Ever since the 2020 technocratic coup, the billionaire class has only grown richer while the lower and middle classes have struggled to make ends meet without Mafia handouts. By Mafia, I mean the unholy alliance of large corporations and state entities that control our infrastructure and have their eyes set on every aspect of our private lives. The top 1% who have benefited most from the techno-putsch of early 2020 may number as many 80 millions worldwide, but most within this clique of middle managers are mere expendable hangers on, whose task it is to roll out the socially transformative policies now marketed at the Great Reset. Our real rulers are probably fewer than 0.001% of the 8 billion people alive today. While the banksters behind the phased demolition of our civilisation may preach equality and diversity, they consider most of us mere zoo animals at the mercy of their keepers. As Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari said, human beings are now easily hackable animals. He is one of the WEF’s chief advisors.
One could be forgiven for believing, as I once did, that outfits like the World Economic Forum are mainly concerned with furthering the cause of economic growth through free trade and open competition. One might imagine them holding workshops on high-tech innovation in developing countries to realise the neoliberal dream of widespread prosperity by letting the world’s poor gain access to the kind of opportunities millions of North Americans and Western Europeans have enjoyed over the last few decades. Admittedly, I never shared that dream. I wanted us to transition to a decentralised steady-state economy that values community cohesion, social wellbeing and long-term sustainability more than the short-term thrills of mass consumerism and technological convenience. Alas the centralisers have co-opted the term sustainability to consolidate their power. Their concept of sustainability focuses on their hegemony, not on our vitality or longevity.
A six decade long era of unparalleled growth has now given way to a new era of rapid downsizing with creeping virtualisation of physical reality. This year’s Davos meetup did not discuss how to provide all Africans with clean water or how to encourage investment in large irrigation projects across the continent’s vast expanses of semi-arid land to alleviate food insecurity. Instead, they focussed on vaccine uptake and a radical shift away from the fossil fuel economy to address the perceived threats of viral infections and climate change, neither of which are new. They blame us for their imperial wars and the adverse effects of the consumer lifestyle they have promoted for the best part of 60 years. The subscript is that the global elites no longer want consumption-led growth. They no longer see a growing population of middle-class consumers as a business opportunity, but a threat to their survival as a privileged class of superhumans shielded from the pandemonium of the great unwashed. To maintain their privileges, the hyper-rich no longer need hundreds of millions of workers competing in a frenetic rat race. They need compliant guinea pigs or tame zoo animals, whom they may reward for good behaviour. They may keep a small entourage of engineers and scientists to help them develop their new infrastructure of artificially intelligent robots, but they view most of humanity as useless eaters superfluous to their needs.
The trouble for the elites is we do not need them either. Once we figure out how to circumvent their control grid, disable their robo-cops and create parallel societies with our own infrastructure and jurisdiction, the elites will have little choice but to unleash the gates of the hell on mainstream humanity, thereby dispensing with any pretence of philanthropy and revealing their support for eugenics. That may provide a window of opportunity for the disenfranchised former working classes to wake up and overthrow the cabal of control freaks who currently hold the world to ransom.
How yesteryear's colonialists morphed into today's trendsetters
Billionaires' Club
I’ve often struggled to find a concise and generally understood term for the ruling cabal that transcends national borders and nominally democratic institutions. Henceforth I will settle for the Sicilian word, Mafia. With all due respect to modern Italians, the mafiosi were mere amateurs compared to the extended Biotech Military Industrial Complex allied closely with banking cartels, mass media outlets, NGOs and colleges as well as being deeply embedded in almost any administration, major political party or charity. Postmodern Mafia bosses are responsible for much bigger crimes against humanity. These dark forces combine to suppress our free will and mould us into malleable team players. We need a succinct collective noun to avoid listing all the organisations these control freaks have infiltrated. The Global Mafia or just the Mafia pretty much encapsulates the state of play in the early 21st century.
Over the years I’ve read Marxists who blame capitalism for all our woes, libertarians who blame the state, anarchists who blame both, anti-imperialists who blame colonialists, nationalists who blame globalists, one-world-love idealists who blame both, free thinkers who blame psychiatry, naturopaths who blame big pharma, technology enthusiasts who blame luddites and environmentalists who blame overconsumption. I’ve learned a good deal from critical thinkers from all schools of thought.
Only the law differentiates organised crime syndicates from the unholy alliance of governments and large corporations. Just as we pay tax to avoid hefty penalties or jail, people in Mafia-controlled areas of Sicily pay il pizzo or protection money. If you cooperate with your local Mafia bosses and turn a blind eye to their immoral deeds, you may be granted some personal freedoms and lead a relatively untroubled life, as long as you don’t rock the boat and know your place. Historically, most modern states emerged from fiefdoms whose rulers won power through a mix of warcraft and leadership skills. All modern states and large corporations operate as legalised mafias with slick marketing operations. Now if you dare speak out against your captors, they tarnish your reputation and deny you access to social media or any other public platforms.
Only once the forebears of today’s ruling classes had consolidated power through various tiers of administration could they begin to win the trust and loyalty of their subjects through public consultations. However, before the commonfolk could vote in parliamentary elections, we had to be educated to identify with the socio-political system that had been imposed on us. While the British establishment may have prided itself on democracy at home, although universal franchise was only achieved in the 1920s (for most men over 21 in 1918 and most women in 1929), in Africa and Asia they considered most natives too unworldly to vote and preferred to consult tribal leaders instead. We may consider former Rhodesian Prime Minister, Ian Smith, who delayed the former British colony ‘s transition to majority rule, an outmoded racialist, but his attitude to black Zimbabweans differed little from that of enlightened liberal thinkers of the late 19th century. They believed the natives had to be tamed before the managerial classes could extend public consultations to them. By the early 1990s universal suffrage with multi-party elections had reached countries as diverse as South Africa, Russia and Brazil. Liberal democracy had seemingly won the day, while transnational corporations were busy expanding their empires and corrupting governments.
The last two years of pandemic madness should have at least taught us that our nominally elected politicians are just following orders. At best they can negotiate with our real rulers on how best to roll out policies that unaccountable remote entities have already decided. They act as mere intermediaries between us and our colonial masters, who project their power via their tight grip on all aspects of our socio-economic infrastructure. A handful of investment firms, such as Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street Corporation and Berkshire Hathaway, own most shares not only in IT giants but also in the world’s leading biotechnology companies, food processors, major retailers and arms manufacturers. Household names as diverse as Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Apple, Amazon, Tesco, Walmart (Asda in the UK), Carrefour, Aldi, Pfizer, Biontech, Johnson & Johnson, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, BA Systems and Capgemini are all joined at the hip. They’re all different incarnations of the same monster.
It’s a tangled web of super-billionaires working in tandem with the big banks and the World Economic Forum to set the policy agendas that governments roll out. Some like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk or Michael Bloomberg may be high-profile but other wheelers and dealers, especially in hedge funds and asset management, remain much more elusive. Whichever way, big decisions float from the top down. Consent is only ever manufactured.
