – it’s CNN or NBC.  And so on and so forth in this theatre of the absurd that plays out within a megaplex of mainstream media (MSM) propaganda, where there are many shows but one producer, whose overall aim is to engineer the consent of all who enter while setting the different audiences against each other.  It is a very successful charade that evokes name-calling from all quarters.

In other words, for many people their opponents lie, as do other people, but not them. This is as true in personal as well as public life.  Here the personal and the political converge, despite protestations to the contrary.

Sartre and Bad Faith

Lying and dissembling are ubiquitous.  Being lied to by the MSM is mirrored in people’s personal lives.  People lie and want to be deceived.  They choose to play dumb, to avoid a confrontation with truth.  They want to be nice (Latin, nescire, not to know, to be ignorant) and to be liked.  They want to tuck themselves into a safe social and cultural framework where they imagine they will be safe.  They choose to live in what Jean Paul Sartre called bad faith (mauvaise foi):  He put it as follows:

In bad faith it is from myself that I am hiding the truth. But with this “lie” to myself, the one to whom the lie is told and the one who lies are one and the same person, which means  that I must know in my capacity as deceiver the truth which is hidden from me in my capacity as the one deceived.

Such bad faith allows people to fabricate a second act of bad faith:  that they are not responsible for their ignorance of the truths behind the government’s and corporate media’s lies and propaganda, even as the shades of the prison house ominously close around us and the world edges toward global death that could arrive in an instant with nuclear war or limp along for years of increasing suffering.

Those of us who write about the U.S. led demented wars and provocations around the world and the complementary death of democracy at home are constantly flabbergasted and discouraged by the willed ignorance of so many Americans.  For while the mainstream media does the bidding of the power elite, there is ample alternative news and analyses available on the internet from fine journalists and writers committed to truth, not propaganda. There is actually far too much truth available, which poses another problem. But it doesn’t take a genius to learn how to research important issues and to learn how to distinguish between bogus and genuine information.  It takes a bit of effort, and, more importantly, the desire to compare multiple, opposing viewpoints and untangle the webs the Web weaves.  We are awash in information (and disinformation) and both good and bad reporting, but it is still available to the caring inquirer.

The problem is the will to know.  But why, why the refusal to investigate and question; why the indifference?  Stupidity?  Okay, there is that.  Ignorance?  That too.  Willful ignorance, ditto.  Laziness, indeed. Careerism and ideology?  For certain.  Upton Sinclair put it mildly when he said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not understanding it.”  Difficult?  No, it’s almost impossible.

But then there are many very intelligent people who have nothing to lose and yet adamantly refuse to entertain alternative possibilities to the reigning orthodoxies that have them in their grip.

As do many others, I know many such people who will yes me to death and then never fully research issues.  They will remain in limbo or else wink to themselves that what may be true couldn’t be true.  They close down.  This is a great dilemma and frustration faced by those who seek to convince people to take an active part in understanding what is really going on in the world today, especially as the United States wages war across the globe, threatens Russia and China, among others, as it expands and modernizes its nuclear weapons capabilities.
Jacques Ellul on Propaganda

The French sociologist, Jacques Ellul, has argued  convincingly that modern propaganda in a technological mass society is more complicated than the state and media lying and deceiving  the population.  He argues that propaganda meets certain needs of modern people and therefore the process of deceit is reciprocal.  The modern person feels lost, powerless, and empty. Ellul says, “He realizes that he depends on decisions over which he has no control, and that realization drives him to despair.”  But he can’t live in despair; desires that life be meaningful; and wants to feel he lives in a world that makes sense.  He wants to participate and have opinions that suggest he grasps the flow of events.  He doesn’t so much want information, but value judgments and preconceived positions that provide him with a framework for living.  Ellul wrote the following in 1965 in his classic book Propaganda:

The majority prefers expressing stupidities to not expressing any opinion: this gives them the feeling of participation.  For they need simple thoughts, elementary explanations, a ‘key’ that will permit them to take a position, and even readymade opinions….The man who keeps himself informed needs a framework….the more complicated the problems are, the more simple the explanations must be; the more fragmented the canvas, the simpler the pattern; the more difficult the question, the more all-embracing the solution; the more menacing the reduction of his own worth, the greater the need for boosting his ego.  All this propaganda – and only propaganda – can give him.

