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.
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 in 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.
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.
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 sides. 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.
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.
Do the ruling classes engineer rapid social transformation, or do they just react to it?
Nobody denies other groups of human beings can and do conspire to exploit, rob, maim or otherwise harm other people to further their own selfish ends. However, when such groups are large corporations or states, the mainstream media will usually only expose their misdemeanours if they are either official enemies or convenient scapegoats.
We are somehow supposed to believe that any mishaps that affect the livelihoods of millions of ordinary citizens are the fault of a few bad apples, external enemies, natural disasters or our own misbehaviour. We can rest assured it’s never the fault of the world’s most powerful organisations, who presumably all have our best interests at heart. The abiding message that neurolinguistic programming practitioners and behavioural scientists have implanted in our brains is that we must not only trust the experts, but also distrust anyone who challenges them. But who are these experts? Who decides which functionaries may determine scientific truth and constrain public policy options? When media talking heads lectured us on foreign policy, many switched off or opted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Endless internecine and religious conflicts in far-flung corners of the world only concern a minority of Westerners. Most opted to believe that such military adventures, while often counterproductive, aimed to spread liberal democracy and that opponents of humanitarian interventions supported despotic regimes. While most people enjoyed comfortable living standards at home, dissent remained a minority sport. All that changed in early 2020. Well-paid propagandists did not just flood the airwaves to promote resource wars or raise awareness about mental health, they sought to shame anyone who failed to follow a new set of bizarre rules that fundamentally changed the way we interact with each other. All of a sudden, each physical encounter with another human being posed a potential bio-hazard, unless we adhered to a new bio-security protocol. TV experts could thus blame excess mortality not on medical malpractice, but on our failure to abide by their rules.
As the narrative began to crumble, some observers asked why so many people complied with absurd regulations that did more harm than good. For every elderly person who may not have caught a seasonal infection because of lack of physical proximity with other unmasked people, many more died of neglect and isolation. If you see an elderly lady struggling to cross a busy road with a walking frame, she runs a tiny risk of catching a nasty disease from you if you help her, but a much bigger risk of being run over or stumbling on a pothole. Common sense often goes out of the window when another perceived threat looms large. The question is who persuaded hundreds of millions of people in different countries to change their behaviour? Did the stealthy elites plan this operation years in advance or did people just succumb to the madness of crowds genuinely frightened by the prospect of painful early death due to a scary virus? Honestly, I’m quite happy to believe the events of the last two and half years could be a result of both.
Dr Peter Breggin first came to my attention in the early 2000s as I researched the relentless growth of the mental health industry and the concomitant rise in psychoactive drug prescriptions. My concern was then, as it still is today, not with modern medicine, which has helped save many lives, but with the steady drift towards technocratic control of every aspect of natural human behaviour. Technology should always serve us as human beings and not the other way around. Dr Breggin has long been an outspoken critic of antipsychotics and antidepressants. I read the first edition of Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why To Stop Taking Psychiatric Medications, which seemed very much in the same mould of other books that came out in the same era such as Robert Whitaker’s Mad in America. Yet I later learned Dr Breggin often appeared on the notorious Savage Nation radio show. Its host, Michael Savage, had gained a reputation as a rightwing shock jock who not only supported gun rights and opposed mass immigration, but also generally backed US military adventurism and, of course, Israeli exceptionalism. While I agreed with Dr Breggin on psychiatry, I grew suspicious of the company he kept. I came from a left-leaning libertarian perspective critical of any form of authoritarianism, embracing Rousseau’s idea of the fundamentally peace-loving nature of humanity once liberated from all forms of oppression. To my dismay, many on the cultural left welcomed the expansion of mental healthcare with pro-active screening of personality disorders rather than addressing the psycho-social causes of people’s emotional challenges. The authoritarian drift of what we once called the liberal left predates the covid era, but I hoped the tide would turn and the left would once again seek to empower natural humanity rather than re-educate the underclasses in a forlorn quest to engineer a perfect society. The pursuit of perfection, while advantageous in many technical tasks, almost always leads to tyranny when applied to the management of human behaviour.
