Category: Power Dynamics

Categories
Power Dynamics War Crimes

Can we let the War Party win again?

Who benefits from more death and destruction in the Middle East?

Rubble litters a street between smoldering buildings hit by an Israeli airstrike in Jabaliya, Gaza Strip, Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2023. (AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)

It’s easy to jump on bandwagons in righteous indignation against the latest demons guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity. Alas recent history has taught us over and over again that we cannot trust the objectivity and impartiality of the mainstream media to verify the authenticity of some of the most gruesome videos of crimes attributed to either side.

The technocratic coup of early 2020 that saw the roll-out of medical martial law amid a coordinated propaganda campaign gave rise to a new alliance among critical thinkers. We buried our differences over complex geopolitical matters in a battle between the Biotech Mafia and natural humanity. For three short years, the Middle East conflict almost disappeared from our TV screens with blanket wall-to-wall propaganda over novel respiratory viruses, Ukraine and climate change. Many heroes of the fledgling medical truth movement such as Mark Steyn and Robert F Kennedy Jnr. have sided firmly with the Israeli government and given their unconditional support for any military actions it may have to take to defend Israel’s right to exist. I find this stance very disturbing in the light of the recent Ukrainian quagmire for a heavy-handed invasion of Gaza could well backfire, with hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides. In an increasingly unstable world, we should never assume the Collective West will always win. Let us not forget Benjamin Netanyahu used his own people as guinea pigs by enforcing one of the strictest covid regimes.

Sadly, many on the other side of the Palestinian debate fell for the covid psyop hook, line and sinker. As much as I believe Israel has committed many war crimes against the Palestinian people (namely the descendants of the region’s pre-1948 inhabitants), I can’t help but notice the Palestinian liberation movement’s close links with the illiberal forces of Islamic fundamentalism and the neo-Bolshevik left with many still donning facemasks. How can they advocate self-determination for Palestinians if they want to abolish all nation states? How can they support the religious rights of Muslims if they also want to impose gender-bending ideology on young children? Besides, does self-determination mean anything at all if we do not have fundamental freedoms such as bodily autonomy or intellectual freedom? Did Socialist Worker sellers care much about free speech when censorship only affected dissident scientists and gender-critical feminists? Oddly the same BBC that failed to report massive anti-lockdown protests in its main news bulletins and spent countless millions on propaganda against antivaxxers, gave extensive coverage of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London, Glasgow and elsewhere yesterday. Far be it from me to praise the BBC, but its journalists have questioned the morality of collective punishment and interviewed many critics of the Israeli government, much to the chagrin of staunch Zionists. By contrast, on covid we only ever heard one side of the argument with only guarded critiques of lockdowns, but not a whisper of uncontested criticism of the mRNA injections.

On the subject of corporate disinformation, who would butcher innocent babies and senior citizens to defeat an imperialist occupier? In the age of high-definition TV screens bringing selective heart-rending imagery of atrocities into living rooms across the westernised world, it beggars belief that any combatants could not be aware that beheading new-born babies would be a public relations disaster and would inevitably embolden Israel with the full support of its Western allies to crush Hamas and Hezbollah by inflicting collective punishment on all Gaza residents. Two wrongs do not make one right when it comes to targeting civilians. If it’s wrong for Hamas to target revellers at a music festival, it’s equally wrong to bomb densely populated areas of the Gaza strip where collateral damage is unavoidable or to force over a million Gazans to leave their homes within 48 hours despite the lack of infrastructure in neighbouring Egypt.

The claims and counterclaims on both sides of the decades-old conflict over the self-determination and livelihoods of rival ethno-religious groups have exposed the ideological hypocrisy of many mainstream politicians. For once, the progressive alliance of green, social democratic and neoliberal parties that championed global convergence with the phasing out of nation states are divided. How can they advocate open borders and multiculturalism in the West, but also support ethnic cleansing in the Middle East, either to defend Israel’s right to exist or to evict Jewish settlers on land once owned by Palestinians. Alas lasting peace will only come to the Levant when the diverse Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities can reconcile their differences and agree to difficult compromises. Historically, Christian and Jewish communities were spread over a wide area of the Ottoman Empire, which would later become Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. All this changed with the emergence of Israel as a Jewish state, the protracted Lebanese civil war and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism amid a battle for control over copious oil reserves and decades of Western interventionism. The Middle East is probably the world’s most militarised region. Saudi Arabia alone, spends more than the UK or France on its armed forces. Tiny Qatar has a huge $15 billion defence budget representing 7% of its GDP and Israel spends around $23 billion on defence or 4.5% of its GDP, but can count on generous logistical support from the US. Yet despite its massive military budget and substantial soft power, the world’s leading superpower has suffered a series of embarrassing setbacks in Afghanistan and Syria. Their long occupation of Iraq succeeded only in enriching military contractors like Haliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and McDonnell Douglas, and fomenting Islamic militias like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Over $100 billions of military aid has failed dismally to thwart the Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine. With Saudi Arabia now selling oil in yuan and rupees and poised to join an expanded BRICS alliance, the petrodollar era is over.

Slowing but surely, we’re inching towards a post-American world. While the Anglo-American cultural legacy will live on in the same way as Latin survived the fall of the Roman Empire, the global Deep State owes no special allegiance to North Americans or Western Europeans. Indeed, Israel itself may have outlived its purpose as an outpost of the US-centred world order that grew out of the ashes of the Second World War.  Benjamin Netanyahu’s government may soon find itself isolated if it overplays its hand in the coming ground offensive against the Gaza insurgency, scuppering any chance of reconciliation and potentially drawing other big players such as Iran and Russia into the fray, with the tacit support of China.

I’d much prefer a more innocent world with a mosaic of diverse self-governing communities living side by side with full mutual respect for each other’s different ways of life. I’d love to believe in a peace-loving democratic Israel besieged by primitive Arab neighbours eager to “drive the Jews into sea”. Alas today’s Levant has been shaped by centuries of rival empires, rapid urbanisation, immense oil wealth and, dare I say, population growth. The latter challenge may be one of the most controversial, especially in the light of the recent covid regime that saw us divided into essential and non-essential workers and reclassified human beings as bio-hazards. Saudi Arabia’s population has grown from 3 million in 1950 to 36 million today with most of its citizens concentrated in a few urban areas surrounded by inhospitable desert. The people count of Israel (without the West Bank and Gaza) has grown from just 1.4 million in 1950 to 9.6 million today. That increases reliance on expensive irrigation systems and energy-intensive desalination plants to tackle water scarcity. While the nomadic herders of North Yemen can cope with rudimentary technology, the 2.3 million residents of the compact Gaza Strip cannot survive long without clean drinking water, electricity and imported resources essential to modern life. A complete blockade of Gaza is effectively a death sentence for those unable to flee or take advantage of emergency supplies.