Another way of saying this is that people want to be provided with myths to direct them to the “truth.”  But such so-called truth has been preconceived within the overarching myth provided by propaganda, and while it satisfies people’s emotional need for coherence, it also allows them to think of themselves as free individuals arriving at their own conclusions, which is a basic function of good propaganda.  In today’s mass technological society, it is essential that people be convinced that they are free-thinking individuals acting in good faith.  Then they can feel good about themselves as they lie and act in bad faith.

The Spirit of Existential Rebellion 

In the wake of World War II and the complete shattering of any illusion about the human capacity for evil, there arose in Western Europe, particularly in France and Germany a “philosophy” called existentialism. More an attitude towards life rather than a formal philosophy, and with its roots going back at least as far as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in the 19th century, existentialism emphasized individual freedom, authenticity, personal responsibility, and the need to confront the unimaginable horrors of World War II and the absurd situation in which human beings had created nuclear weapons that could obliterate the planet in a flash, as the United States had used to incinerate Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  How to respond to the birth of global state nuclear terrorism became a task for the existential imagination.

The traditional belief that an all-powerful God could bring the world to an end had now been replaced by the idolatry of nuclear madmen who had hubristically violated the limits that the Greeks had long ago warned us not to exceed by making themselves into gods. Having unleashed the Furies, these false gods have created a world in which the droning sound of nuclear intercontinental missiles haunts the secret nightmares of the world. We have been living with this unspeakable and unspoken truth for more than seventy years.

Opposition to the nuclear standoff and its accompanying proxy wars has waxed and waned over the years. Dissident minorities and sometimes many millions across the globe have mobilized to oppose not only nuclear weapons but the war makers who have waged continuous wars of aggression throughout the world and have created the national-security warfare state, seemingly intent on world destruction.

However, today the sound of silence fills the empty streets, as passivity has overtaken those who oppose the growing nuclear threat and the ongoing U.S.- led wars throughout the world. The spirit of resistance has gone to sleep. The German writer Karl Kraus understood this in the days of Hitler’s rise during the 1930s when he said, “The real end of the world is the destruction of the spirit; the other kind depends on the insignificant attempt to see whether after such destruction the world can go on.”

We need to somehow resurrect the spirit of resistance that will bring together millions of people across the world who oppose the death dealers. I think it is time to recall the power and possibility implicit in the spirit of existential thought.

The existential emphasis on individual responsibility and authentic truth telling in the works of various writers, including Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Gabriel Marcel, and Albert Camus (who didn’t consider himself and existentialist but whose work emphasized many of the same themes), inspired large numbers of people in the late’ 50s into the mid-to-late’60s, including the international anti-nuclear movement and young American anti-war activists. Contrary to popular understanding, existentialism is  not about navel gazing and hopelessness, but is about responding freely and authentically to the situations people find themselves in, which today, is the end- time that is a time when the fate of the world lies in the hands of nuclear madmen.

But by the end of the 1960s this existential spirit of rebellion started to dissipate. Academic gibberish replaced this rebellious spirit with the introduction of ideas, such as post structuralism, leading eventually to postmodernist nonsense that not only refuted the need for personal responsibility, but eliminated the person altogether. By 1999 a leading exponent of postmodern rhetoric, Jean Baudrillard, was dismissing everything the existentialists emphasized. He said, “No one needs this kind of ‘existential garb’ any more. Who cares about freedom, bad faith, and authenticity today?”