Before the covid scare hardly anyone would have supported the concept of digital health passports to gain access to public venues. Eighteen months of relentless fearmongering led millions of wishful thinkers to support medical apartheid. Formerly tolerant progressives began to support total surveillance and censorship for the common good. Their new enemies were not the banksters whose wealth has skyrocketed since the first lockdowns, but the spectre of free-thinking human beings making rational choices about what to do with their own bodies, namely nonconformists who fail to comply with woke officialdom. In the past, such people often fled to freer lands, but now many of the world’s wealthiest countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Germany and Italy, have some of the strictest biomedical security regimes.
For every member of the Davos Set, there are millions of privileged hangers-on in middle management and awareness raising. In the UK we may call this breed of affluent self-righteous fake do-gooders Guardian readers. They're on a mission to educate the great unwashed about the evils of climate change, transphobia, white supremacy, Putin and antivaxxers. Yet few see the bigger picture. They would rather blame the politically incorrect working classes than admit today's woke billionaires favour eugenics.
Today’s colonial masters have rebranded themselves as one-world-love idealists who care deeply about the planet and its diverse peoples. The truth is they consider most people alive today useless eaters. They are the true heirs of 18th and 19th century imperialists who treated the natives as exotic wildlife. Today they treat 99% of humanity as zoo animals. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Never has so much power been concentrated in so few people.
For some time now, I have observed how most equality and diversity initiatives usually do the exact opposite. Equality tends to mean greater dependence on state handouts and large corporations, while banksters and tech tycoons consolidate their control over every aspect of our surroundings and private lives. Diversity tends to emphasise superficial differences and labels applied to people based on arbitrary personality profiles rather than practical diversity in skills and ways of life. We may see a greater variation in skin tones, hair styles and fashion statements in most major human habitation zones, but much less variety in customs.
Now it appears most new public health initiatives create more ill-health and most humanitarian campaigns bring us more death and destruction. Over the last two years governments, with the full support of international bankers, have imposed lockdowns and mandated medical interventions which have demonstrably done more harm than good. Only by manipulating statistics can the authorities claim that strict regulation of physical proximity has reduced the spread of respiratory infections. Yet in country after country, the imposition of strict covid measures has had the precise opposite effect. South Korea had one of the lowest covid-19-attributed death rates in the world. Indeed, proponents of face mask mandates heralded the country as a success story. Now, just a few months after rolling out vaccine passports and reaching their goal of inoculating over 90% of their adult citizens, South Korea has seen an unexpected rise in people suffering from severe respiratory diseases. While our focus should be on all-cause mortality and our quality of life, covid-19 restrictions have not even succeeded in reducing deaths attributed to covid-19, which in practice mean anyone who dies after testing positive for the virus whether or not it contributed to their demise.
The covidian cult has finally given way to the Ukrainian cult within the wider context of impending environmental doom. Let’s leave aside the details of Eastern European history or microbiology for a moment. Back in 2019 I recall walking through the streets of Edinburgh adorned with LGBTQ++ pride iconography everywhere. Don’t get me wrong. I’m old enough to remember when gay pride events belonged to a counterculture at loggerheads with the authorities. In 2020 after the first lockdown, NHS-themed covid iconography bedecked street furniture. In 2021, the covid-safety theme morphed into the liberation-through-vaccination theme with vaccination buses in place of gay pride buses. Now, yellow and blue flags dominate the cityscape as the authorities beseech us to stand with Ukraine. Just as the LGBTQ++ events did little to help youngsters who fail to conform to traditional male or female stereotypes by imposing new stereotypes and reframing complex psychosocial challenges in terms of sexual identity, blind support for Zelenskyy’s Ukraine will do little to help Ukrainians, including those in the central and western regions who prefer independence from their larger eastern neighbour. How can we believe that the same global players who have over the last 30 years done everything to undermine national sovereignty in Western Europe, the Americas and the Middle East have suddenly embraced it in Ukraine?
Of late, alternative media channels have been abuzz with talk of conformism. How else can we explain why hundreds of millions of people around the world have let an engineered culture of fear control their behaviour, social interactions and perception of non-compliant neighbours. The fear has been so great, that many seemed oblivious to the massive transfer of power to the Biotech Industrial Complex.
Mass formation is best understood in the context of crowd psychology or collective delusion and should not be confused with neurological disorders that may be triggered by psychosocial stressors. Professor Mattias Desmet, whose research has recently popularised the phenomenon, has corrected many Anglophone observers who insist on adding the qualifier psychosis. Mass group formation might clarify the concept. In her 1958 book on The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt referred mainly to mass movements that require ideological conformity but not necessarily formal membership. In recent decades we have witnessed two outwardly conflicting trends. On the one hand, we have become more atomised with the demise of traditional families and close-knit communities and their substitution with looser networks of acquaintances and special interest buddies. On the other, we have been lured into various branches of a global super-culture via a ubiquitous mediascape that has conquered our minds and suppressed our power of independent thought.
The dilemma of technologically advanced societies is the degree of trust we have to place in machines and remote entites, whose inner workings we cannot conceivably understand without relying on someone’s else expertise. When faced with conflicting evidence and analyses on scientific controversies, we can either devote much time and resources to detailed independent research or we can take shortcuts by ascertaining whose interests well-known experts represent or simply judge people by their track record, which may also involve a fair amount of work to sort the wheat from the chaff. As soon as once-respected scientists rock the boat and begin to expose medical malpractice, deception or corruption, the mainstream media will either ignore or smear them. Outright lies are seldom the target of concerted censorship, although hate speech laws may first single out the exponents of unpopular opinions that the public at large loathes. Ironically, the same legislation that criminalises the downplaying of past crimes against humanity may perversely serve to silence those who seek to expose new crimes against humanity. Once we let a handful of corporate fact checkers determine the truth and set the boundaries of permissible dissent, we have replaced the façade of liberal democracy with epistocracy or rule by anointed experts.
The trick all along has been to paint the advocates of centralised authoritarian control as progressive philanthropists concerned with protecting the most vulnerable in our society and their adversaries as selfish reactionaries unwilling to accept change.
In the hope of reconciliation, we grant supreme power to a bunch of technocrats whose authority we may longer challenge. We are thus trained to view objective reality through the prism of prescribed truths. When official doctrine conflicts with the empirical data we need to solve a practical problem, we may have to accept convoluted logic to explain apparent contradictions. This leads to cognitive dissonance at multiple levels. I fear many seemingly intelligent people have lost the ability to think critically as they parrot warped groupthink.
Such people often like to ridicule so-called conspiracy theorists or science deniers, whom they view as mentally ill and to whom they claim some sort of moral superiority. Yet they instinctively dismiss anything that runs counter to the official narrative as the wild conjecture of a demented fringe minority. I regularly hear semi-intellectual group-thinkers recycle talking points from the trendy corporate media.