We live in dangerous times and my voice in the wilderness will ineluctably fall on deaf ears. However, only an immediate cease-fire agreed by the Israeli Government, its Arab neighbours, Iran and Hamas can save us from an all-out war that could kill millions more and potentially go nuclear.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Do 7 million British children need more drugs?

In the recent spat over Laurence Fox’s crass remarks on GB News about journalist Ava Evans, most pundits have completely missed the woke journalist’s most outrageous assertion on prime-time BBC TV and it did not relate to sexual desirability. When asked in a panel discussion with comedian, Geoff Norcott, why she opposed the idea of a Minister for Men to deal with issues that disproportionately affect men such as suicide, Ms Evans, also known online as Ava Santina, opined in her usual condescending manner that it just fed into the culture wars, but we needed a more inclusive Minister for Mental Health, before claiming that 7 million children were awaiting prescriptions for mental health. These words just rolled off her tongue. Was I listening to a radical feminist or a representative of a pharmaceutical multinational? True to form, this weekend the venerable BBC ran a story about the shortage of ADHD medications, rather than questioning why so many youngsters need to be on stimulants or given subjective psychobabble labels at all. The establishment has normalised mental illness in the same way as they are now trying to normalise non-binary gender identities.

Let’s put things into perspective. In the UK as a whole there are around 13.5 million under 18-year-olds. In England alone, that’s around 12 million. Is Ms Evans suggesting over half of children should be on psychoactive drugs? Does she think they best way to deal with naughty boys is to drug them into submission?

Unsurprisingly, Ms Evans bought the pandemic narrative hook, line and sinker, uncritically promoting mRNA jabs for under 11s as a regular contributor to left-branded Joe. When the mask mandate ended, she told her social media followers she would keep wearing a face mask to protect herself against the worst virus of all, men. Seriously, what has happened to the cultural left? Their most enthusiastic supporters are wealthy professionals and corporate executives. Statistically, the richer you are in the UK, the more likely you are to support toxic woke ideology. The Tories may still try to appeal to their socially conservative base by talking tough on immigration or giving petrol vehicles another five years on the roads, but they’ve gone along with World Economic Forum diktats with the same zeal as most other Western countries. In power, the Tories, Labour, LibDems, Greens and SNP are little more than different flavours of the same UniParty. They let local authorities and big businesses roll out socially disruptive policies not because of any groundswell in grassroots support, but because paid experts  wanted them. Your primary school children are not learning about anal sex because the gay couple next door, minding their own business, petitioned parliament, but because lavishly funded transnational pressure groups, such as Stonewall, have infiltrated local and national administrations. The mass medication of atomised children is probably one of the biggest scandals of our times. Yet nobody picked up Ms Evans on her desire to drug over half of Britain's children or dared question the long-term effects of lockdown-era isolation. Children need friends, family, outdoor adventure and, above all, hope of a future worth living independent of busy-body control freaks.

Categories
Power Dynamics

The UniParty

The emergence of the polymorphic One-Party State

Why would Costa Coffee, probably one of the UK’s blandest brands, suddenly decide to champion self-harm in the name of the new-fangled gender-bending cult? Surely, they should steer clear of ideological controversies and stick to their primary business of serving wholesome non-alcoholic beverages and snacks. Yet their marketing team decided to feature a topless transman with visible mastectomy scars. I have nothing against us celebrating the natural diversity of human bodies, but the operant adjective here is natural. It’s one thing to raise awareness of medical conditions that may warrant the removal of body parts, but it’s quite another to celebrate and normalise body mutilation among vulnerable young people. I very much doubt Sergio Costa had this in mind when he opened a coffee roastery in London 52 years ago and later set up a chain of family-oriented Italian-themed coffee bars. Today only the brand remains. In 1995 the Whitbread group took over the business and oversaw a large expansion with thousands of outlets, franchises and vending machines popping up around the UK and abroad. In 2019 the Coca-Cola Company acquired Costa in a $4.9 billion deal. Only big organisations can afford to go woke. Smaller for-profit businesses would go broke if they alienated 99% of their clientele.  That’s because large corporations care more about the extra funds they get from major investment banks to promote Environmental, Social and Governance or ESG for short, which is about more than filling the countryside with delightful windmills and solar panels to provide clean renewable energy. What, you may wonder, has gender-bending got to do with environmental sustainability?

In the age of abundance and consumer-driven growth, manufacturers had to satisfy the needs and desires of their broad customer base, which included millions of ordinary workers with families. In our pursuit of happiness, we had to strike a balance between the competing demands of economic expediency, social wellbeing, and a healthy environment. In the years of plenty, the political debate in the prosperous world centred on the relative merits of laissez-faire free-markets and state intervention to ensure minimum safety standards, protect disadvantaged groups and combat corruption. Alas governments and large corporations have for all intents and purposes merged. They now all sing from the same hymn sheet, but with a cruel twist. The big banks with their NGOs and think tanks pose on the far left. It is hard to distinguish the policies of Europe’s Green parties from the wishes of George Soros, Larry Fink, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates. They agree on climate change, UBI, gender theory and biosecurity and, of course, they all worship St Greta Thunberg.

The spectacle of pluralist democracy is kept on life support with WEF-aligned parties appealing to the emotional sensitivities of different sections of the electorate. Just as Labour had thirteen years to upskill young adults in deprived welfare-dependent communities, the Tories have had 13 years to stabilise migratory flows to more sustainable levels. The opposite happened despite all the rhetoric. Indeed, the only rallying cry Labour have left is the mirage of our NHS, as if the enforcers of covid-era midazolam protocols and purveyors of puberty blockers have our best interests at heart. Likewise, the Tories still lend lip service to the concept of self-determination as expressed in the 2016 referendum on EU membership, but then signed the UN’s Global Compact for Migration and are poised to approve the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty with principled opposition restricted to Reclaim Party MP, Andrew Bridgen, with murmurings of dissent of Tory Party backbenchers like Esther McVey, Sir Christopher Chope, Sir Charles Walker or Desmond Swayne.