If such words were just the ranting of an intellectual lost in a fantasy world of abstractions, that would be one thing. But they are a form of propaganda echoed throughout western societies, particularly the United States, through the repeated emphases over the decades that people are not free but are the products of biological brain processes, etc. Deterministic memes have become dominant in cultural mind control. Such postmodern abstractions have denied everything that makes possible the fight against nuclear annihilation and the warfare states’ domination of western Europe and NATO, led by the United States.

The self is an illusion. Freedom is an illusion. Responsibility is an illusion. Guilt is an illusion. Everything is an illusion. A kaleidoscopic mad world in which no on exists and nothing really matters. This deterministic and nihilistic message has become the main current in western cultural propaganda since the late 1960s and has reached a crescendo in the present day. It is responsible for the growth of passivity and denial that dominates contemporary public consciousness. It underlies the refusal of so many otherwise intelligent people to engage themselves in the search for truth that would lead to their joining forces with others to create a mass anti-war movement.

While many people think of existentialism as only an atheistic approach to existence, this is incorrect. There are atheist and agnostic existentialists, yes, , but existentialism’s core emphases  have deep roots in the various religious traditions, such as Judaism and Christianity, etc. That is because freedom, authenticity, truth telling, and social responsibility, while often buried within the institutional structures of these faiths, lie at their core. So if we are going to resurrect the spirit of rebellion necessary to transform today’s world, we need to renew the virtues that the existentialists emphasize.

The first step in this process is to ask with D.H.Lawrence the question, “How great a liar am I?”

Anti-war activist and author of the indispensable book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, James Douglass, made an intriguing suggestion in another book, Lightening East and West, when he said:

The exact opposite of the H bomb’s destructive purpose, but psychic equivalent of its energy, is the Kingdom of Reality which would be the final victory of Truth in history –a force of truth and love powerful enough to fuse billions of individual psyches into a global realization of essential oneness. There is no reason why the same psyche which, when turned outward, was able to create the condition for a self-acting force of over 100 million degrees of heat, thus realizing an inconceivable thermonuclear fusion, cannot someday turn sufficiently inward to create the condition for an equally inconceivable (but nature balancing) fusion in its own psychic or spiritual reality. An end-time can also be a beginning. Gandhi said: ‘When the practice of the law becomes universal, God will reign on the earth as God does in heaven. Earth and heaven are in us. We know the earth, and we are strangers to the heaven within us.’

While Gandhi’s words are couched in religious language, their meaning can resonate with secular-minded people as well. These words speak to the power implicit in the human spirit as a whole. That power begins and builds when people of all persuasions are convinced that they must freely pursue the truth at all costs. As the poet Theodore Roethke wrote, “In a dark time, the eye begins to see.”

In these very dark times – these end- times created by nuclear weapons – seeing the truth is dependent on the will to truth, and the will to truth only arises when people believe they are free to alter the circumstances in which they find themselves. This belief in freedom is at the core of all existential thought and is why we need to resurrect it today.








16 thoughts on “Reviving the Spirit of Existential Rebellion in a World of Propaganda, Lies, and Self Deception”

  1. Ed,

    Since we both admire and draw a lot from Camus, I’d like to convey a few of my thoughts about Camus as they stand now after having read him since 1966.

    The first thought I want to convey is that Camus’ work appears to me to be highly incomplete. This comes from the simple fact that – like countless others who could be mentioned – Camus died too soon. I’ve often wondered what Camus’ thought would look like now if he had lived 20 years longer. My suspicion is: we would all be very surprised at the difference this 20 years (or even 5 to 10 years) would have made.

    I feel very strongly that Camus would have moved beyond much he is now known and valued for. Already during his lifetime, Camus distanced himself from “the absurd.” And – as you’ve pointed out – Camus openly said that he did not consider himself an existentialist. The views Camus held on politics and freedom – basically what Camus is now known for because they function (after a period of Camus’ writings being “out”) as the mirror into which “progressives” now prefer to look – these ideas are basically already present in the editorials Camus wrote for “Combat” during the 1940’s.