They may claim to be experts on the antivax movement because they read a Guardian, Huffington Post, NY Times or Washington Post article on ties between Dr Robert W Malone and the spectre of the far right. A brief analysis of Politfact’s page on the microbiologist and vaccine developer might enlighten us. Their target audience is obviously the questioning professional classes, the kind of people who may question the narrative but also crave social acceptance and professional approval. The top three reasons why Politfact claims we should distrust Dr Malone is that Twitter banned him, he was not the only person involved in the invention of mRNA gene therapies and lastly he has allegedly spread false and misleading information that appeals to that evil subspecies of humanity now known as antivaxxers. In short, do not trust Dr Malone because our corporate backers do not like what he says. Yet the same article struggles to identify any significant factual inaccuracies in Dr Malone’s public pronouncements, preferring to infer guilt by association with Trump supporters on alternative social media platforms.
The virus scare started with Event 201 in October 2019 at John Hopkins University. Administrators and media executives agreed how they would flood the airwaves to spread fear of a novel virus and suppress opposition to the proposed solution, a novel gene therapy injection they would market as vaccines, so they could smear opponents as luddite antivaxxers. Paradoxically, the same university published a study that showed all lockdown measures combined, including antisocial distancing and mask mandates, only reduced covid-19-attributed mortality by 0.2%. Throughout the simulated pandemic, a dubious association has been instilled in the public mind between tragic reports of preventable excess deaths and the Draconian measures imposed at enormous socio-economic expense. People have subconsciously assimilated the notion that non-compliance with these new diktats will kill the vulnerable. Compliance with the Science™️ has become the self-righteous stance. Challenging the officialscience has become a heresy.
Today’s social conformists – the kind of people who tend to go along with the woke agenda that today’s faux-liberal intelligentsia favours – like to think of themselves as open, tolerant, multicultural and democratic as well opposing any hint of racism, misogyny or homophobia. Yet they now support policies that have the exact opposite effects to their professed utopian goals. How can you extol the virtues of open borders between countries while welcoming strict biomedical controls on the free association of people in private homes, commercial and public buildings? How can you claim any liberal credentials if you’re happy for the authorities to regulate every aspect of people’s private lives? How can you vaunt your tolerance when you cannot put up with different viewpoints? How can you celebrate multiculturism when you decry all divergent ways of life and belief systems out of sync with your vision of a synthetic rainbow coalition of shiny happy people? Lastly how can you support democracy if you do not trust commoners to decide on matters you believe they do not understand without the guidance of corporate experts?
Any viable society needs the acquiescence of its members. The real question, though, is whether we achieve social harmony through bottom-up participatory democracy that responds to the will of the little people or through top-down social engineering. The managerial classes need people to comply with expected behavioural norms out of a sense of civic duty. When only a small minority break arbitrary rules or only do so well away from public scrutiny, the police and civilians can easily deal with isolated transgressors. To maintain their respect, law enforcement agencies need the public to internalise the logic behind the curtailment of personal liberties for the common good. We may privately doubt the efficacy or purpose of many regulations, but we go along with them to avoid conflict and keep a low profile. If we have a good reason or a burning desire to break a rule, we will usually only do so with the implied consent of others in our social environment. We may take many liberties in unmonitored private spaces with like-minded friends that would be unacceptable elsewhere. Such transgressions tend to involve either indulgences that may bring pleasure to some but perturb others or the open expression of subversive beliefs that may offend only those ideologically committed to the status quo. History is replete with examples of loosely enforced laws that transgressors can get easily evade. Cannabis remains a proscribed drug in the UK for recreational purposes, but the police and law courts have long turned a blind eye to its consumption and semi-clandestine cultivation. An estimated three million Britons, including many celebrities and politicians, regularly smoke marijuana, despite decades of research linking cannabis abuse with psychosis in vulnerable young people. Yet within the space of two short years, we have sleepwalked from a more laidback approach to law-enforcement that respects privacy, bodily autonomy, family life and community traditions to a regime that criminalises natural human beings who do not comply with new-fangled regulations based on a re-interpretation of scientific evidence. If our governments really cared about health, they would mandate fresh food and exercise and tackle social exclusion. Instead, in 2020 they did almost exact opposite urging people to avoid social proximity and stay at home where they are more likely to binge on snacks and booze.
Today’s rulers no longer need the income generated directly by a large working class. They’d much rather rely on a smaller army of privileged engineers and surveillance officers, while keeping the great unwashed on universal basic income with rewards for good behaviour and occasional monitoring or care duties. Old-fashioned capitalists may have been happy for potential customers not in their direct employ to fend for themselves. The impoverished would gravitate towards new money-making opportunities out of sheer necessity in a frenzied rat race with winners and losers. Primitive capitalism would see many former peasants and smallholders meet early deaths as they failed to adapt and ended up destitute without a welfare state to fall back on. By contrast, post-modern corporations have effectively merged with governments to control every aspect of our society. Tech giants are not merely concerned with their bottom line, but with changing our way of life. They find it much easier to manipulate vulnerable people with limited self-help skills than independently minded self-starters. We have become the product they sell and if we do not conform to one of their manageable pigeonholed roles, they will cast us aside from mainstream society and may ultimately deem us expendable. Untamed free thought poses the biggest threat to our managerial classes. French anthropologist and author of The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, Gustave Le Bon, explained how crowd psychology progresses through three main phases, submergence with the loss of individual identity, contagion with the triumph of emotions over reason and suggestion with the development of a shared unconscious. The neoliberal era has given way to a new age of high-tech totalitarianism.
I may be able to keep my New Year's resolution not to waste so much time trying to engage with other-minded people on Twitter. Following a short reply to a minor account on medical malpractice, my account has been suspended.
My appeal to Twitter's support team will probably fall on deaf ears. The woke enforcers of progressive technofascism do not do debate. They are only concerned with discussing how to roll out their vision of our Brave New World and how to deal with dissidents.
Censorship is real.
I would like to thank you for clarifying your opposition to democracy, which as you know cannot function without free speech and open debate on all key ethical and scientific issues of the day. Nobody has a monopoly on truth.
You claimed that I spread "misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19." In Mid 2021 I had a one-week suspension with the same justification for a reply to a user with a small following alluding to tried and tested therapeutics for viral infections currently known loosely as covid-19. The keywords that attract the attention of your censors are ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. We have over 60 years of data on the latter and around 30 years for the former. As I have stated in many other comments, these drugs should only be used at moderate doses in combination with other treatments. I have personally taken HCQ in Africa and am very familiar with its mild side effects (drowsiness). It may alleviate symptoms and reduce the likelihood of hospitalisation. As stated in the offending tweet, Ivermectin has been widely deployed in India, Japan and Iran to treat sars-cov-2 symptoms. There are numerous abstracts on PubMed discussing its efficacy:
As in most medical controversies, other studies have reached different conclusions, but I invite you to find evidence that early treatment with ivermectin at moderate doses can cause significant harm compared to "no treatment" followed by dangerous antiviral drugs such as remsdisivir accompanied by ventilation.