Many emotive causes that once delineated rival camps posing on the left or right now seem mere side shows. Your position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, abortion rights or smacking once served as litmus tests in the fictitious left-right divide. What matters much more is the contrast between greater concentration of power versus greater decentralisation or rather top-down versus bottom-up control structures. The current ethos that beseeches us to trust the experts is the hallmark of the top-down model.
In the Western World, radical critiques of psychiatry appealed most to the antiauthoritarian left. The liberal left opposed militarism and championed the emancipation of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups within society. The notorious Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1974. Early 21st century psychiatrists are much more concerned with symptoms of right-wing radicalisation that may include homophobia and transphobia. By rebranding psychiatry as mental health advocacy and extending its remit to a wide range of emotional problems, the corporate-state system has vastly expanded the behavioural surveillance industry with its armies of social workers, teachers and support workers liaising closely with the health and police services. The covid scare empowered the people management sector to apply the same behavioural insights techniques pioneered with vulnerable children and adults to the wider population. All of a sudden, everyone needed to heed official advice on how to go about their everyday activities. The mainstream media normalised an irrational fear of nanoscopic genetic sequences encouraging behaviours that would have until recently justified a clinical diagnosis of OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder). At the same time, restrictions on informal socialisation, dehumanising mask mandates in schools and an engineered fear of people outside your bubble promoted autistic behavioural patterns in normal children.
While other American intellectuals I had once admired such as Noam Chomsky failed to challenge the covid narrative, Dr Breggin reappeared on my radar as a brave dissident voice in a new era of worldwide groupthink. In a recent interview with the German Corona Investigative Committee (Corona-Ausschuss), Peter Breggin pointed out something I should have noticed about one of the superstars of the covid truth movement, for a want of a better term, Prof. Mattias Desmet. He did not question the criminality of a tiny clique, but rather sought to blame the madness of the crowds, something he likes to call mass formation. While his thesis has its superficial appeals, his recent book on The Psychology of Totalitarianism fails to identify a criminal cabal responsible for engendering collective compliance, but rather lays the blame on lazy thinking and our innate desire to fit in. It is almost as if the ruling classes did not want to roll out Draconian lockdowns and censor dissent, but only reacted to overwhelming public calls for urgent action to combat the virus. Indeed, unlike Robert F Kennedy Junior, Prof. Desmet fails to mention decades of pandemic planning and the inexorable drift to technocracy. It’s as if we acted in unison without any undue coercion by the same power-hungry elites who also happen to own the media and run most NGOs. While most wild conjecture about secret plots to control the whole of humanity may be wrong, much of verifiable modern history would have to be radically revised if we discounted all theories about corruption and crimes against humanity. High-profile gatekeepers serve an important role in providing ready-packaged explanations for obvious contradictions in the web of deceit emanating from the mainstream media. Yet they deny the criminality at the heart of our ruling classes, passing the buck onto rival ruling classes, incompetent middle managers or workers who followed orders unaware of their consequences. They are organised crime deniers.
Revisiting sustainability and the population paradox.
Have you noticed that every problem, whether real, perceived or fabricated, now demands the same solution: more technocracy for the common good of public health and environmental sustainability. Whether it’s digital health passports in the guise of smart apps, universal basic income with social credits, fact-checkers acting as electronic Ministries of Truth, online safety bills, mental health or the endless promotion of alternatives to traditional mother and father families, all trends lead us to greater dependence on the biotech industrial complex.
