Controlling Debate, Silencing Dissent

Matt Waterman who works in the Dairy industry there, has been taking the Guernsey Government (small though it is) to task for several years now, regarding the (at best) hypocritical and (at worst) illegal activities. In recent weeks, it seems they are trying to use one of his emails as an example of the sort of criticism which should be silenced. This was even referenced on  It seems that in Guernsey, we can see a “microscopic” version of the New World Order agenda (and thinking) being implemented. Matt has written about this and I have pasted his blog entry below. From: mattvocallocal.wordp…





By Matt Waterman, January 2019


“The Guernsey people have no constitution or bill of rights; a decision has been taken to have the principle of “silence being deemed as consent” written into their statute book; they face the prospect of a “you don’t have to be silent but if you do speak up you can only do so in a certain way” society, and they are being encouraged not to oppose the establishment”


I doubt that I am the only person in the world who considers that the society in which he lives is not the democracy it claims to be, but those who do may wish to amend the title of this article to “Sunstein During the Reign” [of democracy]. The aim of the article is to prompt readers to consider whether or not it is wise for them to assess the influence on their society of the policies and methodologies being furthered by and accredited to Cass Sunstein (see note 1) often in collaboration with others such as Richard Thaler (note 2)

These are “paternal libertarianism” (note 3), “choice architecture” (note 4), the use of the nudge theory (note 5) and the development of the concept of  “availability cascades” (note 6)

“Paternal libertarianism” and “choice architecture” involve allowing people freedom of choice but only if they think in a certain way. It is effectively freedom within boundaries, or the “framing” of people. “Nudging” involves causing people to think in a certain way. An “availability cascade” is a “self-reinforcing cycle that explains the development of certain kinds of collective beliefs. It triggers a chain reaction within the social network: individuals adopt the new insight because other people within the network have adopted it, and on its face it seems plausible”.

Sunstein is involved in progressing and promoting all of these but are they  appropriate in a truly democratic society?

By putting these together Sunstein suggests, for example, that Governments allow people to challenge their view or information, but tax them if they do so.

I will present several examples of the above policies from various parts of the world, including Guernsey, in a moment.

Defining and encouraging happiness

It is perhaps worth noting that Sunstein is, amongst other things, an honorary doctor at Copenhagen business school and regularly makes presentations in the country. This should not surprise us if we remember the research of Phillip Jones who died in suspicious circumstances in 2009. In an essay (note 7)  which he wrote in 2008, he says that Denmark has been used as a test model for the EU and the New World Order. This is why, he suggests, that we are often told that Denmark is the happiest place in the world. What we are usually not told however is that “the key to much of this is that is that the Danish concept of happiness is quite different from that of the other English-speaking lands. Danish happiness is tied up entirely in one word; `Tryghed` or safety/security. These elements might be necessary for a happy life, but they do not constitute happiness in themselves. A prisoner sentenced to life might feel `safe and secure`, but how many would claim to be happy?”

In Guernsey Gavin St Pier, the leading politician, is lauded and laughed at in equal measure for having declared that he intends to make Guernsey the happiest place in the world. As in Denmark or anywhere else, this could only work if the individual desires and objectives of all of the people in a society (in Guernsey there are roughly sixty thousand) are identical. Realistically that is not going to happen naturally. For it to happen at all, individuals would need to somehow be programmed or forced to think in the same way, and adopt the same beliefs, desires and objectives as each other. It is hard to see how this could happen without adopting and employing the policies and theories of Sunstein. Mass medication and dumbing down measures probably wouldn’t go amiss.

Discouraging opposition

The Guernsey people increasingly receive the message from the recognised establishment in their island that “we are all in it together; we must all work together as a community”; that they all have a “common purpose” (which interestingly is the name of a charity in the UK and has arms elsewhere in the world and whose members are placed in highly influential positions in society (notes 8 and 9) and whose founder Julia Middleton, authored a book called “Beyond Authority”.)

Most recently in Guernsey the “let’s work together message” appeared in an article on 14th January 2019 in the Guernsey Press by a Deputy (Guernsey’s equivalent of an MP in the UK) called Lindsey de Sausmarez, who, on her first ever day in political office, was a St Pier nomination for a place on the Guernsey Government’s slightly loose equivalent of a cabinet.

Is “let’s all work together” another way of the establishment saying “don’t oppose us, we know what’s best for you”. Before signing up to this idea, shouldn’t the Guernsey people not be asking “to what specific ends do “we need to work together” ?”

Any community which discourages or forbids opposition to its ruling establishment is one which encourages or allows extremism to prevail. Is it not the case that a balanced society requires members of the community to pull in opposite directions in roughly equal measure? A trampoline could not work if the securing cables were all on the same side. A plane could not fly in a straight line (if at all) if one of its wings was more influential than the other. (I had always assumed that this is why, in politics the terms “right wing” and “left wing” are used; if one is stronger than the other, then the Government is not balanced.)