I suggest you censored my minor account for ideological reasons. The ball is in your court. If you persist in suspending accounts that counter the narrow covid narrative preferred by your partners in the biotech industry, then we can only conclude your organisation is opposed to liberal democracy and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration Code on Bioethetics and Human Rights.
If your platform cannot accommodate vigorous debate on such matters, its relevance will wane. It will be little more than a virtue-signalling echo chamber tolerating only controversies that do not challenge your biotech partners. One may debate whether the Earth is flat or whether Elvis Presley lives on the far side of the Moon, but one may not question the alleged "science" that regimes around the world exploit to justify growing authoritarianism.
You have recently purged many other accounts such as that of Dr Robert D Malone, the inventor of mRNA injections that you seem so keen not just to promote but to mandate as a condition for participation in society.
Prove me wrong and unsuspend my account. I welcome anyone to challenge my assertions. I have always been respectful and enjoy interacting with others who hold different views. Without open debate in the public sphere, our society will descend into authoritarianism.
Future historians will not treat tech giants like Twitter kindly if you persist with this attitude.
"The Handmaid's Tale" is filmed on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. on February 15, 2019.
In a parallel universe somewhere, conscientious scientists, doctors, nurses and administrators battle with a novel coronavirus that threatens the very survival of our species, while the main media outlets controlled by governments and large enterprises join forces in a heroic effort to persuade us to adapt our behaviour and embrace our new bio-security state for the common good. In such a fantasy world, our enemies are not governments or large corporations, but conspiracy-theorising malcontents who fail to internalise the official narrative. It hardly matters if the tech giants and investment banks are consolidating their grip on wealth and power, while they hold notionally democratic governments to ransom. We are led to believe all these drastic measures, such as censorship of alternative scientific perspectives, heightened surveillance, digital health passports and the growing militarisation of healthcare, serve only to protect us against a nanoscopic genetic sequence invisible to the naked eye.
Yet away from the mainstream media and the celebrity endorsements of our Brave New Normal, Robert F Kennedy Junior’s latest book, The Real Anthony Fauci, has exposed the whole crime syndicate behind the coronavirus narrative. Written very much from a Western liberal social-democratic perspective, Bobby Kennedy has challenged his detractors to fact-check him, not by searching for a quick rebuttal by a corporate fact-checker, but refuting the veracity of his sources with first-hand evidence.
Could the Mainstream Media lie on a such big scale?
Some will switch off as soon as they read the now ubiquitous term, mainstream media. A large cross-section of the chattering classes will instinctively dismiss anything that has not received an official seal of approval or has not been vetted by a fact-checker. The assumption here is that the authorities have our best interests at heart and are somehow trying to protect us against mischievous propagandists.
The UK Parliament is poised to pass the Online Harms Act allegedly to combat terrorism and hatred against vulnerable people. The real targets, as anyone with more than a gram of analytical grey matter on active duty, could work out, are not deranged Islamic fundamentalists or white supremacists, but critical thinkers who do not buy the pandemic narrative or any other narratives that may justify authoritarian control. While the corporate media may obsess with hurty feelings towards protected identity groups, they have launched a hate campaign against those of us who fail to comply with the biotech mafia. As Dr Peter Doshi pointed out at the US Senate event, an antivaxxer is no longer someone who opposes all vaccines, Merriam Webster has extended its meaning to cover opponents of vaccine mandates. In our post-reality world, a biological woman may not hurt the feelings of a biological male identifying as a woman by simply stating he is not a lady, but media pundits and influencers can claim the unjabbed are the enemy within and must either be locked in their homes or forcibly injected with a mystery substance against their express will despite a dearth of evidence that such injections reduce the transmission of an overhyped viral pathogen.
How long can the wishful thinking professional classes, with their designer face-masks, continue to deny the emerging reality of a totalitarian regime that will keep moving the goalposts to exclude new groups of uncooperative human beings? Today, your compliance may mean being double or triple-jabbed. Tomorrow, it may mean having regular mental health screening to check your social conformity. When will the compliant classes realise that unless they belong to the chosen few, they will be next? When will it dawn on the complacent masses who currently go along with the narrative that their favourite celebrity influencers may be bending the truth? Many will have friends, relatives or neighbours who died with covid-19 on their death certificate. They may believe they died because of covid-19, even if they had other underlying conditions, but soon many will have close acquaintances whose life was cut short within days, weeks or months of their last booster shot. The media cannot hide the steep rise in healthy young to middle-aged adults succumbing to life-threatening cardiovascular and neurological illnesses. Part of me hopes the long-term damage can be limited if we stop at 2 or 3 doses of these new mRNA or viral vector injections, but never in human history has a medical intervention been foisted on people with such zeal and coercion. This is probably the biggest exercise in mass persuasion ever undertaken. To persuade the public at large, the authorities have adopted a tailor-made form of NewSpeak. All of a sudden, having access to something no longer refers to availability but to obligation. Having access to clean water is something we all need, but we get to decide how and when to use this essential resource. NLP practitioners understand this psychological association. If someone claims you have access to something or you are eligible for something, you’re more likely to want to take advantage of your new entitlement. The marketing spiel has shifted from disease control to participation in our new bio-security state. Someone somewhere has decided that human beings may only mingle in real life if an external authority can verify their genetic status. We have had to forgo our rights to free association and bodily autonomy to protect us against a nanoscopic genetic sequence. Yet there appears to be little correlation between mRNA injection uptake - something the media calls the vaccination rate, and covid-labelled infection rates. More tests lead invariably to more positive cases. Indeed, recent data from many European countries clearly shows a higher seasonally adjusted mortality rate for young to middle-aged adults.
It's a Technocratic Coup
Both the virus and the so-called vaccines are mere means to an end. Whether either succeeds in significantly downsizing the earth’s population through deadly coercion remains to be seen. Meanwhile, governments have usurped unprecedented powers over our private lives and consigned pluralistic liberal democracy with open debate on all key scientific and ethical issues of the day to history. What remains of democracy is a stage-managed charade with different flavours of the same technocratic fundamentalism. In Britain, the leader of the opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, has called on the government to clamp down on alternative media outlets like Telegram. In Austria and Germany, politicians from all leading parliamentary groups have thrown their rhetorical weight behind mandatory mRNA injections with hefty fines and jail sentences for those who do not comply. The coming months will reveal the dark side of the totalitarian monster behind our politicians. Almost everything the maverick analysts forecast just in early 2020 has come to pass. Quarantine camps, embeddable digital health certificates, robocops and bio-surveillance drones are no longer science fiction. If this were about our health, then we’d look at all-cause mortality, welcome tried and tested therapeutics and allow autopsies with full transparency over healthcare policies. I can think of no other logical explanation for the authoritarian behaviour of governments than a technocratic coup.