In the heady years of unparalleled consumer growth, hundreds of millions of us imagined a bright future of ever-expanding horizons with new freedoms and opportunities for the next generation. As inexpensive telecommunication and paved roads spread to regions we once disparagingly called the developing world, for a few short decades, we witnessed the apparent globalisation of the American Dream. While the big multinational brands began to dominate the urban landscape in cities as diverse as Bogotá, Bengaluru, Boston, Berlin, Beijing or Brazzaville, laissez-faire free-market capitalism gave way to public private partnerships that transferred power away from smallholder farmers and local traders to subsidiaries of a global network. Health and safety regulations had once protected local communities and workers against greedy corporations, eager to profit from the exploitation of natural resources and human labour. Now in the age of smart automation, big corporations often lobby governments to introduce tougher environmental regulations to put their leaner and meaner local competitors out of business, leaving only light ancillary services to small businesses. The open highways of 1960s North America have slowly but surely morphed into a corporate control grid with the commoditisation of privacy and unspoilt countryside.
In the years of plenty, opinion leaders successfully swept all talk of overpopulation and eugenics under the carpet. Only maverick academics and stealthy think tanks dared tackle these issues head on. Others only skirted around these controversies with platitudes about sustainability, climate change and resource depletion. Multinationals seemed happy to attract new consumers swarming to the burgeoning metropolises of the misnamed third world. Once they had abandoned their subsistence farms, these new human resources would soon become dependent, whether directly or indirectly, on global banks with NGOs managing their transition to our concept of modernity. Optimists forecast that a blend of technological innovation and lifestyle changes would help us avert resource wars. By the dawn of the 21st century, earlier fears of widescale famines in countries with high birth rates faded as more efficient farming methods with irrigation and fertilisers could easily feed a forecast peak population of ten to eleven billion. Ever since fertility rates have dropped in most of Asia. China, Japan, Korea and much of South America now have below-replacement fertility rates. India has now stabilised at around replacement level. Only Sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt and a few Muslim Asian and Middle Eastern countries (Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan) retain a strong preference for large families (with fertility rates > 3.0). However, as millions move to burgeoning towns and cities and abandon their rural lifestyles, we can only expect prolific countries like Nigeria and Tanzania, with fertility rates respectively of 5.3 and 4.8, to follow in the footsteps of South Africa at just 2.4 and declining.
While we can easily feed the world without exploiting more arable land, we should ask if ten billion human beings can drive 5 billion vehicles, requiring a vast expansion of existing road infrastructure. More pertinently, should Europeans and North Americans, expect to keep their high-consumption lifestyle? French President, Emanuel Macron, has warned his people that the age of abundance is over (or fin de l'abondance).
There are certainly dangerous extremes in the population debate. On the one hand, endless expansion of aggregate consumption will require more advanced technology controlled by Big Tech leading to greater dependence on remote organisations with more surveillance and top-down social engineering. On the other, the kind of swift population decline that some power brokers such as Bill Gates, Prince Charles or Yuval Noah Harari would like to see may, depending on its speed, only be achievable through higher death rates and/or strict birth controls with grave consequences for basic human rights. Over the last two decades, Western policy makers have worried that people are living too long placing an unsustainable burden on both the state and private pension funds. Historically, two main methods have brought about rapid depopulation of undesirables, wars and land seizures. The latter is by far the most effective. By simply denying people the means to sustain their families or forcing people to adapt quickly to an alien society with very different rules, colonial powers could engender collective despondency and attribute excess mortality to primitive culture or perceived intellectual inferiority. Today, the whole world lives under the colonial rule of a few big banks and corporations, something we might call the Global Mafia.
We face two divergent propositions. One views most of humanity, unable to contribute to the development of a new eco-friendly technotopia, as pathogens wasting valuable resources, polluting our waterways and denying other species of their natural habitats. It’s easy to see the attractions of a more sparsely populated planet with more wilderness and more space for its surviving inhabitants to thrive. Some would perversely argue that a less populated world would be a freer world. There may well be eight billion people alive today, but only a few million can truly fulfil their dreams. Even if such a panacea were desirable, who would decide who will survive and who will be slowly euthanised?