    On the other hand, the address Camus delivered at the University of Uppsala in 1957 titled “Create Dangerously” might as well have dropped off the face of the earth. It is both deeply flawed and incomplete in aesthetic / philosophical terms and contains, at the same time, many of Camus’ finest insights. However, the main “problem” with the best insights contained in “Create Dangerously” is that they cannot be instrumentalized as catch-phrases for such things as mass progressive movements for political and social change. Why? Because Camus’ best insights in “Create Dangerously” contain too much TRUTH. Here is a prime example of what I mean:

    “The artist takes from history what he can see of it himself or undergo himself, directly or indirectly—the immediate event, in other words, and men who are alive today, not the relationship of that immediate event to a future that is invisible to the living artist. Judging contemporary man in the name of a man who does not yet exist is the function of prophecy. But the artist can value the myths that are offered him only in relation to their repercussion on living people. The prophet, whether religious or political, can judge absolutely and, as is known, is not chary of doing so. But the artist cannot. If he judged absolutely, he would arbitrarily divide reality into good and evil and thus indulge in melodrama. The aim of art, on the contrary, is not to legislate or to reign supreme, but rather to understand first of all. Sometimes it does reign supreme, as a result of understanding. But no work of genius has ever been based on hatred and contempt. This is why the artist, at the end of his slow advance, absolves instead of condemning. Instead of being a judge, he is a justifier. He is the perpetual advocate of the living creature, because it is alive. He truly argues for love of one’s neighbor and not for that love of the remote stranger which debases contemporary humanism until it becomes the catechism of the law court. Instead, the great work eventually confounds all judges. With it the artist simultaneously pays homage to the loftiest figure of mankind and bows down before the worst of criminals. ‘There is not,’ Wilde wrote in prison, ‘a single wretched man in this wretched place along with me who does not stand in symbolic relation to the very secret of life.’ Yes, and that secret of life coincides with the secret of art.”

    The understanding Camus speaks about is not possible without thought, a.k.a. contemplation.

    … at any rate, any understanding of paying homage to the loftiest figure of mankind while simultaneously bowing down to the worst of criminals is strictly forbidden within the present condition of non-stop melodrama defining quote-unquote “progressive thinking.” So – WHO is censoring WHAT? (not to mention: WHO is making propaganda?)

    I picked a book from my shelf yesterday by a German immigrant painter / teacher to America which I don’t usually like to read for reasons I won’t go into here. But in an essay concerning the prospects for art in America, I came across the following lines:

    “Spinoza says, ‘Only contemplated experience becomes real experience,’ which is the reverse of ‘Let’s go places and do things.’ The materialist flees through an insecure world of shifting illusions, finding no permanent reality.”

    Hans Hofmann published the above lines from “Painting and Culture” in 1931. Since then, nothing has changed. “Barbarism is never temporary.” (Albert Camus: “Create Dangerously”)

  2. PS – At the end of your essay, you give the following quote from James Douglass (someone I have a deep amount of respect for):

    “The exact opposite of the H bomb’s destructive purpose, but psychic equivalent of its energy, is the Kingdom of Reality which would be the final victory of Truth in history – a force of truth and love powerful enough to fuse billions of individual psyches into a global realization of essential oneness. There is no reason why the same psyche which, when turned outward, was able to create the condition for a self-acting force of over 100 million degrees of heat, thus realizing an inconceivable thermonuclear fusion, cannot someday turn sufficiently inward to create the condition for an equally inconceivable (but nature balancing) fusion in its own psychic or spiritual reality. An end-time can also be a beginning.”

    While the vision Douglass gives us above is not what I’d call “immediately accessible at a quick glance” – it does reveal quite a lot of TRUTH after being contemplated for a time. The Wikipedia article for James Douglass informs us that “Douglass is a noted author on nonviolence and Catholic theology” and that he was a professor of religion at the University of Hawaii. So, I think it’s safe to assume that Douglass is also quite familiar with the writings of Trappist monk Thomas Merton – specifically what the latter called the “unspeakable”:

    “The unspeakable is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said, the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss. … It is the emptiness of ‘the end.’ Not necessarily the end of the world, but a theological point of no return, a climax of absolute finality in refusal, in equivocation, in disorder, in absurdity, which can be broken open again to truth only by miracle, by the coming of God.”