Noam Chomsky doubles down on calls to isolate the unvaccinated
Ever since the French Revolution, we have analysed political conflicts through the prism of the one-dimensional left-right spectrum. In the Western World, many believed the left somehow stood up for the commoners and the right represented the ruling classes. Today the corporate elites pose on the progressive left, openly bankrolling many charities and NGOs that claim to campaign for a potpourri of virtuous causes from action on climate change to refugee rights. The old left-wing alliance that brought together wishful thinking academics and industrial workers was already fracturing long before the covid crisis. All over Europe, the settled working classes had abandoned their traditional Labour or social democratic parties in favour of populist upstarts who promised to restore national sovereignty and family values. Now it is crystal clear the coming battle is no longer between left and right. It is not even a battle between black and white, Muslim and Christian, settled working classes and new immigrants or straights and gays. The big divide now has reverted to the feudal norm of top versus bottom, with the masses in thrall to a universal religion imparted by a new progressive clergy who preach total submission to scientism for the common good.
Like their medieval forerunners, today’s high-tech feudal overlords seek the compliance of their subjects and the ostracization of the unbelievers. However, yesteryear’s rulers could only hold onto their power through the blood, sweat and tears of their loyal subordinates. To maintain their loyalty, the elites had to reward their underlings. Mass consumerism may have let the business classes expand their markets, but it also raised workers’ material expectations.
The ruling classes have now decided to phase out the wider working classes and keep most of their compliant subjects under tightly controlled captivity. Workers cannot overthrow their bosses without bargaining power or the means to set up parallel societies. Welfare dependents owe their existence to the generosity of their captors.
Democracy is a sham without free speech and open debate on all key scientific and ethical issues that affect our lives. For decades one of the great heroes of the libertarian left, Noam Chomsky, earned widespread respect for his analysis of media bias in his bestseller, Manufacturing Consent, his critique of US imperialism and his outspoken support for free speech even for those who may hold beliefs that deny atrocities and offend relatives of the victims of systematic murder. Professor Chomsky has cast himself at various times as a libertarian socialist, anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist, yet has now failed to recognise the biggest power grab in history. Worse still he has fallen hook, line and sinker for the scientifically flawed notion that the so-called unvaccinated pose a threat to responsible citizens who have rolled up their sleeves to accept the magic prick. There is literally no verifiable evidence to support this assertion. The manufacturers do not claim their nanoscopic medical devices can stop you from either catching or spreading respiratory infections. They have only ever claimed that they may alleviate symptoms and reduce the risk of hospitalisation. If the latter claim were true, then jab refuseniks may pay a little more health insurance to cover additional healthcare costs. The trouble with that logic is that it could be equally applied to other lifestyle choices like eating cakes, binge-drinking and smoking. Should we impose higher taxes on people who fail to exercise or eat their 5 pieces of fruit and vegetables a day? However, the latest data from countries with high mRNA-injection rates show clearly that the double- and triple-jabbed not only catch respiratory infections more often than their unjabbed peers, but they can die with the resulting diseases too. We have had so-called covid outbreaks in nursing homes and on cruise ships with fully vaccinated staff and customers. Why should governments mandate a medical intervention that clearly does not work as advertised? Why are regimes around the world moving heaven and earth to coerce their people into accepting medical surveillance as the new normal? As I write the Canadian government has mandated covid jabs for all inter-province rail and air travel.
If Noam Chomsky can understand that the state does not hold a monopoly on historical truth when it comes to laws that justify censorship to tackle the perceived threat of Holocaust denial, why would he think that the biotech industrial complex should enjoy a monopoly on scientific truth when it comes to coercive mass medication? It hardly takes a genius to figure out that we cannot change history, but we can learn from history to shape our future. Therefore, open debate and full transparency on scientific matters may be a good deal more important than tiresome debates about which despotic regime killed the most people 80 years ago. Does the world-renowned linguist at MIT not realise that vested corporate interests may manufacture consent for medical tyranny in the same way as they did for reckless military adventurism? Can he not see that many of the same political actors who campaigned for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan now want to roll out digital health certificates at all costs? How can he champion the freedom of Central American refugees to access generous welfare in the United States, while millions of New Yorkers are denied access to restaurants, gyms, theatres and workplaces unless they submit to the diktat of the Biotech Mafia? Is our Noam not aware that not all scientists agree that the new generation of mRNA and viral vector injections, marketed as vaccines, are safe and effective? Could he not apply the same critical thinking that helped him delineate the Fateful Triangle that links the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia to analyse decades of corruption at the heart of the biotech-industrial complex joined at the hip with the better-understood military-industrial complex? Has Noam not observed the close liaison between governments, armed forces and infection control teams? Is he completely oblivious to scenes of armed Australian police beating up dog walkers for failing to wear a mask in their local park? Does his once-admirable opposition to censorship not extend to an explicit condemnation of social media companies who censor any posts at variance with the official advice of the World Health Organisation? Is he not concerned that his fellow academics including Prof. Jon Ioannides of Stanford University, cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough and vaccinologists Dr Byram Bridle, Dr Robert Malone and Dr Geert vanden Bosch have been censored by the same tech giants that are also coincidentally promoting genetically modified injections with undisclosed ingredients?
The rationale for this perverse deference to the pharmaceutical lobby is that in modern life we have to delegate to experts over matters beyond our competence. Most of us need dental check-ups and occasional treatment. However, not all dentists are equally competent or recommend the same solutions. If you are unhappy with your dentist, you can always get a second or third opinion. Do I really need root canal treatment? Are mercury amalgam fillings safe? Believe it or not, different dentists may have different opinions on these matters. Bodily autonomy means you get to decide what other people do with your body. The state should only intervene to protect you against medical malpractice. You may make some unwise choices and pay the ultimate price of early death if you decline a recommended procedure, but that Is your right. As a rule, well-informed citizens with access to a wide range of research can usually make rational choices. Some may shun medication and flu shots in favour of a healthy diet, plenty of exercise and vitamin supplements. Others prefer to pop pills for every conceivable ailment that may affect them. Sooner or later we will find out whose intuition and lifestyle choices lead to better outcomes. With personal freedom comes responsibility and with adventure comes risk. To deny people self-determination over their private and family lives, is, in effect, to redefine what it means to be human.
Future historians will ask how the leaders of organised labour and left-leaning social influencers could let fear of a new variant of the flu justify the imposition of an illiberal bio-security state while super-billionaires buy up much of the world’s prime farmland. It beggars belief that so few mainstream politicians have spoken out against the cataclysmic implications of the Great Reset, something the global elites meeting at the G7, G20 and COP26 no longer hide. The whole agenda is so clearly driven by Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum with the full blessing of Prince Charles, Greta Thunberg and George Soros as well as the Rockefeller and Rothschild dynasties. Two private asset management corporations, BlackRock and Vanguard, can hold debt-ridden governments to ransom. Their combined financial wealth dwarfs that of the world’s top billionaires.