Today, more than ever, raising the next generation requires a high investment strategy. Future adults need a sense of belonging and purpose that they can only learn through past generations. We are rootless nobodies without cultural connections to our biological ancestors. It may no longer make sense for most women to have four, five or six children, but a future without naturally born offspring would hasten the eclipse of humanity as it has evolved gradually over millennia. It will also mark the end of equal opportunities. Genetic engineering and augmented intelligence will empower a master race to downgrade the rest of humanity to the status of zoo animals. We are at a crossroads. We can either adapt to our natural environment by living more humbly or we can let the technocrats take over and deny us the freedom to shape our future.
Could this covid marshal police compliance with future climate lockdowns?
Until the early 2000s I had taken it for granted that only outwardly autocratic dictatorships such as the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, Nazi Germany or North Korea required their citizens to think alike. As a cultural lefty, I’ve always prided myself on independence of mind, but also hoped humanity would converge on a more caring and sharing society. Could socialism ever come about without suppressing either people’s individuality or the true cultural diversity of communities with different interpretations of morality? Let us just consider that one section of American society believes life begins at conception, but gun ownership is a God-given right, while another believes only the state-authorised agencies can be trusted with guns, but a woman’s emotional wellbeing trumps the rights of the unborn. Perversely, many who support a woman’s right to choose over the survival of a foetus in her womb, do not support her right to choose which pharmaceutical drugs are injected into her body or have any meaningful say over her child’s education. If we cannot reconcile conflicting worldviews, we can at least agree to have different jurisdictions that enforce different laws reflecting the will of local peoples. That’s called democracy, but it only works when commoners can override the will of the ruling elites who do not necessarily have their best interests at heart. Increasingly, our rulers treat us like zoo animals who have to be tamed and kept in captivity for our own good.
The greatest shock over the last couple of years has not just been the overall tyrannical drift, but the acquiescence of the liberal professional classes, who have long vaunted their tolerance and philanthropy. The biggest cheerleaders for lockdowns, mask mandates and jab coercion were not old-fashioned conservatives or intolerant ethno-nationalists, but trendy progressives who see themselves as heirs to the hippies of the 1960s and 70s or the later new-age movement. We have somehow progressed from smoking pot at rock concerts, growing organic vegetables and skinny-dipping in pristine lakes in search of a greater connection with mother nature to embracing an obsessive bio-security regime that exploits our fear of contagions and environmental Armageddon only to empower technocrats to confine most of us to compact human habitation zones.
As I write, Dutch farmers have blocked their country’s highways and byways to protest against their government’s radical nitrogen-reduction measures. Their government wants to cut dairy and livestock farming in favour of the kind of genetically engineered crops and food processing plants favoured by big food startups such as the Dutch supermarket chain Picnic. The country’s prime minister, Mark Rutte, has openly boasted about his plans to transform the Netherlands into a high-tech food hub, run by engineers and artificially intelligent robots rather than by families who have farmed the land for generations. By sheer coincidence, Justin Trudeau’s Canadian administration is rolling out a variant of the same policies by letting soaring fertiliser prices force farmers to sell their land to the same predatory biotech multinationals that have gained the most from the last two years of top-down crisis management.
Yet the mainstream media keeps alive the myth of democracy with controlled opposition groups who indulge in identity politics, while ignoring the greatest power grab ever in human history. The Italian election campaign may provide the temporary illusion of choice between advocates of national sovereignty and progressive antiracists. Only a year ago all major parties in the government of national unity under the former president of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, agreed to roll out WEF-inspired green pass (digital health passport) schemes to police biotech compliance at great public expense while squandering hundreds of billions more on UBI trials, racking up unstainable debts. The same politicians who wanted to keep the unvaccinated under house arrest now accuse the opposition, mildly critical of medical apartheid, of fascism. The media seizes the tragic murder of a Nigerian immigrant by a jealous Italian husband to guilt-trip indigenous Italians critical of uncontrolled mass immigration. The trendy managerial classes can virtue-signal their racial tolerance, while native Italian doctors and nurses are still on unpaid leave because they refused to cooperate with Pfizer and Moderna.