Are we really as vulnerable as ruling establishments would have us believe? In order to justify adopting the sorts of policies of Sunstein they need to convince us that we are, or at least to convince us that everyone else believes that we are.


Now for some potential examples of real life employment of Sunstein’s policies.

Example 1: Anti vax tax

In Australia parents are perfectly free to choose whether to vaccinate their children or not. They even get a tax kickback if you do, but not if you don’t. (note 10)

Example 2: Charitable suggestion

In 2017 the Chairman of the Guernsey Disability Alliance said on radio “if legislation needs to be introduced in order to force people to think that way, then that’s unfortunate, but so be it”

Example 3: Whistle where you work

The States of Guernsey has an Officer for Whistleblowers for Government employees to use. Freedom to leak information, but it must be kept in house?

Example 4: The stampede of the cybersheep

On 31st December 2018 I circulated a particularly venomous email in which all Guernsey politicians and some media were copied, condemning the politicians’ decision to write the principle of silence being taken as consent into the local legislation. The email was not specifically addressed to the politicians or the media.

Nine days later this was leaked onto twitter by Gavin St Pier and within hours the mainstream media were reporting it as leading headlines and were being quick to point out that the email was being “condemned on social media” thus prompting a feeding frenzy by what I elsewhere described as “the herds of sycophantic, twittering sheep who roam the cyberfields of Farmer Gavin, Alastair Stewart and the like”. (availability cascade?)

On the day on which they broke the story, 9th January, BBC Guernsey told the public that they had “learned of the email this morning” even though it had been sent to three of their journalists, including the one who made the claim, on New Year’s Eve.

St Pier’s tweet was a response to a comment by Alastair Stewart about the case of Anna Soubry in the UK and the abuse which politicians face there.

Whether the initial responders to St Pier’s tweet were notified prior to its posting in order to justify the mainstream media’s claims that the email was being condemned on Twitter I know not, but that is certainly the way that the concepts of “nudging” and “availability cascades” are designed to work.

During the course of the reaction there were, sure enough, some calls for such nasty correspondence to be banned. St Pier’s own tweet included the observation that such correspondence has “not been criminalised (yet)” and the fact that the deputies had referred my email to the police (who of course decided there was no case to answer) tells me that the possibility that a ban could be imposed in future is on the agenda.

In recent times the ruling establishments in Guernsey and the UK have ploughed considerable resources into convincing the people of the threat to society of mental illness (note 11) and the causes of male suicide and saying that individuals should communicate our feelings more readily and openly But what happened when I did that and they were on the wrong end of it? They cried “foul”, Gavin St Pier was one who indicated support for a ban on such communication in future and five days later Deputy Lindsey de Sausmarez had her aforementioned article which was, in the main, trying to make the case that words can be hurtful [and that therefore there are some we should not use]

I suggest that this is a case of paternal libertarianism and choice architecture (“you can do – but only in a certain way.”)

After I had been trampled by the “stampede of the cybersheep” online I had a few well-meaning people ask if I was alright so I thought, “Why would I not be alright? Can I no longer choose how the words of others make me feel?”

Ae we actually becoming the vulnerable weaklings which the paternal libertarians need us to be in order to exert their influence on society?

Example 5: Organ Caesars

In November 2018 the States of Guernsey decided to adopt an opt out organ donation scheme. This means that unless individuals register a wish not to have their organs donated with the Common Purpose connected NHS (see note 12) which is not accountable to the people of Guernsey (which is not part of the NHS), they can legally have their organs removed for donation when certified dead (see note 13) (choice architecture?)

In the shadow of Sunstein?

This quote is attributed to Baron Lane (British judge, Lord Chief Justice of England (b1918)): “Loss of freedom seldom happens overnight. Oppression doesn’t stand on the doorstep with toothbrush moustache and swastika armband – it creeps up insidiously, step by step, and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realizes that it is gone.”

The Guernsey people have no constitution or bill of rights; a decision has been taken to have the principle of silence being deemed as consent being written into their statute book; they face the prospect of a “you don’t have to be silent but if you do speak up you can only do so in a certain way” society, and they are being encouraged not to oppose the establishment.



FOOTNOTE: The current Guernsey Government is the result of an election in 2016 which is regarded as either (one of) the most unfair in the island’s history or illegal or both. On the run up to the election, some eligible members of the community were offered state aid to be coached in how to run for office, whilst others were not. (The distinction was made on the basis of gender, yet one of the most publicised objectives of the Guernsey establishment is to end gender discrimination)


Note 1:…

Note 2:…

Note 3:…

Note 4:…

Note 5:…

Note 6:…

Note 7:…

Note 8:

Note 9:

Note 10:…

Note 11:….

Note 12:…

Note 13:…


This entry was posted in .

Related articles...

Comments are closed.