We need to forge new alliances that transcend traditional divides of liberal versus conservative or socialist versus capitalist. The coming battle is over the future of humanity itself. Most of our old intellectual elites have abandoned us. Our main hope lies in the strength of grassroots protests that have erupted across France, Italy, Greece, Romania and sporadically in the UK, US, South Africa and, when allowed by Draconian lockdown laws, in Australia and New Zealand too. The mainstream media have either ignored these demonstrations altogether or has attempted to demonise sections of them as neo-fascists or anti-vaxxers who want to kill your grandparents. The Italian media has routinely equated antivaxxers perversely with fascists although all major parties there from the right-leaning Lega and Forza Italia to the Five Star Movement and old Communist Party (now known as the Democratic Party or PD) have supported the controversial Green Card, mandating either jabs or expensive antigen tests every 48 hours to access most workplaces, colleges, restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports centres, hospitals and trains. Last week the Italian trade union federation, CGIL, had the audacity to hold a much-publicised rally against Mussolini's original brand of fascism but in favour of the Biotech dictatorship, while dockers from Trieste and Genoa boldly blocked the ports in defiance of state and corporate intimidation. Such accusations come straight out of the Stalinist playbook. In 1980s' Poland under the WarsawPact, the official labour organisations accused Solidarność of proto-fascism. The opposition no longer comes from left, right or centre, but only from the bottom. The power structures are now clearly aligned. It is once again us versus them.
How the mainstream media others natural free-thinking human beings
We’re sleepwalking into a new global apartheid. In the post-covid era, segregation may no longer be based on your skin colour, ethnic identity, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability status. Today’s rulers want to divide the non-compliant from the obedient. Countless billions of dollars, euros, pesos and pounds have been spent trying to persuade billions of human beings to accept a new kind of mRNA-injection with undisclosed ingredients. Relentless awareness-raising campaigns, featuring celebrities and media-savvy experts, have persuaded hundreds of millions of us that it is our civic duty to roll up our sleeves not only to alleviate the symptoms of coronaviruses but to protect others.
In recent years, progressive opinion leaders have been quick to shut down debate on topics as diverse as gender theory lessons in primary schools and the sustainability of mass migration by accusing the socially conservative of hate speech. Social influencers have exploited identity politics to such an extent that many feminists and members of racial minorities have now found themselves at the receiving end of hate speech purges. Why would anyone assume that all women must welcome the redefinition of motherhood or all black people must support the marginalisation of indigenous European cultures? The rainbow coalition of diverse categories of human beings has only ever been a tool of social engineering, favouring superficial diversity over strong communities based on cultural continuity and pride in one’s heritage. In short, anyone who questions socially transformative policies promoted at great expense by well-funded lobbies can sooner or later fall victim to censorship and ex-communication for allegedly offending a protected victim group. As many others have pointed out, it is almost impossible to discuss scientific or ethical subjects of any importance without hurting someone’s feelings. It doesn’t make any sense. If you’re pro-Israel, you could be accused of hating Palestinians and if you’re anti-Zionist you could be accused of hating Jews. If I suggested eating large quantities of cakes may shorten your lifespan, someone could accuse me of hate speech against cake eaters. Likewise, if a neurologist claimed women have on average much better emotional intelligence, I could accuse her of hate speech against biological males rather than examine the evidence. If we wish to retain liberal civil societies, I would argue respect and integrity matter more than bland inoffensiveness. I’d rather read the harsh objective truth on a contentious issue than sanitised spin that does more to confuse than enlighten us.
Scientifically Flawed Premise
The whole rationale for the rapid roll-out in country after country of vaccine passports is that they prevent the spread of lethal pathogens to the vulnerable. Yet not even the manufacturers claim that their widely advertised concoctions stop you from catching and spreading the infamous virus they labelled covid-19. They have only ever claimed that they alleviate symptoms if you catch it. This seems rather odd as earlier in the corona crisis we were led to believe in asymptomatic transmission. If true, the unjabbed would have more to fear from the jabbed who could be harbouring the dreaded pathogen without any symptoms and are also no longer required to submit to regular tests. However, the countries with the highest rates of covid-labelled vaccination also have the highest rates of covid-attributed hospital admissions. We only have to look at countries like Israel, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia. They all escaped the worst of the initial bout of rebranded seasonal flu. In the UK, a clear pattern is emerging with double-jabbed over 40 year-olds now statistically more likely to die with covid than their unjabbed peers. More disturbingly, the excess death rate has risen sharply in many countries since late August as mRNA-inoculation rates exceeded 70% of adults. The rise in the seasonally adjusted mortality rate, compared with the average for the previous 5 years, in England & Wales alone greatly exceeds the number of deaths attributed to covid or reported to the Yellow Card Scheme as fatal post-vaccination adverse events (just over 1600). A back-of-the-envelope calculation would reveal around 5000 extra deaths that cannot be otherwise accounted for. In the West of Scotland, there’s been a mysterious rise in patients rushed to hospital with blocked arteries. Some may blame bad diet, poor exercise or lockdown-induced depression, but why would we see a sudden rise now rather than last year before the mass vaccination drive? By now it must be crystal clear to any impartial observer that none of the corona-containment measures favoured by technocrats from house arrest to face masks and coerced jabbing have improved health outcomes. The initial lockdowns may have avoided some infections at the expense of delayed checkups and operations for anything not classified as covid. All of a sudden, the media reports more and more fully vaccinatedyounger adults dying allegedly with covid. Yet we are still supposed to believe that the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca or J&J shots not only protect others but justify the exclusion of those who have not had succumbed to intense media and peer pressure to get the jab.
The so-called unvaccinated are now an openly despised underclass, even if most of us have received more than one traditional vaccine in our lives. Natural genetically unmodified human beings may soon gain the status of subspecies. The media derides us as ignorant, selfish, conspiracy-minded or unduly affected by dangerous propaganda disseminated by online activists with sinister agendas. Yet one need not be a rocket scientist to compare the imbalance between the opposing sides. On the one hand, we have the world’s leading banks, tech giants, media behemoths, transnational institutions, NGO’s and indebted national governments working in unison to regulate every aspect of our private lives. On the other, we have the people who have not yet submitted to the will of the Biotech Mafia. In affluent countries with advanced welfare systems, the majority has bought into some aspects of the covid narrative and opted to comply with mask and vaccine mandates to regain some of their former freedoms, but in most of Sub-Saharan Africa and rural India, the uptake remains very low. The Philippine and Indonesian governments have gone to extreme lengths to force these largely unwanted medical interventions on their citizens, but out of 7.8 billion people alive today most remain untouched by mRNA jabs. The only way the biotech moguls can hide the scale of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is to blame a new potent pathogen such as the Marburg virus and in some way scapegoat the unvaccinated. Such a strategy can only succeed if the jabbed are too weak and the unjabbed are totally isolated. We pose a threat not because we spread germs more easily but because our ideas are contagious. The world’s tree-hugging technocrats have declared war on natural immunity. They want to commoditise not only immunisation but every illness, whether physical or mental. This has been a long-term trend that has accelerated beyond our wildest imagination within two short years. The new pariahs are not the unhealthy, whose vulnerability serves the interests of biotech control freaks, but the independently healthy.