Many on the left still believe in the fairy tale of endless regeneration through immigration to wealthier countries with low birth rates. This would be fine if we had the technology not only to sustain a projected ten billion human beings with Western European living standards but could also let all young people be architects of their destiny, enjoying the kind of freedom and opportunities that once abounded in the prosperous West. The fourth industrial revolution is fast putting an end to that dream with the smart automation of most manual and clerical jobs that might sustain the livelihoods and personal independence of both the native and migrant working classes. Over the last twenty years we’ve seen a rapid shift away from long-term careers in practical trades to the gig economy of short-term contracts and extreme labour mobility. Uber drivers and Amazon delivery agents may earn a few quick bucks with only a standard driving licence, but their employers are busy investing in driverless vehicles and drones. Their jobs are temporary because their services will soon be superfluous to requirements. More disturbingly, the tech giants have abandoned the consumer growth model that favoured endless market expansion for disposable goods. With armies of drones and strict regulation of natural socialisation, Big Tech now needs people more as compliant guinea pigs than either as workers or consumers. Strong-willed and independent-minded workers pose a threat to their hegemony. Human beings may withdraw their labour and may not always follow orders. Robots may malfunction, but they are both dispensable and easily replaceable. Our tech overlords may need some engineers, marketers and middle managers, but they are phasing out their reliance on truckers, farmers, fishermen, builders or even on human nurses. The neoliberal dream successfully lured people away from traditional self-reliant communities to urban landscapes owned by controlled by big business and governments. Now with the advent of artificial intelligence, most humble human workers will be unable to compete and be lured instead into lifelong dependence on universal basic income with social credits for good behaviour.
The notional left no longer stands up for workers’ rights or challenges the extreme concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands. Instead its leaders advocate paternalism for the largely workless masses with special privileges only for the compliant managerial and engineering classes. They champion identity politics around whimsical lifestyle choices and personality traits, while blaming the socially conservative working classes for the crimes of colonialism. They obsess with LGBTQ++ rights and mental health, while turning a blind eye to the plight of young families who want to earn a living and raise the next generation with the ethics and culture of their forebears. Today's fake left is not anti-establishment at all, it is the establishment. If you have BlackRock, Vanguard, Big Tech, CNN, the BBC and the leading NGO's on your side, you cannot claim any grassroots credentials. Progressivism, for want of a better term, hinges on the belief that an upper caste of scientific experts should be the only masters of our destiny. Unchallenged, they have the ultimate power of life and death over the rest of humanity.
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.
Some readers may recognise the above slogan as a calque on the Socialist Workers’ Party’s old catchline ending in “but international socialism”. It appealed to the anti-establishment radical left who realised the old Soviet Union had failed to deliver the kind of Utopian communalism to which they aspired. How could we oppose American imperialism in Latin America, while turning a blind eye to abuses of basic human rights in countries controlled or occupied by the USSR? To do so, we had to favour a rose-tinted vision of life under Soviet rule while attributing all hardships at home to something we called capitalism. In reality, both systems saw extreme concentrations of power with plenty of regulations to maintain social order. Yet the Western mixed economy model proved better at spreading prosperity and lifting people out of extreme poverty, mainly due to better and more efficient technology.
Thirty-one years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the world appears once again divided between rival camps as the United States of America loses its role as the world’s dominant superpower. As Western governments resort to more authoritarian means of people management, some of us may pin our hopes on Russia, China and India as the new beacons of human progress. I very much doubt the Kremlin would have authorised the military occupation of Ukraine without the covert support of Asia’s two most populous countries.