An eye-opener for the state of British politics was the Tony Blair Institute’s recent Future of Britain event, hosted with barely a hint of irony, by two journalists from the nominally impartial BBC, Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis. It featured alongside international leaders such as Emanuel Macron via video-link, Sir Keir Starmer and Tory Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace. As they mapped out our transition to a low-carbon AI-enhanced world, you’d be forgiven for thinking you were watching a creepy parody of a WEF event discussing how to micromanage the useless eaters outflanked by smart robots at the bottom of the labour market. You may wonder why we should accept advice from the guy who misled us over the real reasons for the 2003 US/UK-led invasion of Iraq and why anyone would trust a conference because it has the blessing of two BBC stalwarts. That’s because the target audience is not the general British public at all, but younger members of the globalised managerial classes working for NGOs and thinktanks who will oversee the kind of change the Global UniParty wants to see.

Categories
Power Dynamics

Systemic Breakdown or Engineered Chaos?

Some foreign observers may gloat over the disturbing scenes of rioting, arson, looting and urban warfare in the banlieues of French cities over the last week with an arrogant sense of schadenfreude, blaming the EU leadership, the French governance team, complacent left-branded politicians and naïve French voters for failing to address the root causes of the societal breakdown we see unfold before our eyes on electronic devices in the safety of our suburban neighbourhoods. Allegedly the police shooting of a Maghrebi teenager, Nahel Merzouk, triggered the destruction of billions of Euros worth of public and private infrastructure with schools, libraries and apartment blocks razed to the ground. Some will recall the brutal stabbing of 4 toddlers in the picturesque Alpine town of Annecy by a mentally disturbed asylum seeker earlier in the month. The woke left admonished some commentators for highlighting the assailant’s origin. Yet while some nationalist politicians may have capitalised on the incident to call for stricter immigration controls, we did not see riots on the streets of provincial towns still populated by autochthonous Europeans. Neither did we see violent retaliations in the wake of the horrendous 2016 truck attack in Nice that killed 86 innocent people or the 2015 Bataclan Theatre massacre with 89 fatalities. Most French citizens did not blame all Muslims for the outrageous crimes of a minuscule, radicalised minority. Indeed, the crimes were so horrific, many suspected dark forces associated either with Western secret services or with foreign actors, could have trained a small army of gullible patsies to commit acts of terror that serve mainly to spread fear and thus to justify more surveillance and censorship.

Like elsewhere in Western Europe, the French government squandered hundreds of billions of Euros on heavy-handed covid containment. They deployed riot police to suppress overwhelmingly peaceful protests against lockdowns and vaccine mandates, losing the trust of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Although French pensions may seem generous by British standards, raising the retirement age amid a cost-of-living crisis with dwindling long-term career prospects for most over 40-year-olds proved to be the last straw for millions of French workers of all political persuasions. Macron could only win his second term as French President as the lesser of two evils, with the corporate media and trendy left opinion leaders smearing his opponent, Marine Le Pen, as a fascist. Ever since Manu, as many his subjects call him, has shown more interest posing on the world stages alongside WEF associates like Rishi Sunak, Joe Biden, King Charles, Volodymyr Zelensky and Ursula von der Leyen. As France burned, Macron partied with Elton John.

True to form, the gallic WEF puppet blamed the riots on social media, and wait for it, video games, both pastimes that his business buddies have been busy promoting for the last thirty years. Rather than focus on the underlying causes of social discontent, Macron opted to clamp down on free speech limiting access to the Internet in high-crime neighbourhoods and liaising with tech giants to suppress videos of mindless violence. Should we not ask instead: Who exactly benefits from the wanton destruction of shopping centres, libraries and schools? More important, who gave tens of thousands of looters carte blanche to steal luxury goods without fear of prosecution? How could acts of vandalism bring justice to the murdered teenager? I see close parallels with the choreographed overreaction to the police murder of George Floyd three years ago in American cities. One way or another French taxpayers will the price of their regime’s overspending on medical martial law, foreign wars and now mopping the mess of a civil war, either directly through tax or higher inflation.

Inevitably, as French security forces struggle to restore order, calls will grow for international peacekeepers on the streets of one of the wealthiest countries on Earth and tighter control over citizens movements. The stage seems set for the roll-out of 15-minute neighbourhoods with exit permits dependent on good behaviour. Nostalgic patriots may fantasise Macron’s resignation with early elections leading to Marine Le Pen’s victory. Socialists may dream of a general strike to bring down the government and, once in power, roll out their welfare panacea with a blend of 1960s social democracy and 21st century green technocracy. Yet the ongoing civil unrest can only benefit Macron’s international backers, eager to suppress the culture and independent spirit of the feisty French people to fast-track its transition to a billionaire’s playground with its lower-to-middle class residents confined to special reserves and suburban ghettos. The global elites may ditch Macron, but they will have another placeman or placewoman ready to fill his shoes with empty promises of reconciliation.

Despite all the bad press France has attracted of late, it remains one of Europe's more self-sufficient countries and is much less susceptible to higher global energy and food prices than its neighbours with a strong farming sector and major investments in nuclear power. At all costs, Manu's Mafia bosses must avoid a return to viable nation states.

Categories
Power Dynamics

Infantile Revolutionary Defeatism

On the eve of the Great War that would lead to over 22 million avoidable deaths, Lenin called the defeat of Russian Tsarism the lesser of two evils, but urged his German and Austro-Hungarian comrades to oppose their Kaisers with the same vigour. This later came to be known in both socialist and anarchist circles as revolutionary defeatism, a concept later repudiated by the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin in the fight against fascism. The idea is that you do not just refuse to fight for your imperial masters, but you actively welcome their military defeat.

Yet on the eve of the Second World War, many on the radical left from pacificists to communists in the UK, France and Netherlands, opposed the march to war with Nazi Germany. Fresh from his harrowing experiences of communist machinations in the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell broke ranks with infantile left-wing activists and his own opposition to British jingoism by supporting the war effort against Nazi Germany as the only way to defend the liberal enlightenment against the greater danger of a totalitarian descent. It was a tough call at the time for anti-imperialists who remembered the carnage of First World War only twenty-one years earlier. Many African and Indian opponents of British colonial rule wished for the globe-spanning Empire’s defeat in the two short years between 3rd September 1939 and Operation Barbarossa, when the Nazi invasion of Ukraine led to the July 1941 Anglo-Soviet Agreement, five months before the Pearl Harbour attacks brought the USA into the war. Yet Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan may never have expanded without substantial investment from Anglo-American bankers via JP Morgan and the Bank of England. General Motors had purchased Opel in 1931 and, like Ford, kept its German factories open throughout the war.