    (From: “Raids on the Unspeakable”; New Directions, 1966; p. 4.)

    I’m not making propaganda for any orthodox religious viewpoint. I merely want to underscore what two great people have already pointed out: given the profound seriousness of our present situation, we cannot afford to ignore the possibilities a truly AUTHENTIC religious understanding of what goes under the name of “reality” could achieve. Perhaps the last thing this would involve would be to join the nearest church. Perhaps it might involve instead simply trying to find a new relation with one another – a relation finally unblocked by the murderous reason of all that surrounds us.

  3. PPS – Finally: I can’t agree with you that we are threatened by “madmen.” To the contrary, what I see is that we’re faced with a handful of people who belong to a species with the superstitious belief that instrumental reason constitutes the only governing force of the universe. This, of course, is the biggest lie of all. The only course to counter such a colossal falsehood would be the utter “madness” of going in the opposite direction. This would be a direction precisely counter – in terms of pure action – to what the species has hitherto shown itself (after many, many centuries) as being entirely comfortable with. But madness is not what we’re up against; it’s more in the direction of an inverted “sanity” – just like our inverted notion of “freedom.” And the more it gets down to the line – the more it begins to appear that taking a “crazy” direction the species has never ventured to go in – this may turn out to be our only “free choice.”

  4. Hi Ed – Thanks for a thought-provoking article. I’m wondering if the topic could be summarized at the level of the individual human as “integrity” (or “lack of integrity”)? Something I personally have often found to be more a goal than an achievement.

  5. Ed, than you for the dissertation.
    Its welcome, yet I still am not sure where to go with this.
    My first reflex is Haaa! I am not alone!
    This is reconforting.
    Second, I could work on a quote from Jean-Baptiste Poquelin : “Seul le Théâtre est vrai…tout le rest n’est que comédie!”; which with a bit of cynism, and in this context would become: “Only Propaganda is true, the remainder being but a Comedy!”.
    But my lasting feeling, is that many people could read this, especially femisnists, the queens of bias delusional propagande, and exclaim: “Its what we have been saying all along…we have to be more pragmatical, and all work together…”…well you know as well as I do where all of this has lead us.
    But, recently, Iread an interesting little paper by a social philosophist, which you may have no difficulty to understand, but may have difficulty understand the association with your own, text…but it will come, I am sure.
    Here is the reference:
    Author: Clayton Littlejohn
    Title: Small Stakes Give You the Blues: The Skeptical Costs of Pragmatic Encroachment
    This is a safe hyperlink. I have no connetion or interest with Mr Clayton…I just get submissions from time to tme from academics on the Academiaedu database.
    Thank you again,
    It really is a beautiful reflection.

  6. Dude. You were doing fine until you wandered through the looking glass. Academe has no answers. It is not in the best interests of the foot-soldiers of academe to reach conclusions (re: Upton Sinclair’s fine little witticism? Ask Ward Churchill) . Note the comments above, all of which suggest that there are thickets of obfuscation left still unexplored. Cut the crap. If you are an “existentialist”, you work toward the irreducible distillate. Trust me, the materialists who shape your world know how simple it all really is. Steve Jobs had no academic credentials. There is a story that, when presented with a prototype of an i-phone, he dropped it into a fish tank and pointed out the rising bubbles. See, he said? We can do better.

  7. Ed: Thank you for the breath of fresh air this essay was. It was most appreciated. Your exploration of why so few of us make the effort to actually educate ourselves in a truthful way about our collective situation led me back to a quote from De Gaulle that his information minister recounted. I believe I first encountered the quote in the Douglas book actually. De Gaulle knows the CIA and other institutional forces within the U.S. assassinated Kennedy, but he knows the American people will not face this fact. Of the American people he says the following:

    “They don’t want to know. They don’t want to find out. They won’t allow themselves to find out.”