In all major conflicts since the fall of the Iron Curtain, we have witnessed a familiar pattern of concerted media campaigns that serve not only to manufacture consent for military intervention, but to instil in the public mind the dominant narrative of an enlightened liberal international community battling barbaric despots. The Western media has at different times portrayed Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad as the latest reincarnations of Hitler. To counter this narrative, peace campaigners had to learn the often chequered histories of regional ethno-religious rivalry and imperial meddling. Objective truth in such disputes is seldom a clearcut case of good versus evil. The United States bankrolled the predecessors of Al Qaeda, the Mujahadeen, in the 1980s to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and initially supported Saddam Hussein’s regime in the eight-year Iraq-Iran war. Until recently it seemed plausible to assume the US-centred Deep State has destabilised many resource-rich regions to consolidate their commercial interests. This logic suggests that the Western working classes may have unjustly benefited from the exploitation of other regions. In the eras of Western imperialism and American exceptionalism, large corporations certainly did use some of the proceeds of their exploitation of third world resources to buy off the working classes, but then they opted to outsource most intensive manufacturing to China, Vietnam, Indonesia and other countries with shameful human rights records. Since China has morphed into the world’s industrial powerhouse, it has increasingly relied on the exploitation of raw materials in Africa, South America and Siberia. Only the greenback’s role as the world’s reserve currency and the USA’s strong military ties with Saudi Arabia have prevented China from dominating the global economy. Now Saudi Arabia has agreed to sell its fossil fuels in Yuan and Russia has put the rouble back on the gold standard, cutting favourable deals with India and China.
As soon as Russian forces occupied Eastern Ukraine, Western governments acted fast to censor RT and turn up the level of anti-Russian propaganda with wild accusations of mindless atrocities attributed to Russian forces. However, the Indian, Chinese, Arabic and Iranian media have failed to toe the Western line. This is not a war between a mad dictator, personified by Putin, and the enlightened West. It’s the end of the New American Century and the beginning of the next phase in the Great Reset, something that could not happen without the active participation of the Chinese Communist Party. The Russian army may not be deliberately targeting Ukrainian civilians. The Azov Battalion may well be responsible for many of the crimes the Western media attributes to Putin, but Russia has already lost some 16,000 lives in this war and has no need for more living space. That’s more than 13,000 thousand who died in the 8-year civil war in the Donbas and Luhansk. Just as American military interventionism has failed to benefit US citizens back home, Russian revanchism will bring neither peace nor prosperity for its citizens. The Ukrainian question could have been solved peacefully and democratically.
In many ways, Russian propaganda mirrors Western narratives. RT is certainly a smooth operation providing the semblance of objectivity, but their favourite game is to portray all advocates of national self-determination as Nazis. They may have a point with some elements of the Azov Battalion, but Ukrainian cultural attitudes are broadly in line with their neighbours and their politically incorrect sympathies for defunct regimes a product of Stalinist repression and the Holodomor. Why is Ukrainian nationalism so much more dangerous than Polish or Lithuanian nationalism, both of which had been suppressed by the former Russian Empire? The whole thing looks like a pantomime with narratives tailored to different audiences. Russian and Chinese audiences may believe this is a result of NATO aggression and Russia is liberating Ukraine from Western-backed Nazis. The West claims the Russians are the aggressors behaving like Nazis, while offloading the blame for the impending financial collapse on Putin. This manufactured conflict provides the perfect backdrop for the eclipse of American hegemony with the full blessing of big tech.
I fear the main beneficiary of this futile war will be the kind of Sinocentric globalism that Justin Trudeau admires. If modern Russia has killed thousands in Chechnya and hundreds in Ukraine, China continues to kill thousands of Uighur insurgents with utter impunity. The Western European economy may struggle to cope with higher gas prices as a result of Russian sanctions, but it would grind to a halt without China. Our entire industrial base depends on cheap Chinese imports. The elites will use the new cold war to fast-track the Great Reset with the smart automation of most monotonous jobs, universal basic income dependent on social credit scores and total surveillance of all human habitation zones. Not only has Russia introduced digital health passes, but its main ally, China, has enforced the most extreme lockdown ever in Shanghai with children testing positive for the mild omicron variant removed from their parents.
For more on Russia’s role in the New World Order, I recommend the excellent debate hosted by the Off-Guardian with Ian Davis and Tom Luongo among others.