It was only a matter of time before the waning US Empire and its loyal allies had to withdraw from Afghanistan. The US outlay over the last 20 years has been around $2 trillion. This astronomical sum may have empowered the likes of Halliburton, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin but it has brought Afghanis and military personnel alike nothing but death, destruction and more virulent strains of Islamic fundamentalism. Predictably much of the Western Media has blamed the current incumbent masquerading as the USA’s Commander-in-Chief for abandoning his troops and allies. The stage is set for Joe Biden’s exit for health reasons. The new Global Empire no longer needs American and European troops trapped in Central Asia. They can let China, Iran and India fill the vacuum. Besides, those troops may soon be needed much closer to home.
Have you noticed that some of the same high-profile opinion leaders who once evangelised humanitarian wars are now among the strongest advocates of our emerging bio-security state? They promoted the first kind of intervention to spread liberal democracy and overthrow tyrants and the latest kind to rid the world of a nasty disease. I’m thinking naturally of the likes of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell in the British context, but Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern are very much in the same mould. Younger leaders may have distanced themselves from past escapades that have since proven electorally unpopular. However, they are ideologically committed to the concept of interventionism to guide us towards their vision of a progressive utopia or rather to put the little people in their place.
Interventionism is the idea that large organisations should take over the management of individuals, families and communities. It may take many forms. Outwardly it may mean military actions against naughty local leaders who fail to cooperate fully with multinational entities. However, it may also involve government agencies taking coercive actions to regulate the behaviour of people who fail to comply with expected psychological, medical or environmental norms. While many wishful thinking lefties may have opposed recent military interventions in the Middle East, they often championed coercive social interventions against people in their own country as necessary means to a progressive end. Such interventions may include early years mental health screening, gender theory lessons in primary schools, taking children into care if their parents fail to comply with expected behavioural norms, monitoring politically incorrect speech on social media or in people’s private spaces and censoring media outlets that permit dissent from the dominant progressive narrative. More disturbingly, we have now learned such progressive interventions may also entail stay-at-home orders, mandatory medical procedures, digital health passports and total surveillance, allegedly to protect the public against ever-mutating nanoscopic genetic sequences.
What else do these policies all have in common? They all have powerful lobbies deeply embedded in the world’s media giants and administrations and require multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns to win public support, usually by spreading fear that a failure to take immediate action will result in greater human misery. By this logic, a failure to bomb Afghanistan could have, purportedly, condemned Afghani women to permanent enslavement under Taliban rule. A failure to invade Iraq could have let Saddam Hussein deploy weapons of mass destruction and continue torturing his own people. A failure to impose strict coronavirus containment measures could lead to a proliferation of vulnerable people dying from respiratory infections. And last but not least, a failure to track the movement of every human being on the planet through mandatory microchip implants could lead to more tragic child abductions, such as the much-publicised Madeleine McCann story. In all cases, technocratic lobbyists want us to trade personal responsibility and traditional cohesive communities for the engineered safety of their corporate partners.
The alternative to interventionism is not necessarily complete anarchy but rather decentralised management of our affairs or self-determination at a personal and communal level. In the normal course of events, the cultural and ethical choices of other individuals, families, communities and small nation-states should be none of our business. The last century of growing interconnectedness has shown us that more humane societies are also more successful in the long run. Societies with greater personal freedom attract the best and brightest minds and let their people unleash their creativity. Given a choice, nobody wants to live in tyranny, but some may wish to suppress the freedoms granted to the great unwashed to secure greater freedom in their own neighbourhood. Totalitarian regimes could only survive by granting cooperative key workers special privileges. Under international law, self-defence remains the only justification for military action. That’s why George W Bush and Tony Blair had to use weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. The trouble with humanitarian wars is that all sides in a conflict can play the same game. As countries like Australia ban protests and keep their citizenry under house arrest, other regional powers may take the moral high ground. China may never need to occupy Australia militarily, but corporations with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party will find it much easier to acquire the country’s assets with a dumbed-down populace.
Just as the eye-watering sums squandered on the occupation of Afghanistan did not defeat terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism, the trillions of dollars spent worldwide on covid containment measures will not eradicate deadly viruses. Likewise, the colossal expenditures on psychiatric screening and surveillance of private lives will not free us of emotional distress or child abuse. They will serve instead to identify troublemakers and remove children from their parental homes. Strict censorship and tight controls on the free movement of ordinary citizens can suppress all evidence of sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by the privileged classes. Nearly all top-down interventions, however well-intentioned they may seem, serve to consolidate elite power. The phoney humanitarian wars of the early 21st century empowered the military-industrial complex. Now, the battle against elusive coronaviruses has facilitated the greatest transfer of wealth and power away from the affluent upper-middle classes to the biotech-industrial complex.
We’re witnessing a coordinated attack on critical thinkers who defend the now outdated concepts of bodily autonomy and free association. Your inclusion in polite society is now contingent on your stance on the safety of new mRNA injections marketed as vaccines. Until the day before yesterday, your medical history was in most public venues a private matter. That doesn’t mean we didn’t have basic dress and hygiene codes but seldom had to resort to heavy-handed enforcement. Social opprobrium alone would usually send a clear message to slovenly transgressors to clean up their act. Every living organism on the planet is a potential bio-hazard, but our immune systems evolved over millions of years to cope with everyday social gatherings. The narrative is simple. The so-called anti-maskers and antivaxxers endanger others by failing to follow official medical advice. These are just cheap smears for people who wish to carry on their lives as they did in 2019. Very few would be against practical infection control procedures in clinical settings and very few would oppose all vaccines. However, most object to top-down coercion and mindless groupthink.
Administrations around the world have applied mass hypnosis (cf. Prof. Mattias Desmet) both to guide persuasion campaigns and to identify subgroups who do not comply with the new social norms. In the UK the Behavioural Insights Team is at the helm of such public policy initiatives. It started as part of David Cameron’s much-heralded Big Society, which gave an official stamp of approval to the surreptitious activities of hundreds of charities and NGOs who have exploited the plight of selected victim groups to change people’s attitudes on a whole host of lifestyle issues. The mental health industry, an outgrowth of psychiatry, has long played a key role in creating new identity groups that fail to fit in with an increasingly atomised society. Almost anyone who has experienced mild levels of alienation, depression or anxiety can now qualify for a mental health label. Redefining life’s challenges in terms of presumed neurological deficits can only engender a sense of helplessness, which in turn boosts demand for mental health services and/or psychoactive medication. Today’s psychiatric labels are so vague as to cover almost any kind of non-conformity or imperfect socialisation. Many psychopathologists view political incorrectness as a mental illness. It is now common for political analysts to attribute undesirable opinions, especially those that favour traditional families, close-knit communities, greater self-reliance, ethnocentrism and faith in outmoded institutions, either to a lack of education or a personality disorder. As Jason Brennan advocated in his 2016 book Against Democracy, public consultation does not help administrators bring their policies more into line with people’s needs or desires. Its main purpose is to gauge how successfully they have persuaded people to accept the next step in their long-term plans for wide-ranging societal transformation. If consultants detect widespread resistance to their favoured policies, they will not necessarily abandon the policy but change strategy. In many cases, unpopular policies are mere steppingstones to a much more radical goal. They are not the desired endgame but serve to prepare people for more far-reaching changes in their daily lives.
Ever since the 2008 financial crisis, the governments of the world’s most prosperous countries have only managed to keep their people happy by artificially reinflating the consumer economy through unsustainable borrowing. Just as Chancellor Alastair Darling conjured up £600 billion overnight to bail out the banks thirteen years ago, in 2020 Chancellor Rishi Sunak found £400 billion under the sofa to enforce covid containment policies and keep millions of non-essential workers at home on furlough. While the likes of Google and PayPal may still pay lip service to the entrepreneurial aspirations of small business owners, they may now only operate within an ecosystem owned and controlled by a handful of tech giants. Sure, you can set up your handcrafted greetings card store on Amazon, accept payments via PayPal and source all raw materials online via similar channels. You’re selling a little piece of your human creativity. However, unless you can invest in specialised equipment with a dedicated workshop or become a megastar on Youtube, you will be lucky to earn more than some extra virtual pocket money to supplement your UBI. Your whole life will still be trapped in the matrix.
What is Technocracy?
Arguably, ever since the industrial revolution, our livelihoods have relied more and more on complex systems beyond our immediate control. Without clean water, electricity and integrated supply chains, our modern lives would soon grind to a halt. However, until recently, we needed millions of workers to maintain such systems. Large chunks of the workforce were thus directly involved in overseeing the smooth operation of machinery on behalf of their families, friends and neighbours. If the ruling classes failed to respect their key workers, they could hold their fragile economy to ransom. Outsourcing, smart automation and extreme labour mobility may have changed much of that, but even today some organised labour groups can challenge the powers that be. As the Australian governing classes deploy troops to enforce harsh lockdowns and their media outlets seek to shame those who do not comply with medical martial law, their truck drivers may offer the last hope in popular resistance. It may be easy for the military to neutralise and isolate a few thousand protesters in city centres, but a few thousand truckers can blockade cities and obstruct military movements giving a critical mass of suburban residents a window of opportunity to defy orders. Sadly, it is only a matter of time before driverless vehicles and deceptively green legislation disempower the last bastions of organised labour.
We should not confuse technology with technocracy. Where technological control is widely distributed, it can empower commoners. By contrast, centralised command structures with atomised and highly specialised workforces can abuse their effective monopoly on power to control every aspect of our private lives, including our most intimate moments and ultimately procreation itself. In a few short years, we have witnessed the close collaboration and commercial convergence of companies we once believed were fierce competitors. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook work in tandem to censor scientific dissent and spy on their customers. Artificial intelligence has already enabled tech giants not just to suggest new products and services based on your surfing history, but to analyse political leanings and diagnose critical thinking. Natural language processing may be in its infancy, but the leading social media platforms already have the means to intercept private messages that challenge their preferred narrative on strategic issues. They often justify such censorship as a necessary tool in their campaign against hate speech and in favour of vulnerable victim groups. This doesn’t just preclude open debate on sensitive subjects such as immigration or genetic determinism, it stifles any challenges to the new orthodoxy enforced ruthlessly by the biotech industrial complex.
The New Hate Speech
The faux-liberal elites have long co-opted the struggles against racial and sexual discrimination. Yet the same conceited ruling classes who once supported Western imperialism to tame the uncivilised peoples of the developing world have a new enemy in sight, the free-thinking socially conservative working classes and small business owners. The common thread that unites late 19th-century eugenicists such as Francis Galton with 21st-century transhumanists is their belief in the intellectual superiority of a master race. A century ago, race and biological sex were still key factors in determining one’s worthiness, but our rulers never intended to extend the same privileges they enjoyed to everyone who happens to share the same complexion or genitalia. Whether you were a Welsh coal miner, a Mississippi cotton picker, an Indian peasant or an African subsistence farmer, your imperial masters considered your lives expendable, unless they had trouble finding someone else to do a mission-critical job. Their main concern was to avoid open revolt and expand their commercial and cultural influence through a network of local leaders. Our technocratic overlords are now dividing us into rival castes of scientific gurus, middle managers, key workers, useless eaters, surviving on UBI and social credits, and the lowest of the low, outlaws or refuseniks.
Synthetic woke tolerance for people with different complexions, genders, sexual orientations and religions has now morphed into intolerance of anyone who fails to abide by arbitrary biomedical norms, which we once considered private medical matters. In two short years, we have regressed from accommodating people’s imperfections to treating nonconformists as lepers.
Opinion leaders and politicians, ranging from lowly BBC presenters such as Stephen Nolan in Northern Ireland to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, have started to blame the so-called unvaccinated or antivaxxers for a surge in people falling ill after testing positive with covid variants. Queensland health minister, Yvette Dath, went one step further to suggest citizens who refuse to get jabbed will have to stay under permanent house arrest. Western Europe’s hopes may now hinge on the French people’s reaction to Macron’s introduction of the controversial pass sanitaire. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have taken to the streets in towns and cities across France, with some estimates suggesting participation rates of over 2 million nationwide. Yet these protests are barely reported in the mainstream media except as small gatherings of marginalised antivaxxers living in a parallel universe. The key issues at stake are not vaccination per se or even the development of new gene therapies to combat diseases, but coercion, bodily autonomy and complete submission to remote technocrats who may not have your best interests at heart.
Our technocratic overlords hope to harness their full spectrum dominance of the means of mass communication to atomise the general populace and isolate troublemakers. Their strategy is clearly to sow the seeds of deep societal division by blaming jab refuseniks for rising death tolls, including those caused by genetic code injections. They want to encourage people to report non-compliant neighbours to the health authorities, who may then involve either the police or psychiatric services. Groupthink may sadly be much more contagious than any biological pathogens. We have a limited window of time to save one of the defining features of humanity: independence of mind.