Lost in the annals of mid 20th century history is the curious case of George Lansbury, the quaint pacifist leader of the British Labour Party after its resounding 1931 defeat at the ballot box. For three short years, he not only advocated the dissolution of the British Empire but opposed increases in military spending to counter the rise of fascism and national socialism. Mr Lansbury was not alone in wanting to appease rival powers to avert a catastrophic descent into all-out war. David Lloyd George, the prime minister from 1916 to 22, believed Hitler’s government could rebuild Germany as an economic powerhouse and thus counter the rise of communist influence in Central Europe. The National Socialists would never have won over the working classes without promising to redistribute wealth from international bankers to local communities and appealing both to patriotism and family values. Little did the German social conformists of the mid 1930s know that within ten years their dreams of an ecologically friendly and technologically sophisticated 1000-year Reich would lie in tatters with the remainder of a fragmented Germany integrated with the empires of rival superpowers. Key players switched allegiance almost overnight. Consider the case of Adolf Heusinger. He served the Wehrmacht loyally as Chief of the General Staff under Hitler, but later under Adenauer played a key role in the creation of West Germany’s Bundeswehr in 1955 before being appointed as Chair of NATO’s Military Committee.

The winning powers rewrote history to hide their own involvement in the installation of authoritarian regimes in much of Europe and Latin America. Two years after the infamous 1933 enabling act handed executive power to the National Socialist Party, a revised constitution gave Poland’s interwar Sanation movement absolute power too. The ruling classes could only keep up the pretence of multi-party democracy in Scandinavia, France, the Low Countries and British Isles. Of these only Britain, Ireland and Sweden escaped occupation. Britain had a string of National Unity governments from 1929 to 1945. Ever since we have had a Punch and Judy show of successive Labour, Tory and Coalition administrations juggling the balance of power between large corporations and state institutions. It’s hard to imagine any Western government nominally elected into office would have survived long without the full blessing of the corporatocracy. We need only look at the fate of Salvador Allende in Chile or Gough Whitlam in Australia to understand the limits of Western democracy. As long as they placated the masses with better social welfare, big business could tolerate them, but not when they tried to seize control of the means of production or openly obstructed US foreign policy.

Despite all their failings, Western societies retained two things much more precious than electoral consultations, intellectual freedom and bodily autonomy, namely our basic rights to think and breathe as autonomous human beings rather than as zoo animals. The covid scare offered a convenient loophole to override both core human rights for the greater good. However, it is ludicrous to place your trust in other regimes, such as China, with a longer track record of authoritarian overreach. We live in dangerous times. No external power is going to come to save us. NATO may very well lose over Ukraine, but that too may be a mirage ushering in a new post-American era where global Big Tech works hand in glove with regional law enforcement agencies.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics Uncategorized

Whom may you hate?

Gas the unjabbed (Send the unjabbed to the gas chambers) ! Graffiti by the radical wing of the Covid Cult in trendy post-modern Germany.

When hatred means only loathing protected categories, but it’s fine to direct your anger at new outgroups.

As the antithesis to love, hatred is a natural emotion as old as humanity itself. We hate people who, we believe, mean us harm. By “us” I mean our immediate in-group, ourselves, our family and our wider community. Hatred has its roots in distrust of perceived enemies and fraudsters, something we learn from an early age for the purposes of survival. There’s a reason we teach our children not to accept sweets from strangers. Can we ever justify hateful feelings? Can we ever forgive the perpetrators of heinous crimes? Some may argue that we should only hate evil deeds and give criminals a chance to repent and beg forgiveness. Others argue that some psychopathic criminals are beyond redemption and fully deserve lifelong imprisonment or early death. It may be culturally acceptable to hate irredeemable mass murderers and serial rapists, but organised criminals get others to do their dirty deeds. They also tend to have influential legal and public relations teams to protect them against any likelihood of prosecution.

Hatred is very problematic when it comes either to collective guilt or the demonisation of outgroups at odds with mainstream society, however defined. It may be wrong to tarnish a whole ethnic group with the crimes of their ruling elites, but such divisive tactics often serve the interests of the new ruling classes. The old British upper crust appealed to patriotism and civilisational superiority. They were happy for British settlers to displace the natives in far-off lands when it suited their expansionary purposes. To justify colonialism, the dominant organs of propaganda unpeopled the restless natives. Today they exploit migratory flows in the opposite direction for almost the same reasons, to undermine traditional ways of life, suppress self-sufficiency and subjugate everyone to their rebranded corporate dictatorship.

Back in the 1950s and 60s it was okay to hate practising homosexuals. As late as 1983 the mainstream media vilified Peter Tatchell, an openly gay Labour candidate, posing on the radical left, in the inner-city Labour stronghold of Bermondsey. He lost to the Liberal candidate, Simon Hughes, who later admitted his bisexuality, after attempting to deny such rumours for over 20 years as a high-profile politician. Today, the same treatment is meted out to alleged transphobes, namely people who believe in natural procreation and biological definitions of man and woman. We witnessed this in the Scottish National Party’s recent leadership election contest. The same corporate media that 40 years ago had hounded Peter Tatchell as a dangerous extremist conducted a smear campaign against Katie Forbes, a devout Christian who had opposed the ill-fated Gender Recognition Reform bill.

Yesterday’s protected categories can become today’s outcasts. Germaine Greer has transitioned from being a celebrated feminist author, admired by the radical chic left and regularly appearing on TV, to a reactionary old bat that transgender rights activists want to de-platform. It’s now politically correct to hate TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) as we can observe in countless videos of screeching blue, green or pink-haired demonstrators attempting to stop natural-born women, such as the courageous Kellie-Jay Keen, from defending their gender-based rights.

It seems only yesterday when the woke left defended Muslims against Islamophobia. Now the spectre of Islamophobia has served its purpose in justifying the more surveillance and censorship as well as shutting down rational debate on mass migration, social engineers feel empowered to target fragmented religious communities who oppose the teaching of gender theory in primary schools. The Scottish government’s new hate speech law encourages children to report parents who express homophobic or transphobic beliefs. This pretty much incriminates followers of all leading faiths that preach the virtues of motherhood in the context of stable two-parent families.

Last but not least, we have the sizable minority of adults and teenagers who consciously decided not to succumb to unrelenting coercion to get vaccinated in order to participate fully in society. For the best part of two years, TV talking heads, celebrities, employers, politicians, academics, trade union bosses, social media influencers and religious leaders not only evangelised mRNA injections, they lampooned antivaxxers as ignorant, selfish and anti-science. Even Noam Chomsky supported the isolation of the wilfully unjabbed. At stake was much more than vaccine safety, but bodily autonomy, transparency and accountability. All of a sudden, people lost the right to disagree with state-mandated pseudo-scientific dogma. The left-branded progressive media now targets not so much the unvaccinated as those who question the vaccine narrative, including people like Dr Aseem Malhotra or Andrew Bridgen MP who had initially backed the vaccine campaign. It’s okay to hate the enemies of the Biotech Mafia.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Progressive Sycophants

Hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised freedom fighters protest against technocracy (London, June 2021), ignored by the mainstream media and the establishment left. There was not a single SWP placard in sight.

How billionaire transhumanists captured the middle-class left

I’m so old I recall when the left stood up against the ruling classes with their endless war games and knavish tricks. Now they screech against the spectre of the evil far right, amplify voguish mainstream propaganda and demand the suppression of all traditional outlooks. It only seems yesterday when the radical left championed investigative journalists like Julian Assange and Seymour Hersh and demanded greater transparency from the military industrial complex. We also instinctively distrusted any large multinationals with multi-billion-dollar marketing budgets. Many Western socialists never really forgave the working classes in the 1970s and 80s for their newfound love of cars, gadgets and package-tour holidays that only free-market capitalism seemed able to provide. They fell out of love with the great unwashed and turned their attention to new victim groups.

Broad left-of-centre coalitions may have exposed grotesque injustices and challenged the vested interests of regional elites in the great civil rights campaigns against segregation in the United States and South Africa. Yet when the international corporatocracy embraced racial and sexual diversity in the 1990s after the eclipse of the Soviet Union, affluent trendy lefties moved onto new cultural battles setting themselves at odds with the reactionary working classes, whom they held responsible for centuries of misogyny, homophobia and racism. They even blamed the underclasses of European descent for the historic wrongs of slavery and cultural imperialism. Ironically the forebears of the socially conservative lower classes in the British Isles, the kind of people who supported Brexit, endured extreme hardship and had to work ten to twelve hours a day to feed their families. By contrast, many virtue-signalling progressives can trace their roots to the well-to-do professional and missionary classes who helped administer the Empire and civilise the restless masses for the greater good. All that’s changed is the church has gone high-tech and woke, while the rebranded rainbow empire now spans the whole globe. Today’s progressive managerial classes promote LGBTQ+ Pride month and climate alarmism with the same zeal that their forebears once spread Christianity and allegiance to the monarch among pagans. Indeed, even the new British King struggles to hide his allegiance to the World Economic Forum. One could be forgiven for believing King Charles III has the same speech writer as Greta Thunberg.

The Big Switch

Many argue the Western left began to cast aside its traditional blue-collar base in the 1960s. However, most leftists still believed in a fairer and kinder world with a substantial transfer of power away from boardrooms to grassroots organisations. The Green Left, as it evolved in the 1980s and 90s, attempted to offer an alternative to unsustainable economic growth and rampant greed. They seemed to stand against the vested interests of the big corporations who wanted to expand markets and lock workers into a vicious cycle of debt and mass consumerism. Lower living standards have never been great vote winners, especially when car manufacturers, supermarkets and airlines collude to sell the dream of automotive bliss and fashion fetishism. Throughout the New Labour years (1997-2010), the economic growth mantra reigned supreme. If dissident economists dared to suggest that endless debt-driven expansion of the money supply will ultimately implode with catastrophic social consequences, they soon got shouted down. Despite all the green rhetoric car ownership and foreign travel continued to rise in Western Europe until the 2008 credit squeeze. Sales crept gradually up again until 2020. Since then, there’s been a steady decline. Twenty-twenty may go down history not just as the beginning of a virus-themed technocratic coup, but also as Peak Car. It was the year the big global banks decided to put mass motoring into reverse gear. For decades, lenders literally created money out of thin air to help young adults onto the car-owning ladder. Governments spent billions on multilane highways intersecting an urban sprawl of housing estates and retail parks hostile to humble walkers and cyclists. Now the big banks and energy cartels advertise the wonders of the green economy and our transition away from the era of material growth with effortless travel to a low-consumption digital future with compact 15-minute neighbourhoods serviced by drones. The tech giants support universal basic income because they know most monotonous clerical and manual jobs will soon be fully automated. Last but not least, the same biotech industry that facilitated covid tyranny also bankrolls the transgender and neurodiversity lobbies. The Wellcome Trust funds both the purported neurodiversity movement and transgender inclusion. While the old ecology movement backed local organic farming and herbal remedies, the new green-branded corporate left champions genetic engineering, global supply chains and lifelong dependency on dodgy pharmaceutical products.

Collectivism is the main thread that binds the old based anti-establishment left with the new woke conformist left, but they appeal to very different collectives. The old left of my youth still sought to emancipate oppressed peoples exploited as workers or colonial subjects.

We could broadly split the old radical left into two main camps. Syndicalists, who viewed workers as the main vehicle of change, and idealists, who appealed to the collective conscience through political activism and cultural vanguardism. They came in various flavours, from Christian socialists to pacifists and anti-imperialists. Many, especially in the trade unions, sympathised with the former Soviet Union, China or Cuba. Others took their lead from the disciples of Leon Trotsky or fantasised the Swedish model of luxury social democracy. Yet despite these differences, the various factions on the left agreed on the need to redistribute power from the rich to the poor.  In the West, the mainstream media regularly ridiculed and smeared left-wing dissident thinkers who challenged the hegemony of vested corporate interests. I recall vitriolic media campaigns against the former leader of National Union of Miners, Arthur Scargill, and his communist ally, Mick McGahey, during the bitter 1984 Miners’ strike. The NUM leadership seriously misjudged the Tory government’s resolve. Their year-long battle, mythologised by the student left across Europe, helped the British ruling classes downsize the mining industry and clamp down on trade union rights. To add insult to injury, the Thatcher government imported cut-price coal from Socialist Poland, as it repressed strikes by the anti-establishment Solidarność  movement. Yet, a hard core on the Western left still believed workers could only be masters of their destiny by seizing control of the commanding heights of the economy. Arthur Scargill remains unrepentant to this day. As the leading light in the tiny Socialist Labour Party, he speaks out against the insanity of closing coal mines, but seems oblivious to the struggles against technocracy, hailing the disputed election of Lula da Silva as a victory for international socialism. Yes, that’s the same Lula who wants to jail people for spreading counter-information about mRNA-injectables. In his heyday, Arthur represented a mainly male workforce, believed in families and seldom uttered a word about gay rights. I recall as a student visiting a group of striking miners near Swansea in South Wales. Over breakfast our host expressed his dismay over the antics of a gay rights group, who, he claimed, had brought his struggle to save his community into disrepute. While the student left yearned for a rainbow revolution, most militant trade unionists wanted to protect their communities against global corporatocracy.

The Corbynite left drew most of its active support from the social management classes angry about obvious injustices. They may have championed the Palestinian cause or protested against wars, but all too often they served as gullible foot soldiers in the woke revolution that ultimately only benefits the technocratic classes. With a few noble exceptions such as Jeremy Corbyn’s lesser-known brother, Piers, the trendy left swallowed the covid narrative hook, line and sinker, calling only for more PPE (an acronym seldom heard in everyday speech before 2020), more generous furlough pay and longer lockdowns. As usual, the BBC, Guardian and assorted high-profile influencers guided their groupthink. Not a single trade union leader called for strikes against lockdowns or opposed jab coercion. The opposition came from a new alliance of free-thinkers and social conservatives that transcends the old left-right divide, uniting small business owners, many of whom belong to Labour’s beloved ethnic minorities, libertarians and latter-day hippies who still respect mother nature and bodily autonomy. Aerial footage showed hundreds of thousands at the big London protests against vaccine passports of 2021. Yet they barely figured in mainstream news bulletins. Any reports in the legacy media referred to a few thousand antivax protesters and highlighted peripheral scuffles with the police. Unlike other large demonstrations I’ve attended over the years, there were no printed placards from the trade unions or suspect organisations such as Socialist Workers Party. On the way back from a freedom protest in Glasgow, I encountered a masked Socialist Worker seller. The SWP’s main bone of contention with Big Pharma related to the perceived shortage of their mRNA products in the developing world and not to the safety, efficacy or purpose of the multi-trillion-dollar global injection campaign. I asked whether the SWP now supports UBI (universal basic income) and, not entirely to my surprise, they do as a transitionary measure on the road to the full socialism. The next question flummoxed the humble young Trotskyist: “How could people on UBI go on strike if the managerial classes were, heaven forbid, to abuse their power?”. She had no answer other than to claim we could rise up and seize control of the means of production, but I quipped they “could just declare a health emergency and block people’s bank accounts or access to any form of transport if they protest, you know, just like they do in China”. The conversation ended there. While organised groups of essential workers may counteract the hegemony of mega-corporations, the welfare classes can only beg for more social credits.

Noam Chomsky’s support for biotech apartheid was the last straw. I could forgive him for taking different stances on the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy or on the demolition of NYC’s iconic World Trade Center, but how could the author of Manufacturing Consent fail to question the extreme bias of the corporate media over medical martial law? How could libertarian socialists turn a blind to the biggest and fastest transfer of wealth and power from the working classes to a bunch of super-billionaires? Yet this is what happened. With rare exceptions, the whole conventional left from Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand to Lula Da Silvia in Brazil and from eco-vegans to the remnants of the Fourth International embraced the covid cult and, in doing so, aided and abetted Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset. Pseudo-intellectual neo-Marxist rhetoric makes little practical sense if you have effectively delegated humanity’s future to BlackRock and Vanguard.

Unlike its forerunners, the new corporate left seeks to exploit racial, sexual and neurological identities to guide the masses towards a micromanaged welfare utopia in lockstep with corporate NGOs. At best the postmodern left can demand higher taxes for the rich and more generous handouts for the poor, but the workless masses cannot go on strike. They are at the behest of the technocratic classes who seek to consolidate their control not just over the means of production, but over the whole of humanity. Rather than empower the working classes, the elitist left wants to phase out the labour force altogether.

The battleground no longer pits left against right, but bottom against top or rather natural human beings against technocrats. We need to build a new movement to challenge the greatest concentration of wealth and power in human history.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Who’s really behind the Gender-bending Craze?

The Scottish Parliament has just passed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. Its advocates hail this legislation as a key milestone in our ongoing progress towards a fairer society, by literally inventing a new taxonomy of social constructs divorced from biological reality. As human beings, we have some immutable traits, which result from millions of years of evolution. We are a sexually reproducing species. Only women can give birth to new human beings and only men can impregnate them. Even in-vitro fertilisation does not change these fundamental facts of life. It merely enables conception without conventional coitus. Whether you like it or not, every natural child has a father and a mother. In theory, asexual reproduction, as in monozygotic twins, still relies on prior art, i.e. sexual reproduction via mitosis, involving a union of gametes, is still a prerequisite for subsequent meiosis. Stem cell reproduction techniques replicate sexual fertilisation through in-vitro gametogenesis or IVG, but does away with the need for a donor mother and father. The coming human GMO revolution, as Henry T. Greely foresaw in his 2016 book The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction, will separate the roles of erotic desire and biological sex from procreation and thus the genetic bonds between different generations of the same family tree.

However, this future is not inevitable. Natural procreation is still very much the life blood of modern civilisation, but for how long? With uncertainties about the long-term sustainability of our current high-tech way of life and the automation of most manual and clerical jobs, there is no shortage of children, only very imbalanced age pyramids with more over 65s than under 18s in most of the world outside Africa, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia. Despite rapid declines in fertility, we have never had so many human beings. Yet the world today’s youngsters will inherit will be one of demographic decline with dwindling opportunities for all but the most talented, which will only boost demand for genetic enhancement among the rich and discourage natural procreation among the growing welfare classes. Let us make no mistake, gender recognition legislation has nothing to do with helping vulnerable individuals struggling with their feelings about their assigned anatomy. It is about redefining one of the most fundamental aspects of natural humanity to facilitate a transition to transhumanism that will inevitably place our future in the hands of a clique of bioengineers.

The Abolition of Womanhood

The whole concept of women’s rights only makes sense if we can define what a woman is. Many woke politicians now struggle with this task. If we reduce womanhood to a set of personality and behavioural traits on a subjective spectrum with masculinity, anyone can claim gender-based privileges, which evolved over millennia to accommodate the distinctive roles we play in reproduction. The redefinition of womanhood, as appeared recently in the Cambridge Dictionary as a new entry under woman, is a semantic assault not only on biological females, but on the once untouchable institution of motherhood. The new definition of gender as a neurological concept with over a hundred subcategories warranting special labels and pronouns builds on the equally vague concept of neurodiversity. The well-funded transgender rights movement with its myriad charities and NGOs is really an outgrowth of the wider mental health industrial complex. Until recently, psychiatrists considered gender dysphoria a mental disorder often comorbid with other personality syndromes, not least with the ill-defined autistic spectrum. Prof. Simon Baron Cohen popularised the notion of the extreme male brain on one end of a spectrum from masculine systemisers to female empathisers. Yet this is a gross oversimplification of the differences between male and female brains. Human brains are incredibly versatile and responsive to environmental stimuli. Sex-based specialisation evolved to help us survive. Women need greater awareness of social dynamics, something we now call emotional intelligence, both to choose reliable partners and to raise the next generation. By contrast men can often succeed better in life by pursuing practical tasks or technical endeavours at which they can excel and more important contribute better to the survival of their extended family. While we may associate some behaviours more with masculinity or femininity, there are many ways to be a man or a woman. Some men thrive on social interaction and enjoy flaunting their sportsmanship or physical prowess. Others are more reserved and cerebral. If we used the simplistic empathising-systemising spectrum, many successful alpha males would fall more on the empathising side, while many shy conscientious young women, juggling the onerous duties of motherhood and an intellectually demanding career, might tend more towards the systemising end. It is hard to discern any strict correlation between multifaceted personality profiles and culturally sensitive sexual roles, except when it comes to the heterosexual dating game that favours socially confident individuals attractive to the opposite sex. Numerous studies have shown heterosexual women still prefer manly men and their male suitors still appreciate female beauty and tenderness. Unsurprisingly people seek complementary partners who can make up for their weaknesses. These instinctive attitudes are likely to change in a world without natural procreation where sex is demoted to drug-fuelled erotic exchanges enhanced by cosmetic surgery. Genitalia may become expendable accessories rather than gifts of mother nature. Alternatively, haptic feedback devices could simulate erotic feelings in atomised individuals and thereby do away with the need for more expensive sex robots. Biological sex would be a mere detail assigned at birth, but one’s sexuality and gender identity would be infinitely malleable.

The coming battle is not just over intellectual freedom and bodily autonomy, but the future of humanity itself.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Whither Humanity?

The rise and fall of hominids

Free Thinking, the Common Good and the Emergence of a Master Race

Many subjects are now off-limits in polite society. If you challenge the mainstream narrative on a whole host of controversies, you may risk much more than ridicule and ostracization, you may lose your job and even access to your online bank account. It hardly matters if you can cite mountains of hard evidence to support your analysis, you must filter all your conclusions through the lens of the preferred narrative. In other words, you must bend objective reality to suit a policy agenda handed down by a world-wide web of think-tanks, investment banks and biotech multinationals. It’s what I’ve called elsewhere the Global Mafia, hiding behind its army of media-savvy progressive opinion leaders.

Over the last three decades, the concept of political correctness has gradually encroached on public debate to suppress any perspectives that a self-selected coterie of experts has deemed unacceptable. The hate speech meme is a particularly pernicious extension of political incorrectness, implying that some social values are not just outmoded, but deliberately target a mutating set of protected victim groups. If you support immigration controls, someone may accuse you of hating the people who may no longer qualify to relocate to your country by legal means. Oddly, the same logic does not apply when it comes to military interventions abroad. It is apparently okay to drop bombs on brown people if they support official enemies. Besides, who gets to decide who the good and bad guys are? Perversely, accusations of hate speech can now silence victims of sexual abuse and the socially conservative poor, the kind of people who still value families and independence from their colonial overlords.

That’s where we are in 2022. The new worldwide aristocracy may pose on the green left but exhibits the same moral superiority that 19th century imperialists used to justify the subjugation of lesser peoples. Today, irrespective of our colour or creed, most of us are subjects of the same banking system that controls our access to essential resources such as food, water and energy. For decades we lived under the illusion that a regulated market economy with a social safety net would let us all be masters of our destiny or at least have some say in the future progress of our species. Alas, the fourth industrial revolution has not only enriched a bunch of super-billionaires, it has relegated countless millions of workers to the status of corporate welfare recipients, either via temporary jobs in the gig economy or universal basic income.

The UK’s freshly installed Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, only took three days to ask the Bank Of England to establish a direct digital equivalent to physical cash. Unlike traditional means of exchange, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) are programmable, trackable, terminable and, more disturbingly, revokable. In the same week PayPal reinstated its much-maligned policy to impose fines of up to $2500 to customers it accuses of spreading disinformation. Meanwhile, the biggest cheerleaders for lockdowns and jab coercion want us to forget police brutality against peaceful protesters, quarantine camps, corporate censorship, non-stop fearmongering, social isolation and the trillions squandered on keeping workers and students at home unable to build a welfare-independent future. Prof. Emily Oster wants us to declare a pandemic amnesty, claiming mistakes were made on both. You would be forgiven for believing covid sceptics roamed the streets deliberately spreading their germs to maximise the death toll. Yet the large freedom demos that the mainstream media shunned did not lead to any spikes in excess mortality or hospital admissions. A meta-analysis by researchers at the John Hopkins University found that across North America and Europe, all covid mitigation regulations combined (lockdowns, antisocial distancing, face-mask, hand-sanitising etc.) did little to reduce the spread of coronavirus infections and may have prevented as few as 0.2% of all covid-19-attributed deaths, but at a huge socio-economic cost that naturally increased all other causes of death. Indeed, the mainstream media now blames delayed treatment for non-covid conditions for continued excess mortality. The same media-savvy experts led us to believe in a pandemic of the unvaccinated by redefining unvaccinated to mean someone who had received an mRNA injection less than 2 weeks ago or over 6 months ago, thereby attributing many jab-related deaths to covid in unvaccinated individuals. Not surprisingly, the symptoms of jab injuries are often indistinguishable to those attributed later to long covid. The media often attributes the rise in myocarditis cases to long covid. If any mistakes were made, then the same authorities that are now spending billions more on damage limitation and covering up their crimes are responsible. But were they mistakes at all? Why would the corporate media devote so many resources to the suppression of all alternate treatments if remdisivr were so safe? Why would they prevent relatives from visiting loved ones in person? Why would they discourage autopsies? These were not mere mistakes. They were part of a premeditated plan. The sanctimonious managerial classes want to guilt-trip us for their complicity in crimes against natural humanity.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Creepy Words

Word salad

In late 2020 I began to notice a curious extension to the once harmless word access, both as a noun and as a verb, during the concerted vaccine awareness raising campaign. Covid sceptics had warned early on that the authorities would make regular genetic code injections a condition for participation in mainstream society with the introduction of digital health passports. Ultimately, they would be tied to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) to make life practically impossible for citizens without means of independent subsistence. Alas, TV pundits and online influencers seemed more concerned about access to vaccines in the context of the equally Orwellian concept of vaccine equity. I can understand notions such as access to clean water, access to reliable electric power and even Wi-Fi access. Water is essential to life on earth while electricity and modern telecommunications can greatly enrich our lives. Yet we only crave access to things we need or enjoy. Nobody demands access to something they do not want. That demand must be manufactured. This intriguing juxtaposition of words implied that people might suffer because of a lack of a new pharmaceutical intervention that had never before been tested on billions of human beings. Who decided that we needed to have access to these new concoctions? Did we ever have any proof that we could no longer survive without them? The EU signed a €71 billion contract with Pfizer-BioNtech to buy 4.6 billion injections or more than 10 for each EU resident and sent hundreds of millions of jabs to Africa that went largely unused. There was never a shortage or a lack of access to something most people did not need. There was only ever a huge glut and massive overspend on coercion and enforcement. What people wanted was access to workplaces, bars, restaurants, sports venues, hotels and holidays abroad for which they needed proof of covid-19 vaccine compliance.

Language evolves all the time as it adapts to new social and technological realities. This is perfectly natural. Our forebears did not have snappy words for electronic pointing devices (mice) or personal digital assistants (pads or tablets) because they had not been invented yet. Neither did we have generic terms for someone we may employ to help us keep fit, as in personal trainer, or take our dogs for a walk when we’re too busy, as in dog walker. In the 1960s, the latter job title may have been comprehensible, but few would have seen such everyday tasks as career options. It stands to reason that language tends to change faster in times of rapid societal transformation. Cultural continuity helps us stay in touch with past generations and learn from history. Once the past becomes a foreign country with an unintelligible language, the managerial classes can more easily rewrite history and manipulate the masses. While the English language has coined thousands of new words, often with Greco-Latin roots, since the industrial revolution, some core concepts have remained cultural constants. Their pronunciation and dialectical variants may change, but the basic ideas stay the same. All languages have words for man, woman, child, mother and father. They correspond to the fundamental roles we play in procreation and in raising the next generation. Whether you are male or female was, until very recently, a matter of easily verifiable biology. Our ancestors may not have mastered the science of chromosomes, but we understood only women can give birth to children and only men can impregnate them.

Words like customer, mental health, protection, safety and access may seem innocent enough. They are hardly newcomers to our language, but the ideas and feelings they convey have mutated, sometimes out of all recognition. A customer used to be someone who chose to pay for a service or product. If you don’t like a product or service, you can always take your custom elsewhere. Today, it often means a service user, with no choice over whether to use the service or not. Mental health has progressed from a general concern over someone’s emotional wellbeing into a pervasive intrusion into people’s private lives and inner thought processes. Protection no longer refers only to sensible measures you make to ward off physical harm, but a temporary immunity from prosecution. More creepily, safety no longer refers to voluntary protection from danger, but to artificial isolation from our natural environment. An obsession with a narrow aspect of relative safety can expose people to greater danger. Leaving a frail elderly person with mild dementia home alone without physical contact may reduce the spread of infectious diseases, but increases all other causes of ill-health, not least through loneliness.

Let us return to the creepiest case of semantic drift, namely access. Traditionally, the word was much more common in technical or formal usage. In everyday speech, we opted for simpler or clearer expressions. There may be many reasons why you cannot or may not visit a restaurant. If it serves alcohol, there may be minimum age for minors unaccompanied by adults. It may be hard to reach, possibly involving a strenuous walk up a long and winding path. Its owners may have banned you because of previous misbehaviour. You may have to present a racial purity pass or a digital health certificate to enter the premises and, of course, you may not be able to afford the bill. The bland term access now covers all such eventualities. An accessible restaurant would be open to all, affordable, have facilities to accommodate people with physical disabilities and cater for all dietary needs and preferences. Such a restaurant is unlikely to be very special. If you travel to a Tuscan hilltop village to visit a rustic steakhouse with a bespoke selection of locally sourced seasonal vegetables, you should hardly complain that is not accessible to wheelchair-bound cash-strapped vegans allergic to almost everything on the menu. That’s not their market. The restaurant is not in the business of being accessible to all and sundry, but of catering to a niche clientele who go out of their way to sample a unique culinary experience away from the madding crowd. Accessibility is not always good. Mountaineers do not climb Kilimanjaro, Aconcagua or Mount Everest because they’re accessible, but because they are the ultimate challenge. Their beauty lies in their inaccessibility.

Accessibility often appears in official jargon alongside other deceptive buzzwords like equality and diversity. Despite all the anti-discrimination rhetoric and legislation, the wealth gap has never been larger and culture has never been more homogeneous around the world. Likewise, accessibility initiatives seldom empower the poor and vulnerable to gain access to venues erstwhile reserved to the lucky few, but rather adapt services targeted at the disadvantaged. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for helping the physically disabled to lead more independent and rewarding lives, where feasible, but you can rest assured that if the ruling classes do not want us to access certain publicly funded venues, they will find other means to exclude us, usually under the pretexts of safety or security. They only care about access to things they want us to use. It hardly comes as a surprise that following the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling on the availability of legal abortion in the United States and recent calls for tighter restrictions on abortion in Italy, we now hear talk of access to abortion. As more and more jurisdictions extend the scope of legal euthanasia from a practice reserved for the terminally ill suffering from excruciating pain to people with mental health challenges, talking heads have already started to complain about lack of access to safe and effective euthanasia services. Anything, no matter how immoral, seems so much more palatable when dressed up in health-and-safety verbiage. There is nothing safe about death and nothing good about access to tools of biotechnical subjugation.