    This quote sadly seems to characterize many otherwise intelligent compassionate people I know as friends, family and acquaintances. “They won’t allow themselves to find out,” seems to be the order of the day for the vast majority of otherwise decent people.

    After reading several excellent works on the subtle nature of CIA operations to manipulate public opinion through media, including Frances Stoner’s excellent, “The Cultural Cold War,” I can’t help but wonder if like ‘abstract expressionism’ in painting – “post-modernism” – didn’t perhaps get a financial and media coverage boost from the CIA. As you point out it is sort of the perfect philosophic perspective to disable and render meaningless any true resistance to the oligarchic order. Why bother to “know” or “find out” if knowing and finding out is essentially meaningless and useless and relative?

    We have truly entered “theatre of the absurd” territory in our daily discourse here in the U.S. Thank you again Ed for your reflections and a “meaningful” essay.

  8. To Gary: Your reasoning is more correct than that proposed in the following article:

    Modern art was CIA ‘weapon’
    Revealed: how the spy agency used unwitting artists such as Pollock and de Kooning in a cultural Cold War
    By Frances Stonor Saunders
    Sunday, 22 October 1995

    For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art – including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko – as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince – except that it acted secretly – the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

  9. Hey Edward,
    Thank for your thoughtful reflection.
    If I may say, I think it would benefit by some social context; for, in a sense, I think you reproduce the inward-gazing, nihilistic themes of the ‘postmodern’ world, though that’s not your intention.
    Permit me to explain.
    I think you’re making an appeal to the spirit of personal integrity, which is certainly important, fundamental; yet that’s only half the picture.
    The other half is found in the streams of social consciousness which either feed or inhibit personal integrity, and the social forces which feed or inhibit those streams – in other words, the political struggle.
    Thus, alongside the literal/ideological contributions of various ‘existentialists,’ you have the Elite political forces which contain and subvert the radical artistic content by weakening and subverting the radical elements within the trade-union movement.
    Or the sixties, a political moment which revealed great desire/potential for radical change, which was crushed by political violence, subterfuge, money, drugs, which then saw the political-music culture evaporate, descending into LOUD rebellion with little rebellious content, (rock, punk, metal).
    To describe the crushing of radical ideas, (the various campaigns by the FBI, CIA, the war-machine, media, corprat control of govt) would take a whole book.
    Suffice to say, people today are foundering in their ‘rebellion’ because there’s so little social support for it – the end-result of decades of descent towards delusion and defeat. In 2010, “Occupy” electrified the nation, but only for a few months, because our capacity to sustain social movements had long since evaporated.
    Many ‘Progressive-minded’ folk are deflated by the right-wing advance of Trump and co., yet few are willing to acknowledge that its our unwillingness to see the hypocrisy, corruption of ‘liberal society’ – and especially the Democratic Party – which was the central cornerstone of Trumps initial appeal.
    The ‘left’ too is a ghost version of itself, largely due to the determination of its leading lights to stay within certain, prescribed avenues of inquiry, rejecting ‘conspiracy theories’ (like JFK) and refusing to acknowledge where the ‘conservative’ critique (of liberal society) has a point, (the federal-reserve) or even recognize common ground, (anti-war, anti-surveillance); and now with Donald Duck as pres., the left simply retreats back into a comfortable denunciation of the easy target, thus fueling the liberal/conservative divide which is the cornerstone to the march towards fascism.
    So yes, your article is very important; for in these disparate times, people MUST move inward to find that rock of personal integrity and courage – without which we have no hope in the coming days. Yet its also essential that we see the social context for our loss of integrity, that we can both peel back the layers of delusion and also build towards a new SOCIAL movement and conversation.

  10. Their will never be a nuclear war as nuclear weapons DON’T WORK period, this is just propaganda, to terrorise the populace into taking over other peoples nations. All world leaders are guilty of these lies and deception. When will there be a leader with the guts to admit the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *