For some time now, I have observed how most equality and diversity initiatives usually do the exact opposite. Equality tends to mean greater dependence on state handouts and large corporations, while banksters and tech tycoons consolidate their control over every aspect of our surroundings and private lives. Diversity tends to emphasise superficial differences and labels applied to people based on arbitrary personality profiles rather than practical diversity in skills and ways of life. We may see a greater variation in skin tones, hair styles and fashion statements in most major human habitation zones, but much less variety in customs.
Now it appears most new public health initiatives create more ill-health and most humanitarian campaigns bring us more death and destruction. Over the last two years governments, with the full support of international bankers, have imposed lockdowns and mandated medical interventions which have demonstrably done more harm than good. Only by manipulating statistics can the authorities claim that strict regulation of physical proximity has reduced the spread of respiratory infections. Yet in country after country, the imposition of strict covid measures has had the precise opposite effect. South Korea had one of the lowest covid-19-attributed death rates in the world. Indeed, proponents of face mask mandates heralded the country as a success story. Now, just a few months after rolling out vaccine passports and reaching their goal of inoculating over 90% of their adult citizens, South Korea has seen an unexpected rise in people suffering from severe respiratory diseases. While our focus should be on all-cause mortality and our quality of life, covid-19 restrictions have not even succeeded in reducing deaths attributed to covid-19, which in practice mean anyone who dies after testing positive for the virus whether or not it contributed to their demise.
The covidian cult has finally given way to the Ukrainian cult within the wider context of impending environmental doom. Let’s leave aside the details of Eastern European history or microbiology for a moment. Back in 2019 I recall walking through the streets of Edinburgh adorned with LGBTQ++ pride iconography everywhere. Don’t get me wrong. I’m old enough to remember when gay pride events belonged to a counterculture at loggerheads with the authorities. In 2020 after the first lockdown, NHS-themed covid iconography bedecked street furniture. In 2021, the covid-safety theme morphed into the liberation-through-vaccination theme with vaccination buses in place of gay pride buses. Now, yellow and blue flags dominate the cityscape as the authorities beseech us to stand with Ukraine. Just as the LGBTQ++ events did little to help youngsters who fail to conform to traditional male or female stereotypes by imposing new stereotypes and reframing complex psychosocial challenges in terms of sexual identity, blind support for Zelenskyy’s Ukraine will do little to help Ukrainians, including those in the central and western regions who prefer independence from their larger eastern neighbour. How can we believe that the same global players who have over the last 30 years done everything to undermine national sovereignty in Western Europe, the Americas and the Middle East have suddenly embraced it in Ukraine?
Just two weeks ago, Western leaders like Boris Johnson announced that Russia was poised to attack Ukraine. Considering the US still has military bases in many countries surrounding the Russian Federation and over 10 times the military budget, I doubted the Kremlin would risk triggering World War 3 to settle old scores with its Slavic neighbour. It had little to gain materially. Unlike most Western and Central European countries, Russia does not lack either space or resources. Whatever you may think of Vladimir Putin, his strategy has usually been flawless. Territorial disputes make little sense in an interconnected world where large corporations can simply buy influence. This begs the question: Why now?
The former Soviet Republic declared independence over 30 years ago. Most of its territory had been part of the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union after an interlude of independence following the short-lived Brest-Litovsk Treaty in 1918-19. Over the centuries parts of its western provinces have at different times been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Much of the south, from Odessa to the Crimea was once under Ottoman Rule before the Russian Empire conquered it in the 17th century. While the word Ukraine itself means borderlands, the Kievan Rus is often considered the birthplace of Russian civilisation as it evolved since the 9th century. In many ways the Ukrainians are more Slavic, and thus closer to the original Russians than modern Russians, who have assimilated with a much more diverse range of peoples as they expanded east. Successive empires have suppressed Ukrainian cultural identity. Before the 20th century, the North West sandwiched between Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Belarus and the Dnieper river was known loosely as Ruthenia. Under the Czars, distinctive Ukrainian culture and language retreated to the rural hinterlands. While the Bolsheviks succeeded in winning back the region in the 1917-23 Russian Civil War, resistance to forced collectivisation among Ukrainian smallholders exacerbated the mass famines of the mid 1930s known as the Holodomor, with between 3 and 7 million excess deaths. This experience helps explain why many Ukrainian nationalists welcomed the 1941 Nazi occupation and some, notably the notorious Azov Battalion, sympathise with Aryan Nationalism to this day.
The point is Ukraine with its current borders, or at least those recognised before the recent Russian invasion, has only been independent as a single entity for the last three decades and its citizens are riven by conflicting loyalties and cultural identities, with some looking east and others west. Only eight years ago the US, UK and EU-sponsored operatives engineered the Euromaidan colour revolution to overthrow pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Back in 2014, young Ukrainians could be forgiven for looking to the freer and wealthier West rather than the more backward and poorer East. Closer ties with the EU and NATO were marketed as the best way to bring the American dream of an affluent middle class to the former Soviet Republic. Now Western governments are adopting Chinese-style bio-surveillance and clamping down on dissent. We now take it for granted that main media outlets will either ignore or besmirch politically incorrect protesters. The treatment of anti-vaccine-mandate protesters across Europe and North America shows how fast the once liberal West has moved to a totalitarian model that grants citizens time-limited rights based on compliant behaviour just like in the old Soviet Union. People fled repressive regimes to enjoy greater freedom and prosperity rather than nanny-state security.
What’s really happening?
If we believe the Western media, Putin has not only invaded Ukraine allegedly reaching Kiev (Kyiv) by Saturday 26th February but may well threaten the Baltic States. The Mirror newspaper featured a map of Southern England with the extended fallout zone of a potential Russian nuclear strike on London encompassing over 25 million residents. Yet so far, we only have verified evidence of airstrikes against military targets with collateral damage. That’s the term the Americans used to explain civilian deaths after airstrikes in successive wars since the first Gulf War in 1991. Indeed, despite their withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, the USAF bombed Somalia last week, while Israel and Saudi Arabia continue their raids on Syria and Yemen respectively with US and UK-supplied weaponry. Many scenes of fleeing civilians appear staged with crisis actors and face-painted wounds. Journalists in flak jackets and helmets appear only metres away from local residents going casually about their everyday lives. On Friday we heard a Russian destroyer ship shot dead 13 Ukrainian soldiers defending the tiny Black Sea outpost of Snake Island ( Ostriv Zmiinyi). Russian reports later showed the same soldiers surrendering to Russian naval officers. Over the coming weeks, independent journalists will sort claims and counter-claims about atrocities in Ukraine, but I would not trust either Western or Russian sources. For balance, I’d much rather rely on English-medium Indian sources. India has strong economic ties with Russia, but also maintains friendly relations with the US and EU.
Although the Russian Federation remains the world’s largest country and has the world’s second largest nuclear arsenal, its military budget dwarfs that of the United States. When measured in US dollars, Russia ranks 8th. The United Kingdom, with less than half its population, spends more both in absolute terms and per capita.
Much of Central and Eastern Europe is heavily dependent on Russian gas to heat homes. Italy and Germany import around 50% of their gas from the Eastern Bear. Without expanding nuclear power, governments would have to invest billions of € more in renewables to meet current demand. Energy is about to get a lot dearer. Millions will have little choice but to wear extra layers in winter rather than risk paying exorbitant heating bills. But it gets worse. Russia is also a leading supplier of many minerals and precious metals essential for our high-tech lifestyles. It has half of the world’s diamond reserves, 18% of its coal and iron ore and 14% of gold and is the leading producer of aluminium, arsenic, cement, copper, magnesium metal and compounds such as nitrogen, palladium, silicon and vanadium. If the Europeans and North Americans don’t wish to do business, the Russians have hungry markets in China and India. However, thanks to its undervalued currency and distorted global financial markets heavily dependent on property speculation in a few key metropolises, the Russian economy still seems much smaller than that of the G7 countries. Once the US dollar crashes, bringing the Euro and Pound Sterling down with it, control of natural resources will matter more than electronic bank balances. The Western World’s economy is built on debt and in the last two years of the covid scare, quantitative easing has devalued the main currencies. Russia’s trump card is that is not indebted to foreign banks and can easily survive the collapse of the global banking system, just it survived the Bolshevik Revolution, forced collectivisation, the Nazi invasion and the fall of the Soviet Union. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan or Serbia, Russia has a functioning nuclear deterrent.
Could Putin’s belligerence accelerate the Great Reset?
While the main European and North American governments take a firm stand against Russian aggression, Israel, India, China and, most notably, the World Economic Forum remain much more neutral. Putin is listed on the WEF website as a former Global Young Leader. Only last October, Vladimir Putin delivered a speech declaring his full support for the coming fourth industrial revolution. After some initial scepticism, the Russian government has also rolled out its own version of the bio-security state. Some may mistakenly believe Russia will stand up to the banksters and biotech mafia, but such beasts are now global in nature and as deeply embedded in China and India as they are in the West. The tech giants rely heavily on the Chinese manufacturing base and by 2030 the Chinese economy will have overtaken the USA’s in absolute terms. Of note, at the UN Security Council, China, India and the United Arab Emirates abstained when asked to pass a resolution calling the immediate cessation of Russian military actions against its Slavic neighbour.
The engineered crisis has succeeded in justifying larger military budgets, heightened security, more surveillance of dissident groups and greater censorship of all media outlets either directly connected with the Kremlin or suspected of accepting the Russian narrative. Just as Russian police arrest peace protesters in St Petersburg and Moscow, any Westerners who fail to offer their unconditional support for the Ukrainian resistance and potential Western military actions are now considered traitors. This is a win-win situation for autocrats in Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.
Many suggest that a demilitarised neutral Ukraine, acting as a bridge between Central Europe and the East with full respect for the diverse ethnic backgrounds and loyalties of its citizens, may have averted this showdown. However, I fear neither the West nor the Kremlin wanted peace and prosperity to prevail. The spectre of nuclear Armageddon may be an even more effective means of behavioural modification than the virus scare. With the biosecurity state now firmly in place, Western governments can detain dissidents without trial. Millions will not be drafted to fight in Ukraine as the real war is over economic and ideological control. The global elites need the spectre of never-ending territorial conflicts to justify the next more austere phase of the Great Reset. Meanwhile, it will be business as usual with China.
Of late, alternative media channels have been abuzz with talk of conformism. How else can we explain why hundreds of millions of people around the world have let an engineered culture of fear control their behaviour, social interactions and perception of non-compliant neighbours. The fear has been so great, that many seemed oblivious to the massive transfer of power to the Biotech Industrial Complex.
Mass formation is best understood in the context of crowd psychology or collective delusion and should not be confused with neurological disorders that may be triggered by psychosocial stressors. Professor Mattias Desmet, whose research has recently popularised the phenomenon, has corrected many Anglophone observers who insist on adding the qualifier psychosis. Mass group formation might clarify the concept. In her 1958 book on The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt referred mainly to mass movements that require ideological conformity but not necessarily formal membership. In recent decades we have witnessed two outwardly conflicting trends. On the one hand, we have become more atomised with the demise of traditional families and close-knit communities and their substitution with looser networks of acquaintances and special interest buddies. On the other, we have been lured into various branches of a global super-culture via a ubiquitous mediascape that has conquered our minds and suppressed our power of independent thought.
The dilemma of technologically advanced societies is the degree of trust we have to place in machines and remote entites, whose inner workings we cannot conceivably understand without relying on someone’s else expertise. When faced with conflicting evidence and analyses on scientific controversies, we can either devote much time and resources to detailed independent research or we can take shortcuts by ascertaining whose interests well-known experts represent or simply judge people by their track record, which may also involve a fair amount of work to sort the wheat from the chaff. As soon as once-respected scientists rock the boat and begin to expose medical malpractice, deception or corruption, the mainstream media will either ignore or smear them. Outright lies are seldom the target of concerted censorship, although hate speech laws may first single out the exponents of unpopular opinions that the public at large loathes. Ironically, the same legislation that criminalises the downplaying of past crimes against humanity may perversely serve to silence those who seek to expose new crimes against humanity. Once we let a handful of corporate fact checkers determine the truth and set the boundaries of permissible dissent, we have replaced the façade of liberal democracy with epistocracy or rule by anointed experts.
The trick all along has been to paint the advocates of centralised authoritarian control as progressive philanthropists concerned with protecting the most vulnerable in our society and their adversaries as selfish reactionaries unwilling to accept change.
In the hope of reconciliation, we grant supreme power to a bunch of technocrats whose authority we may longer challenge. We are thus trained to view objective reality through the prism of prescribed truths. When official doctrine conflicts with the empirical data we need to solve a practical problem, we may have to accept convoluted logic to explain apparent contradictions. This leads to cognitive dissonance at multiple levels. I fear many seemingly intelligent people have lost the ability to think critically as they parrot warped groupthink.
Such people often like to ridicule so-called conspiracy theorists or science deniers, whom they view as mentally ill and to whom they claim some sort of moral superiority. Yet they instinctively dismiss anything that runs counter to the official narrative as the wild conjecture of a demented fringe minority. I regularly hear semi-intellectual group-thinkers recycle talking points from the trendy corporate media.
They may claim to be experts on the antivax movement because they read a Guardian, Huffington Post, NY Times or Washington Post article on ties between Dr Robert W Malone and the spectre of the far right. A brief analysis of Politfact’s page on the microbiologist and vaccine developer might enlighten us. Their target audience is obviously the questioning professional classes, the kind of people who may question the narrative but also crave social acceptance and professional approval. The top three reasons why Politfact claims we should distrust Dr Malone is that Twitter banned him, he was not the only person involved in the invention of mRNA gene therapies and lastly he has allegedly spread false and misleading information that appeals to that evil subspecies of humanity now known as antivaxxers. In short, do not trust Dr Malone because our corporate backers do not like what he says. Yet the same article struggles to identify any significant factual inaccuracies in Dr Malone’s public pronouncements, preferring to infer guilt by association with Trump supporters on alternative social media platforms.
The virus scare started with Event 201 in October 2019 at John Hopkins University. Administrators and media executives agreed how they would flood the airwaves to spread fear of a novel virus and suppress opposition to the proposed solution, a novel gene therapy injection they would market as vaccines, so they could smear opponents as luddite antivaxxers. Paradoxically, the same university published a study that showed all lockdown measures combined, including antisocial distancing and mask mandates, only reduced covid-19-attributed mortality by 0.2%. Throughout the simulated pandemic, a dubious association has been instilled in the public mind between tragic reports of preventable excess deaths and the Draconian measures imposed at enormous socio-economic expense. People have subconsciously assimilated the notion that non-compliance with these new diktats will kill the vulnerable. Compliance with the Science™️ has become the self-righteous stance. Challenging the officialscience has become a heresy.
Today’s social conformists – the kind of people who tend to go along with the woke agenda that today’s faux-liberal intelligentsia favours – like to think of themselves as open, tolerant, multicultural and democratic as well opposing any hint of racism, misogyny or homophobia. Yet they now support policies that have the exact opposite effects to their professed utopian goals. How can you extol the virtues of open borders between countries while welcoming strict biomedical controls on the free association of people in private homes, commercial and public buildings? How can you claim any liberal credentials if you’re happy for the authorities to regulate every aspect of people’s private lives? How can you vaunt your tolerance when you cannot put up with different viewpoints? How can you celebrate multiculturism when you decry all divergent ways of life and belief systems out of sync with your vision of a synthetic rainbow coalition of shiny happy people? Lastly how can you support democracy if you do not trust commoners to decide on matters you believe they do not understand without the guidance of corporate experts?
Any viable society needs the acquiescence of its members. The real question, though, is whether we achieve social harmony through bottom-up participatory democracy that responds to the will of the little people or through top-down social engineering. The managerial classes need people to comply with expected behavioural norms out of a sense of civic duty. When only a small minority break arbitrary rules or only do so well away from public scrutiny, the police and civilians can easily deal with isolated transgressors. To maintain their respect, law enforcement agencies need the public to internalise the logic behind the curtailment of personal liberties for the common good. We may privately doubt the efficacy or purpose of many regulations, but we go along with them to avoid conflict and keep a low profile. If we have a good reason or a burning desire to break a rule, we will usually only do so with the implied consent of others in our social environment. We may take many liberties in unmonitored private spaces with like-minded friends that would be unacceptable elsewhere. Such transgressions tend to involve either indulgences that may bring pleasure to some but perturb others or the open expression of subversive beliefs that may offend only those ideologically committed to the status quo. History is replete with examples of loosely enforced laws that transgressors can get easily evade. Cannabis remains a proscribed drug in the UK for recreational purposes, but the police and law courts have long turned a blind eye to its consumption and semi-clandestine cultivation. An estimated three million Britons, including many celebrities and politicians, regularly smoke marijuana, despite decades of research linking cannabis abuse with psychosis in vulnerable young people. Yet within the space of two short years, we have sleepwalked from a more laidback approach to law-enforcement that respects privacy, bodily autonomy, family life and community traditions to a regime that criminalises natural human beings who do not comply with new-fangled regulations based on a re-interpretation of scientific evidence. If our governments really cared about health, they would mandate fresh food and exercise and tackle social exclusion. Instead, in 2020 they did almost exact opposite urging people to avoid social proximity and stay at home where they are more likely to binge on snacks and booze.
Today’s rulers no longer need the income generated directly by a large working class. They’d much rather rely on a smaller army of privileged engineers and surveillance officers, while keeping the great unwashed on universal basic income with rewards for good behaviour and occasional monitoring or care duties. Old-fashioned capitalists may have been happy for potential customers not in their direct employ to fend for themselves. The impoverished would gravitate towards new money-making opportunities out of sheer necessity in a frenzied rat race with winners and losers. Primitive capitalism would see many former peasants and smallholders meet early deaths as they failed to adapt and ended up destitute without a welfare state to fall back on. By contrast, post-modern corporations have effectively merged with governments to control every aspect of our society. Tech giants are not merely concerned with their bottom line, but with changing our way of life. They find it much easier to manipulate vulnerable people with limited self-help skills than independently minded self-starters. We have become the product they sell and if we do not conform to one of their manageable pigeonholed roles, they will cast us aside from mainstream society and may ultimately deem us expendable. Untamed free thought poses the biggest threat to our managerial classes. French anthropologist and author of The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, Gustave Le Bon, explained how crowd psychology progresses through three main phases, submergence with the loss of individual identity, contagion with the triumph of emotions over reason and suggestion with the development of a shared unconscious. The neoliberal era has given way to a new age of high-tech totalitarianism.
I may be able to keep my New Year's resolution not to waste so much time trying to engage with other-minded people on Twitter. Following a short reply to a minor account on medical malpractice, my account has been suspended.
My appeal to Twitter's support team will probably fall on deaf ears. The woke enforcers of progressive technofascism do not do debate. They are only concerned with discussing how to roll out their vision of our Brave New World and how to deal with dissidents.
Censorship is real.
I would like to thank you for clarifying your opposition to democracy, which as you know cannot function without free speech and open debate on all key ethical and scientific issues of the day. Nobody has a monopoly on truth.
You claimed that I spread "misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19." In Mid 2021 I had a one-week suspension with the same justification for a reply to a user with a small following alluding to tried and tested therapeutics for viral infections currently known loosely as covid-19. The keywords that attract the attention of your censors are ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. We have over 60 years of data on the latter and around 30 years for the former. As I have stated in many other comments, these drugs should only be used at moderate doses in combination with other treatments. I have personally taken HCQ in Africa and am very familiar with its mild side effects (drowsiness). It may alleviate symptoms and reduce the likelihood of hospitalisation. As stated in the offending tweet, Ivermectin has been widely deployed in India, Japan and Iran to treat sars-cov-2 symptoms. There are numerous abstracts on PubMed discussing its efficacy:
As in most medical controversies, other studies have reached different conclusions, but I invite you to find evidence that early treatment with ivermectin at moderate doses can cause significant harm compared to "no treatment" followed by dangerous antiviral drugs such as remsdisivir accompanied by ventilation.
I suggest you censored my minor account for ideological reasons. The ball is in your court. If you persist in suspending accounts that counter the narrow covid narrative preferred by your partners in the biotech industry, then we can only conclude your organisation is opposed to liberal democracy and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration Code on Bioethetics and Human Rights.
If your platform cannot accommodate vigorous debate on such matters, its relevance will wane. It will be little more than a virtue-signalling echo chamber tolerating only controversies that do not challenge your biotech partners. One may debate whether the Earth is flat or whether Elvis Presley lives on the far side of the Moon, but one may not question the alleged "science" that regimes around the world exploit to justify growing authoritarianism.
You have recently purged many other accounts such as that of Dr Robert D Malone, the inventor of mRNA injections that you seem so keen not just to promote but to mandate as a condition for participation in society.
Prove me wrong and unsuspend my account. I welcome anyone to challenge my assertions. I have always been respectful and enjoy interacting with others who hold different views. Without open debate in the public sphere, our society will descend into authoritarianism.
Future historians will not treat tech giants like Twitter kindly if you persist with this attitude.
Noam Chomsky doubles down on calls to isolate the unvaccinated
Ever since the French Revolution, we have analysed political conflicts through the prism of the one-dimensional left-right spectrum. In the Western World, many believed the left somehow stood up for the commoners and the right represented the ruling classes. Today the corporate elites pose on the progressive left, openly bankrolling many charities and NGOs that claim to campaign for a potpourri of virtuous causes from action on climate change to refugee rights. The old left-wing alliance that brought together wishful thinking academics and industrial workers was already fracturing long before the covid crisis. All over Europe, the settled working classes had abandoned their traditional Labour or social democratic parties in favour of populist upstarts who promised to restore national sovereignty and family values. Now it is crystal clear the coming battle is no longer between left and right. It is not even a battle between black and white, Muslim and Christian, settled working classes and new immigrants or straights and gays. The big divide now has reverted to the feudal norm of top versus bottom, with the masses in thrall to a universal religion imparted by a new progressive clergy who preach total submission to scientism for the common good.
Like their medieval forerunners, today’s high-tech feudal overlords seek the compliance of their subjects and the ostracization of the unbelievers. However, yesteryear’s rulers could only hold onto their power through the blood, sweat and tears of their loyal subordinates. To maintain their loyalty, the elites had to reward their underlings. Mass consumerism may have let the business classes expand their markets, but it also raised workers’ material expectations.
The ruling classes have now decided to phase out the wider working classes and keep most of their compliant subjects under tightly controlled captivity. Workers cannot overthrow their bosses without bargaining power or the means to set up parallel societies. Welfare dependents owe their existence to the generosity of their captors.
Democracy is a sham without free speech and open debate on all key scientific and ethical issues that affect our lives. For decades one of the great heroes of the libertarian left, Noam Chomsky, earned widespread respect for his analysis of media bias in his bestseller, Manufacturing Consent, his critique of US imperialism and his outspoken support for free speech even for those who may hold beliefs that deny atrocities and offend relatives of the victims of systematic murder. Professor Chomsky has cast himself at various times as a libertarian socialist, anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist, yet has now failed to recognise the biggest power grab in history. Worse still he has fallen hook, line and sinker for the scientifically flawed notion that the so-called unvaccinated pose a threat to responsible citizens who have rolled up their sleeves to accept the magic prick. There is literally no verifiable evidence to support this assertion. The manufacturers do not claim their nanoscopic medical devices can stop you from either catching or spreading respiratory infections. They have only ever claimed that they may alleviate symptoms and reduce the risk of hospitalisation. If the latter claim were true, then jab refuseniks may pay a little more health insurance to cover additional healthcare costs. The trouble with that logic is that it could be equally applied to other lifestyle choices like eating cakes, binge-drinking and smoking. Should we impose higher taxes on people who fail to exercise or eat their 5 pieces of fruit and vegetables a day? However, the latest data from countries with high mRNA-injection rates show clearly that the double- and triple-jabbed not only catch respiratory infections more often than their unjabbed peers, but they can die with the resulting diseases too. We have had so-called covid outbreaks in nursing homes and on cruise ships with fully vaccinated staff and customers. Why should governments mandate a medical intervention that clearly does not work as advertised? Why are regimes around the world moving heaven and earth to coerce their people into accepting medical surveillance as the new normal? As I write the Canadian government has mandated covid jabs for all inter-province rail and air travel.
If Noam Chomsky can understand that the state does not hold a monopoly on historical truth when it comes to laws that justify censorship to tackle the perceived threat of Holocaust denial, why would he think that the biotech industrial complex should enjoy a monopoly on scientific truth when it comes to coercive mass medication? It hardly takes a genius to figure out that we cannot change history, but we can learn from history to shape our future. Therefore, open debate and full transparency on scientific matters may be a good deal more important than tiresome debates about which despotic regime killed the most people 80 years ago. Does the world-renowned linguist at MIT not realise that vested corporate interests may manufacture consent for medical tyranny in the same way as they did for reckless military adventurism? Can he not see that many of the same political actors who campaigned for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan now want to roll out digital health certificates at all costs? How can he champion the freedom of Central American refugees to access generous welfare in the United States, while millions of New Yorkers are denied access to restaurants, gyms, theatres and workplaces unless they submit to the diktat of the Biotech Mafia? Is our Noam not aware that not all scientists agree that the new generation of mRNA and viral vector injections, marketed as vaccines, are safe and effective? Could he not apply the same critical thinking that helped him delineate the Fateful Triangle that links the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia to analyse decades of corruption at the heart of the biotech-industrial complex joined at the hip with the better-understood military-industrial complex? Has Noam not observed the close liaison between governments, armed forces and infection control teams? Is he completely oblivious to scenes of armed Australian police beating up dog walkers for failing to wear a mask in their local park? Does his once-admirable opposition to censorship not extend to an explicit condemnation of social media companies who censor any posts at variance with the official advice of the World Health Organisation? Is he not concerned that his fellow academics including Prof. Jon Ioannides of Stanford University, cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough and vaccinologists Dr Byram Bridle, Dr Robert Malone and Dr Geert vanden Bosch have been censored by the same tech giants that are also coincidentally promoting genetically modified injections with undisclosed ingredients?
The rationale for this perverse deference to the pharmaceutical lobby is that in modern life we have to delegate to experts over matters beyond our competence. Most of us need dental check-ups and occasional treatment. However, not all dentists are equally competent or recommend the same solutions. If you are unhappy with your dentist, you can always get a second or third opinion. Do I really need root canal treatment? Are mercury amalgam fillings safe? Believe it or not, different dentists may have different opinions on these matters. Bodily autonomy means you get to decide what other people do with your body. The state should only intervene to protect you against medical malpractice. You may make some unwise choices and pay the ultimate price of early death if you decline a recommended procedure, but that Is your right. As a rule, well-informed citizens with access to a wide range of research can usually make rational choices. Some may shun medication and flu shots in favour of a healthy diet, plenty of exercise and vitamin supplements. Others prefer to pop pills for every conceivable ailment that may affect them. Sooner or later we will find out whose intuition and lifestyle choices lead to better outcomes. With personal freedom comes responsibility and with adventure comes risk. To deny people self-determination over their private and family lives, is, in effect, to redefine what it means to be human.
Future historians will ask how the leaders of organised labour and left-leaning social influencers could let fear of a new variant of the flu justify the imposition of an illiberal bio-security state while super-billionaires buy up much of the world’s prime farmland. It beggars belief that so few mainstream politicians have spoken out against the cataclysmic implications of the Great Reset, something the global elites meeting at the G7, G20 and COP26 no longer hide. The whole agenda is so clearly driven by Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum with the full blessing of Prince Charles, Greta Thunberg and George Soros as well as the Rockefeller and Rothschild dynasties. Two private asset management corporations, BlackRock and Vanguard, can hold debt-ridden governments to ransom. Their combined financial wealth dwarfs that of the world’s top billionaires.
We need to forge new alliances that transcend traditional divides of liberal versus conservative or socialist versus capitalist. The coming battle is over the future of humanity itself. Most of our old intellectual elites have abandoned us. Our main hope lies in the strength of grassroots protests that have erupted across France, Italy, Greece, Romania and sporadically in the UK, US, South Africa and, when allowed by Draconian lockdown laws, in Australia and New Zealand too. The mainstream media have either ignored these demonstrations altogether or has attempted to demonise sections of them as neo-fascists or anti-vaxxers who want to kill your grandparents. The Italian media has routinely equated antivaxxers perversely with fascists although all major parties there from the right-leaning Lega and Forza Italia to the Five Star Movement and old Communist Party (now known as the Democratic Party or PD) have supported the controversial Green Card, mandating either jabs or expensive antigen tests every 48 hours to access most workplaces, colleges, restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports centres, hospitals and trains. Last week the Italian trade union federation, CGIL, had the audacity to hold a much-publicised rally against Mussolini's original brand of fascism but in favour of the Biotech dictatorship, while dockers from Trieste and Genoa boldly blocked the ports in defiance of state and corporate intimidation. Such accusations come straight out of the Stalinist playbook. In 1980s' Poland under the WarsawPact, the official labour organisations accused Solidarność of proto-fascism. The opposition no longer comes from left, right or centre, but only from the bottom. The power structures are now clearly aligned. It is once again us versus them.
How the mainstream media others natural free-thinking human beings
We’re sleepwalking into a new global apartheid. In the post-covid era, segregation may no longer be based on your skin colour, ethnic identity, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability status. Today’s rulers want to divide the non-compliant from the obedient. Countless billions of dollars, euros, pesos and pounds have been spent trying to persuade billions of human beings to accept a new kind of mRNA-injection with undisclosed ingredients. Relentless awareness-raising campaigns, featuring celebrities and media-savvy experts, have persuaded hundreds of millions of us that it is our civic duty to roll up our sleeves not only to alleviate the symptoms of coronaviruses but to protect others.
In recent years, progressive opinion leaders have been quick to shut down debate on topics as diverse as gender theory lessons in primary schools and the sustainability of mass migration by accusing the socially conservative of hate speech. Social influencers have exploited identity politics to such an extent that many feminists and members of racial minorities have now found themselves at the receiving end of hate speech purges. Why would anyone assume that all women must welcome the redefinition of motherhood or all black people must support the marginalisation of indigenous European cultures? The rainbow coalition of diverse categories of human beings has only ever been a tool of social engineering, favouring superficial diversity over strong communities based on cultural continuity and pride in one’s heritage. In short, anyone who questions socially transformative policies promoted at great expense by well-funded lobbies can sooner or later fall victim to censorship and ex-communication for allegedly offending a protected victim group. As many others have pointed out, it is almost impossible to discuss scientific or ethical subjects of any importance without hurting someone’s feelings. It doesn’t make any sense. If you’re pro-Israel, you could be accused of hating Palestinians and if you’re anti-Zionist you could be accused of hating Jews. If I suggested eating large quantities of cakes may shorten your lifespan, someone could accuse me of hate speech against cake eaters. Likewise, if a neurologist claimed women have on average much better emotional intelligence, I could accuse her of hate speech against biological males rather than examine the evidence. If we wish to retain liberal civil societies, I would argue respect and integrity matter more than bland inoffensiveness. I’d rather read the harsh objective truth on a contentious issue than sanitised spin that does more to confuse than enlighten us.
Scientifically Flawed Premise
The whole rationale for the rapid roll-out in country after country of vaccine passports is that they prevent the spread of lethal pathogens to the vulnerable. Yet not even the manufacturers claim that their widely advertised concoctions stop you from catching and spreading the infamous virus they labelled covid-19. They have only ever claimed that they alleviate symptoms if you catch it. This seems rather odd as earlier in the corona crisis we were led to believe in asymptomatic transmission. If true, the unjabbed would have more to fear from the jabbed who could be harbouring the dreaded pathogen without any symptoms and are also no longer required to submit to regular tests. However, the countries with the highest rates of covid-labelled vaccination also have the highest rates of covid-attributed hospital admissions. We only have to look at countries like Israel, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia. They all escaped the worst of the initial bout of rebranded seasonal flu. In the UK, a clear pattern is emerging with double-jabbed over 40 year-olds now statistically more likely to die with covid than their unjabbed peers. More disturbingly, the excess death rate has risen sharply in many countries since late August as mRNA-inoculation rates exceeded 70% of adults. The rise in the seasonally adjusted mortality rate, compared with the average for the previous 5 years, in England & Wales alone greatly exceeds the number of deaths attributed to covid or reported to the Yellow Card Scheme as fatal post-vaccination adverse events (just over 1600). A back-of-the-envelope calculation would reveal around 5000 extra deaths that cannot be otherwise accounted for. In the West of Scotland, there’s been a mysterious rise in patients rushed to hospital with blocked arteries. Some may blame bad diet, poor exercise or lockdown-induced depression, but why would we see a sudden rise now rather than last year before the mass vaccination drive? By now it must be crystal clear to any impartial observer that none of the corona-containment measures favoured by technocrats from house arrest to face masks and coerced jabbing have improved health outcomes. The initial lockdowns may have avoided some infections at the expense of delayed checkups and operations for anything not classified as covid. All of a sudden, the media reports more and more fully vaccinatedyounger adults dying allegedly with covid. Yet we are still supposed to believe that the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca or J&J shots not only protect others but justify the exclusion of those who have not had succumbed to intense media and peer pressure to get the jab.
The so-called unvaccinated are now an openly despised underclass, even if most of us have received more than one traditional vaccine in our lives. Natural genetically unmodified human beings may soon gain the status of subspecies. The media derides us as ignorant, selfish, conspiracy-minded or unduly affected by dangerous propaganda disseminated by online activists with sinister agendas. Yet one need not be a rocket scientist to compare the imbalance between the opposing sides. On the one hand, we have the world’s leading banks, tech giants, media behemoths, transnational institutions, NGO’s and indebted national governments working in unison to regulate every aspect of our private lives. On the other, we have the people who have not yet submitted to the will of the Biotech Mafia. In affluent countries with advanced welfare systems, the majority has bought into some aspects of the covid narrative and opted to comply with mask and vaccine mandates to regain some of their former freedoms, but in most of Sub-Saharan Africa and rural India, the uptake remains very low. The Philippine and Indonesian governments have gone to extreme lengths to force these largely unwanted medical interventions on their citizens, but out of 7.8 billion people alive today most remain untouched by mRNA jabs. The only way the biotech moguls can hide the scale of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is to blame a new potent pathogen such as the Marburg virus and in some way scapegoat the unvaccinated. Such a strategy can only succeed if the jabbed are too weak and the unjabbed are totally isolated. We pose a threat not because we spread germs more easily but because our ideas are contagious. The world’s tree-hugging technocrats have declared war on natural immunity. They want to commoditise not only immunisation but every illness, whether physical or mental. This has been a long-term trend that has accelerated beyond our wildest imagination within two short years. The new pariahs are not the unhealthy, whose vulnerability serves the interests of biotech control freaks, but the independently healthy.
It was only a matter of time before the waning US Empire and its loyal allies had to withdraw from Afghanistan. The US outlay over the last 20 years has been around $2 trillion. This astronomical sum may have empowered the likes of Halliburton, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin but it has brought Afghanis and military personnel alike nothing but death, destruction and more virulent strains of Islamic fundamentalism. Predictably much of the Western Media has blamed the current incumbent masquerading as the USA’s Commander-in-Chief for abandoning his troops and allies. The stage is set for Joe Biden’s exit for health reasons. The new Global Empire no longer needs American and European troops trapped in Central Asia. They can let China, Iran and India fill the vacuum. Besides, those troops may soon be needed much closer to home.
Have you noticed that some of the same high-profile opinion leaders who once evangelised humanitarian wars are now among the strongest advocates of our emerging bio-security state? They promoted the first kind of intervention to spread liberal democracy and overthrow tyrants and the latest kind to rid the world of a nasty disease. I’m thinking naturally of the likes of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell in the British context, but Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern are very much in the same mould. Younger leaders may have distanced themselves from past escapades that have since proven electorally unpopular. However, they are ideologically committed to the concept of interventionism to guide us towards their vision of a progressive utopia or rather to put the little people in their place.
Interventionism is the idea that large organisations should take over the management of individuals, families and communities. It may take many forms. Outwardly it may mean military actions against naughty local leaders who fail to cooperate fully with multinational entities. However, it may also involve government agencies taking coercive actions to regulate the behaviour of people who fail to comply with expected psychological, medical or environmental norms. While many wishful thinking lefties may have opposed recent military interventions in the Middle East, they often championed coercive social interventions against people in their own country as necessary means to a progressive end. Such interventions may include early years mental health screening, gender theory lessons in primary schools, taking children into care if their parents fail to comply with expected behavioural norms, monitoring politically incorrect speech on social media or in people’s private spaces and censoring media outlets that permit dissent from the dominant progressive narrative. More disturbingly, we have now learned such progressive interventions may also entail stay-at-home orders, mandatory medical procedures, digital health passports and total surveillance, allegedly to protect the public against ever-mutating nanoscopic genetic sequences.
What else do these policies all have in common? They all have powerful lobbies deeply embedded in the world’s media giants and administrations and require multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns to win public support, usually by spreading fear that a failure to take immediate action will result in greater human misery. By this logic, a failure to bomb Afghanistan could have, purportedly, condemned Afghani women to permanent enslavement under Taliban rule. A failure to invade Iraq could have let Saddam Hussein deploy weapons of mass destruction and continue torturing his own people. A failure to impose strict coronavirus containment measures could lead to a proliferation of vulnerable people dying from respiratory infections. And last but not least, a failure to track the movement of every human being on the planet through mandatory microchip implants could lead to more tragic child abductions, such as the much-publicised Madeleine McCann story. In all cases, technocratic lobbyists want us to trade personal responsibility and traditional cohesive communities for the engineered safety of their corporate partners.
The alternative to interventionism is not necessarily complete anarchy but rather decentralised management of our affairs or self-determination at a personal and communal level. In the normal course of events, the cultural and ethical choices of other individuals, families, communities and small nation-states should be none of our business. The last century of growing interconnectedness has shown us that more humane societies are also more successful in the long run. Societies with greater personal freedom attract the best and brightest minds and let their people unleash their creativity. Given a choice, nobody wants to live in tyranny, but some may wish to suppress the freedoms granted to the great unwashed to secure greater freedom in their own neighbourhood. Totalitarian regimes could only survive by granting cooperative key workers special privileges. Under international law, self-defence remains the only justification for military action. That’s why George W Bush and Tony Blair had to use weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. The trouble with humanitarian wars is that all sides in a conflict can play the same game. As countries like Australia ban protests and keep their citizenry under house arrest, other regional powers may take the moral high ground. China may never need to occupy Australia militarily, but corporations with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party will find it much easier to acquire the country’s assets with a dumbed-down populace.
Just as the eye-watering sums squandered on the occupation of Afghanistan did not defeat terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism, the trillions of dollars spent worldwide on covid containment measures will not eradicate deadly viruses. Likewise, the colossal expenditures on psychiatric screening and surveillance of private lives will not free us of emotional distress or child abuse. They will serve instead to identify troublemakers and remove children from their parental homes. Strict censorship and tight controls on the free movement of ordinary citizens can suppress all evidence of sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by the privileged classes. Nearly all top-down interventions, however well-intentioned they may seem, serve to consolidate elite power. The phoney humanitarian wars of the early 21st century empowered the military-industrial complex. Now, the battle against elusive coronaviruses has facilitated the greatest transfer of wealth and power away from the affluent upper-middle classes to the biotech-industrial complex.
We’re witnessing a coordinated attack on critical thinkers who defend the now outdated concepts of bodily autonomy and free association. Your inclusion in polite society is now contingent on your stance on the safety of new mRNA injections marketed as vaccines. Until the day before yesterday, your medical history was in most public venues a private matter. That doesn’t mean we didn’t have basic dress and hygiene codes but seldom had to resort to heavy-handed enforcement. Social opprobrium alone would usually send a clear message to slovenly transgressors to clean up their act. Every living organism on the planet is a potential bio-hazard, but our immune systems evolved over millions of years to cope with everyday social gatherings. The narrative is simple. The so-called anti-maskers and antivaxxers endanger others by failing to follow official medical advice. These are just cheap smears for people who wish to carry on their lives as they did in 2019. Very few would be against practical infection control procedures in clinical settings and very few would oppose all vaccines. However, most object to top-down coercion and mindless groupthink.
Administrations around the world have applied mass hypnosis (cf. Prof. Mattias Desmet) both to guide persuasion campaigns and to identify subgroups who do not comply with the new social norms. In the UK the Behavioural Insights Team is at the helm of such public policy initiatives. It started as part of David Cameron’s much-heralded Big Society, which gave an official stamp of approval to the surreptitious activities of hundreds of charities and NGOs who have exploited the plight of selected victim groups to change people’s attitudes on a whole host of lifestyle issues. The mental health industry, an outgrowth of psychiatry, has long played a key role in creating new identity groups that fail to fit in with an increasingly atomised society. Almost anyone who has experienced mild levels of alienation, depression or anxiety can now qualify for a mental health label. Redefining life’s challenges in terms of presumed neurological deficits can only engender a sense of helplessness, which in turn boosts demand for mental health services and/or psychoactive medication. Today’s psychiatric labels are so vague as to cover almost any kind of non-conformity or imperfect socialisation. Many psychopathologists view political incorrectness as a mental illness. It is now common for political analysts to attribute undesirable opinions, especially those that favour traditional families, close-knit communities, greater self-reliance, ethnocentrism and faith in outmoded institutions, either to a lack of education or a personality disorder. As Jason Brennan advocated in his 2016 book Against Democracy, public consultation does not help administrators bring their policies more into line with people’s needs or desires. Its main purpose is to gauge how successfully they have persuaded people to accept the next step in their long-term plans for wide-ranging societal transformation. If consultants detect widespread resistance to their favoured policies, they will not necessarily abandon the policy but change strategy. In many cases, unpopular policies are mere steppingstones to a much more radical goal. They are not the desired endgame but serve to prepare people for more far-reaching changes in their daily lives.
Ever since the 2008 financial crisis, the governments of the world’s most prosperous countries have only managed to keep their people happy by artificially reinflating the consumer economy through unsustainable borrowing. Just as Chancellor Alastair Darling conjured up £600 billion overnight to bail out the banks thirteen years ago, in 2020 Chancellor Rishi Sunak found £400 billion under the sofa to enforce covid containment policies and keep millions of non-essential workers at home on furlough. While the likes of Google and PayPal may still pay lip service to the entrepreneurial aspirations of small business owners, they may now only operate within an ecosystem owned and controlled by a handful of tech giants. Sure, you can set up your handcrafted greetings card store on Amazon, accept payments via PayPal and source all raw materials online via similar channels. You’re selling a little piece of your human creativity. However, unless you can invest in specialised equipment with a dedicated workshop or become a megastar on Youtube, you will be lucky to earn more than some extra virtual pocket money to supplement your UBI. Your whole life will still be trapped in the matrix.
What is Technocracy?
Arguably, ever since the industrial revolution, our livelihoods have relied more and more on complex systems beyond our immediate control. Without clean water, electricity and integrated supply chains, our modern lives would soon grind to a halt. However, until recently, we needed millions of workers to maintain such systems. Large chunks of the workforce were thus directly involved in overseeing the smooth operation of machinery on behalf of their families, friends and neighbours. If the ruling classes failed to respect their key workers, they could hold their fragile economy to ransom. Outsourcing, smart automation and extreme labour mobility may have changed much of that, but even today some organised labour groups can challenge the powers that be. As the Australian governing classes deploy troops to enforce harsh lockdowns and their media outlets seek to shame those who do not comply with medical martial law, their truck drivers may offer the last hope in popular resistance. It may be easy for the military to neutralise and isolate a few thousand protesters in city centres, but a few thousand truckers can blockade cities and obstruct military movements giving a critical mass of suburban residents a window of opportunity to defy orders. Sadly, it is only a matter of time before driverless vehicles and deceptively green legislation disempower the last bastions of organised labour.
We should not confuse technology with technocracy. Where technological control is widely distributed, it can empower commoners. By contrast, centralised command structures with atomised and highly specialised workforces can abuse their effective monopoly on power to control every aspect of our private lives, including our most intimate moments and ultimately procreation itself. In a few short years, we have witnessed the close collaboration and commercial convergence of companies we once believed were fierce competitors. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook work in tandem to censor scientific dissent and spy on their customers. Artificial intelligence has already enabled tech giants not just to suggest new products and services based on your surfing history, but to analyse political leanings and diagnose critical thinking. Natural language processing may be in its infancy, but the leading social media platforms already have the means to intercept private messages that challenge their preferred narrative on strategic issues. They often justify such censorship as a necessary tool in their campaign against hate speech and in favour of vulnerable victim groups. This doesn’t just preclude open debate on sensitive subjects such as immigration or genetic determinism, it stifles any challenges to the new orthodoxy enforced ruthlessly by the biotech industrial complex.
The New Hate Speech
The faux-liberal elites have long co-opted the struggles against racial and sexual discrimination. Yet the same conceited ruling classes who once supported Western imperialism to tame the uncivilised peoples of the developing world have a new enemy in sight, the free-thinking socially conservative working classes and small business owners. The common thread that unites late 19th-century eugenicists such as Francis Galton with 21st-century transhumanists is their belief in the intellectual superiority of a master race. A century ago, race and biological sex were still key factors in determining one’s worthiness, but our rulers never intended to extend the same privileges they enjoyed to everyone who happens to share the same complexion or genitalia. Whether you were a Welsh coal miner, a Mississippi cotton picker, an Indian peasant or an African subsistence farmer, your imperial masters considered your lives expendable, unless they had trouble finding someone else to do a mission-critical job. Their main concern was to avoid open revolt and expand their commercial and cultural influence through a network of local leaders. Our technocratic overlords are now dividing us into rival castes of scientific gurus, middle managers, key workers, useless eaters, surviving on UBI and social credits, and the lowest of the low, outlaws or refuseniks.
Synthetic woke tolerance for people with different complexions, genders, sexual orientations and religions has now morphed into intolerance of anyone who fails to abide by arbitrary biomedical norms, which we once considered private medical matters. In two short years, we have regressed from accommodating people’s imperfections to treating nonconformists as lepers.
Opinion leaders and politicians, ranging from lowly BBC presenters such as Stephen Nolan in Northern Ireland to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, have started to blame the so-called unvaccinated or antivaxxers for a surge in people falling ill after testing positive with covid variants. Queensland health minister, Yvette Dath, went one step further to suggest citizens who refuse to get jabbed will have to stay under permanent house arrest. Western Europe’s hopes may now hinge on the French people’s reaction to Macron’s introduction of the controversial pass sanitaire. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have taken to the streets in towns and cities across France, with some estimates suggesting participation rates of over 2 million nationwide. Yet these protests are barely reported in the mainstream media except as small gatherings of marginalised antivaxxers living in a parallel universe. The key issues at stake are not vaccination per se or even the development of new gene therapies to combat diseases, but coercion, bodily autonomy and complete submission to remote technocrats who may not have your best interests at heart.
Our technocratic overlords hope to harness their full spectrum dominance of the means of mass communication to atomise the general populace and isolate troublemakers. Their strategy is clearly to sow the seeds of deep societal division by blaming jab refuseniks for rising death tolls, including those caused by genetic code injections. They want to encourage people to report non-compliant neighbours to the health authorities, who may then involve either the police or psychiatric services. Groupthink may sadly be much more contagious than any biological pathogens. We have a limited window of time to save one of the defining features of humanity: independence of mind.
The public and private opinions of the controlled opposition
Prominent members of the Spiked Online gang, most notably Brendan O’Neill, Tom Slater, Joanna Williams and Claire Fox, have over the last few years gained some street cred among critically thinking anti-establishment types for their well-articulated critiques of identity politics, censorship and the demonisation of working class culture. They supported Brexit from the left and opposed many Draconian covid regulations, unlike much of the former Labour movement who have embraced the unattainable goal of zero covid. While Brendan, Claire and other regular Spiked talking heads pretend to be on your side in the battle against the remote elites, their deceptively subversive operatives have close ties with the biotech industrial complex. Out of the blue, Lady Claire’s sister, Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre, writes a staunch defence of the quangos and scientists, such as the much-maligned Prof. Neil Ferguson, who masterminded the government’s deliberate overreaction to the corona crisis. It should come as little surprise that the Science Media Centre attracts funding from AstraZeneca, GSK and the Wellcome Trust among others. This is hardly out of character. The Spiked Gang have always embraced technocracy. Now you may wonder why Spiked promoted Laura Dodsworth’s excellent book A State of Fear? They never challenged the covid narrative, only the Draconian regulations like mandatory face-masks that accompanied it. Only a couple of weeks earlier Brendan O’Neill came out in support of making mass-marketed covid vaccines mandatory for care workers. Spiked's new line is that we should fear neither covid nor mRNA vaccines, but the whole rationale for digital health passports hinges on fear of an invisible virus and its constant mutations.
In the great debate on the limits of technology, environmentalists warn us of the dangers of overconsumption and catastrophic breakdowns due to our over-reliance on complex interconnected systems few of us can understand. We could call such people techno-pessimists. In the real world, we tend to like technology that empowers us and dislike innovations that enslave us. Billions of us have fallen in love with motor vehicles and the dream of exploring wide-open spaces along empty highways. However, we may not be so keen on the inevitable traffic congestion, noise, pollution and countryside destruction. On the other hand, techno-optimists believe humanity can always overcome environmental constraints with new technology and want us to trust the friendly household names behind corporate behemoths to deliver the goods. While much of the notional left opposed nuclear power and distrusted big pharma, one small group of Marxist intellectuals stood out in their unabashed support for technological progress.
I first encountered the tiny Revolutionary Communist Party in the early 1980s. They seemed mainly interested in recruiting students at the top universities. I only briefly flirted with them but have intermittently kept an eye on this clique ever since. Although their leading light, Frank Füredi, grew up in Hungary, they defended the old Warsaw Pact countries as deformed workers’ states against Western aggression in contrast to the SWP's position which viewed the whole Eastern Bloc as state capitalist. While many on the British left supported a United Ireland, the RCP went one step further and offered unconditional support for the IRA in their struggle against British imperialism, only expressing regret about the loss of human life. In the early 1990s, they rebranded themselves around their magazine Living Marxism, shifted their focus to culture wars and weaved a distinctive critique of the often reactionary and snobbish green movement. They helped form the smokers' rights organisation Forest, defended football fans against accusations of racism and hooliganism and fully embraced the working class’s newfound love of cars, gadgets and foreign holidays. In stark contrast to most trendy lefties, they unashamedly backed nuclear power and ran to the defence of the controversial insecticide DDT. I caught up with them again around 1998 in the run-up to NATO airstrikes over Former Yugoslavia. LM Magazine did admittedly expose some media deception about the Yugoslav conflict and, more controversially, had questioned the mainstream narrative on the tragic 1994 Rwandan civil war, which attracted accusations of genocide denial. LM Magazine famously lost a libel case against ITN (Independent Television News) over Thomas Deichmann’s exposé of trick photography to make an open refugee reception centre in a Serb-controlled area of Bosnia resemble a concentration camp. 3 years later the LM Gang re-emerged as Spiked Online. Their stances over the years perplexed many casual left-leaning observers. Their critique of NATO’s role in the dismemberment of the Former Yugoslavia and of US/UK support for Tutsi insurgents in the Rwandan civil war followed in the best traditions of anti-imperialism and Lenin’s revolutionary defeatism. Yet at the same time, the LM Gang were forging close links with big businesses, especially in the pharmaceutical sector. Their wider circle of contributors now included a number of media-savvy academics and boffins. Dr Michael Fitzpatrick came to the defence of the MMR vaccine, dismissing any links with neurological disorders despite having an autistic son. The mainstream media loved him. In 1998 Channel 4 screened Martin Durkin’s three-part critique of the green movement Against Nature. Its theme was simple. We have nothing to fear from the growing encroachment of technology into every aspect of our lives and even of an eventual merger of man and machine. I recall a scene showing a full-body transplant of a chimpanzee with the narrator wishing for a near future when we could bio-engineer replacement body parts and even augment our intelligence. They claimed that with the wonders of genetically engineered crops and almost limitless cold fusion power we could easily sustain a world population of 32 billion and thus had no need to either reduce per capita consumption or worry about a growing population. On a superficial level, the utopian vision of communism where everyone has access to everything they desire is only conceivable via an idyllic techno-panacea. Yet the LM Gang’s new business partners had other ideas about the future progress of humanity.
Green Technotopians
It’s a funny old world where the WEF (World Economic Forum,), the WHO (World Health Organisation), Prince Charles, Boris Johnson and the Greens all sing from the same hymn sheet. The covid narrative has conditioned many of us to view other members of our species as vectors of disease and thus to accept mandatory genetic code injections as a means to win back tightly regulated freedoms. More important, the authorities have ever so subtly pushed the message that we are not all essential and some of us may be superfluous to the needs of humanity as a whole. Now governments have set a precedent for virus lockdowns, the stage is set for climate lockdowns. Unsurprisingly, vaccine passports have been marketed as green passes in many European countries. Now people can be tracked everywhere they go and can no longer gain access to many essential services without smartphones, which despite fact-checker denials will soon morph into wearable microchips. Digital health passports are effectively temporary movement permits.
Environmental campaigners once distrusted our overreliance on complex technology and preferred local solutions to global problems. Many critics of neoliberal globalisation, such as French farmer and syndicalist Jose Bove or Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, defended the rights of smallholders, craftspeople and factory workers from the left in opposition to an emerging world controlled by a handful of multinationals. Most eco-activists also favoured holistic healthcare with a focus on diet, exercise and natural remedies over lifelong dependence on pharmaceutical products and invasive treatments such as chemotherapy. In many ways, the early green movement with its love of mother nature had much in common with social conservatives. Who would oppose new airports, motorways, high-speed railways and more suburban sprawl? Often concerned local social conservatives would join forces with affluent professional newcomers who had moved to the countryside to escape the hustle and bustle of the cities. The early green movement instinctively rejected both militarism and imperialism, the notion that one group of people, whether organised as countries or corporations, may impose their will on others through coercion. However, as green politicians gained office in regional and national administrations, they soon cast aside their new-age love for self-sufficiency and formed new alliances with tech giants who wanted to transition away from the old fossil fuel economy. In the early 21st century the main drivers of economic growth were no longer cars and other wasteful machines, but smart low-consumption gadgets and digital services. People had to be persuaded to pay for abstract services and ephemeral fashion accessories they did not know they needed.
When the climate change narrative first reached public consciousness around the turn of the millennium, the world’s largest car manufacturers and oil concerns seemed loath to adapt and funded the climate sceptic movement. While the growth in car ownership slowed and then declined slightly in Western Europe, it skyrocketed in much of the developing world. In 2007, Channel 4 broadcast Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle, much to the chagrin of the vocal army of climate change fundamentalists such as Guardian columnist George Monbiot. We soon learned the two pillars of the new religion of scientism, peer-review and the scientific consensus. Superficially, it makes sense for rigorous research papers to undergo methodical scrutiny before publication. If a scientist dependent on corporate sponsorship suppresses key evidence about the safety of her sponsor’s products, it seems fair for a more neutral academic to correct the bias. Science can only thrive with complete transparency and open debate on the interpretation of evidence. However, in practice, peer review often serves as a form of corporate censorship to ensure scientific publications do not contradict the preferred consensus. The latter term no longer refers to a thesis supported by almost indisputable evidence but to the received truth, i.e. a dogmatically enforced orthodoxy. On the MMR debacle, we saw most of the centre-left establishment, academia and the LM Gang adhere strictly to the preferred narrative that the triple vaccines were extremely safe and could not trigger regressive autism in a small susceptible subset of children. Opposition tended to come more from social conservatives, back-to-nature bohemian types and a handful of dissident medics, most notably Dr Andrew Wakefield and Dr Joseph Mercola. Yet on climate change, the LM Gang sided with the mavericks who disputed the IPCC’s scientific consensus. By 2010 any scientist, such as Australian meteorologist William Kininmonth or Canadian zoologist, Susan Crockford, who challenged the consensus would struggle to get their research papers peer-approved. Around the same time, the big energy cartels embraced the transition to a post-carbon economy. BP rebranded itself as Beyond Petroleum. All along their main goal had been to hold humanity to ransom by controlling the resources that regulate our material freedom. If all communities were self-sufficient in energy, water, food and essential raw materials, the big energy mafia would be out of business. On the fringes, two visions of our post-carbon future vied for our attention.
One involved the re-localisation of our economy through greater self-reliance and a more frugal existence with fewer but more durable machines. Some envisaged such a scenario might evolve as a natural reaction to a future worldwide economic collapse. When modern distribution chains fail to deliver the goods amid financial mayhem, people will have no choice but to learn once again to grow their own food. However, in many densely populated urban areas, this is simply not a practical option without substantial reallocation of land use and redistribution of population centres. Some have pointed to urban farms in Detroit’s sprawling suburbs as an example, but the city not only had plenty of disused land that could be repurposed, its population had declined.
The other vision of a green utopia harnesses advanced technology on a global scale to radically reduce our collective carbon footprint. It reduces human beings to the status of environmental hazards whose activities must be micromanaged to protect our delicate ecosystem. It’s almost the polar opposite of the loose network of decentralised self-regulating communities that early environmentalists had envisioned.
Green-labelled parties have long strayed from their original focus on ecological sustainability to champion other causes that require greater reliance on remote organisations. Over the last twenty odd years, green politicians have been more interested in welcoming unbalanced migratory flows, allegedly caused by climate change, and in promoting transgender ideology than in saving natural habitats. Such policies inevitably reduce self-sufficiency. If millions more people move to a region that is already a net importer of food and other essential resources, it becomes even more reliant on international trade and finance. Likewise, only male-female partnerships can reproduce naturally and raise the next generation with strong cultural bonds to their forebears. Alternative family structures with single or same-sex parents rely much more on state intervention and biotechnology. Here the new greens, as we may call them, have converged with the classic RCP position that technology would free humanity from the shackles of mother nature. While the LM Gang still lend lip service to free speech and carefree consumerism, the greens pretend to care about the planet and the rights of indigenous peoples. Behind the scenes, the same multinational corporations pull their strings.
The Great Reset
In the run-up to the corona crisis, the notional left in its social democratic, radical chic and eco-warrior garbs had abandoned the settled working classes and called for restrictions on free speech under the pretext of combatting hate crimes. This left a political vacuum for millions of disillusioned voters who felt totally betrayed by successive Labour, Liberal Democrat and Tory administrations and unpersuaded by the short-lived UKIP and Brexit parties. The LM Gang made a strategic decision to back the campaign to leave the EU. Claire Fox even won a seat in the European Parliamentary elections after Theresa May’s government had failed to respect the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum. In the same period, the likes of Brendan O’Neill would appear on new alternative media outlets, such as Dave Rubin Show, alongside American intellectuals on the libertarian right. Three core beliefs seem to unite these new media pundits. First state regulation, including limits on free speech, should be minimised. Second, capitalism has been a fantastic success story that has vastly expanded the horizons of billions of human beings. Third, Israel is largely a force for good, but Islam represents a major threat to liberal democracy. How exactly do we square the RCP’s historic support for Sinn Fein, its radical critique of Western meddling in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia with its newfound love of Israel and its abject failure to criticise the growing power of the biotech mafia? The answer is simple. The LM Gang are polemicists who co-opt causes that resonate with a large cross-section of their target audience to demolish the arguments of the principled opposition to the ruling elites. Their disciples could make a radical Marxist case for almost anything as long as they can conveniently distance themselves from their partners in crime. Brendan O’Neill is no stranger to the population debate. He has repeatedly argued against neo-Malthusianism. I find it hard to believe the LM Gang could not have been aware before 2020 that Boris Johnson’s father Stanley has long advocated radical depopulation. Boris himself penned a letter to the Times of London in 2007 urging the government to address the issue of overpopulation. Yet Boris chose to elevate Claire Fox to the House of Lords for her services to the campaign to leave the EU. Her critique of the lockdowns has always stopped well short of questioning the dubious science behind it and, more importantly, the government’s true motivations for spending countless billions of pounds on the mass administration of dodgy mRNA injections. Big Pharma can rely on Claire to provide controlled opposition to the more unpopular aspects of the covid psyop, which was always just a means to an end. The LM Gang treat free speech as an academic debate about toxic identity politics but fail to attack Big Tech’s blacklisting of leading scientists such as Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Mike Yeadon or Prof. Luc Montagnier because privately they agree with the censors.
The virus scare may have served to justify previously unthinkable policies such as antisocial distancing, forced isolation and face-mask mandates, but the medium-term goal has always been a radical shift to a centralised technocratic world order, marketed as the Great Reset. Its proponents will move heaven and earth to bring every human being into their surveillance grid. Both the green and black strands of the technophile left have failed to oppose the biggest transfer of power from the masses to the ruling classes in human history. One can only conclude they are complicit and their apparent differences over demographic sustainability, free speech or the Palestinian question are merely rhetorical. The descendants of the old RCP are in bed with the architects of the technocratic coup.
The liberal consensus over the last seventy-odd years had, until recently, favoured equality of opportunity. As long we all have access to good and inspiring education with a supportive family and wider local community, we can all thrive in our chosen vocations. We may have allowed for a few unlucky exceptions with severe mental retardation, but by and large, we liked to think most people had opportunities galore to be masters of their destiny. There is no easy measure of excellence or success. It all depends on your priorities and expectations. Some people may succeed financially but fail academically. Others may succeed in raising the next generation, but only enjoy modest personal wealth or career progression. Likewise, some may be content with moderate success, while others may feel demoralised if they fail to compete at the top of their league. It hardly mattered if you were a mere sole-trading plumber, factory worker or housewife, you were just as worthy as a surgeon, property speculator or the CEO of a large company, or at least so we were led to believe.
The illusion of equality before the law lasted little more than half a century. In most of Western Europe, it emerged from the ashes of the Second World War. Other countries had to wait for the end of colonial rule or racial segregation. While the managerial classes have long distanced themselves from open support for eugenics, the corona crisis has unmasked their thinly concealed contempt for the uncooperative underclasses.
The new eugenics, as we may call it, builds on the core precepts of modern psychiatry, namely that free will is an illusion and thus all aberrant behaviour can be tamed through psychological conditioning and/or pharmaceutical intervention. Over the last three decades the pendulum has swung from an emphasis on the psychosocial causes of mental disorders to the genetic determinism of all behaviours ranging from sexuality and violence to depression and hyperactivity. Such behavioural patterns may now be considered as immutable as skin colour or biological sex. Indeed feelings, with mysterious genetic origins, may trump more obvious physiological traits. In the absence of free will, a person lacks agency. We can always ascribe presumed misconduct to genes, bad education or a lack of early medical intervention rather than conscious decisions by responsible human beings with minds of their own.
Once people attribute behaviour mainly to genes, it only takes a small leap of faith to link intelligence with genetic inheritance and thus to justify a master race of experts empowered to regulate everyone else‘s lives. Wrongthink, as George Orwell called it in his dystopian novel 1984, means any idea at variance with the orthodoxy of official experts. In just a few years the Overton window of permissible opinions has shrunk from open debate on a range of scientific and ethical issues to complete deference to the cult of scientism. The mainstream media no longer debates whether genetic code injections marketed as covid vaccines are safe and effective but how we can persuade the vaccine-shy to roll up their sleeves. As I have explained amply in earlier posts, the nature versus nurture debate presents a false dichotomy. Our genes do not compete with our environment to determine our personality or intelligence. They form the blueprint for the biological hardware on which our emotional and intellectual software runs. Surprisingly little may distinguish the DNA of a successful brain surgeon from that of a semi-literate unemployable welfare claimant but their phenotypes may differ in some important respects. This may soon change with advent of human genetic engineering and augmented intelligence implants, bypassing limits imposed by natural biology or ecology. We could soon see a rapid shift away from the expansion of human activity that has characterised progress since the industrial revolution to transhuman excellence. Until recently, technological progress relied in large part on intense competition among natural human beings. Only a few of us would ever develop ground-breaking inventions, but advanced societies needed millions of conscientious workers with a diverse range of skills. Not everyone may have had the intellect to invent a new form of locomotion, but we still needed millions of specialised assembly workers and mechanics, many of whom could earn good salaries. Alas with smart automation, industry needs fewer and fewer engineers to drive innovation. The economics of growth is now morphing into the economics of supremacy.
Here we see a paradox. The same global corporations that welcomed expanding consumer markets that thrived on a multitude of human resources have now shifted gear to techno-feudalism with strictly regulated consumption and behaviour. The same advertising agencies that for decades sold us the dream of carefree mass motoring and debt-fuelled retail therapy in a sprawling urban landscape of highways and shopping malls are now selling us both the misnamed Green New Deal and the new concept of bio-security. We even get hybrid neologisms such as a green pass that grants additional rights to people with up-to-date genetic code injections. Green is the new grey, the antithesis of the natural harmony that many pre-industrial civilisations and many in the late 20th century ecology movement championed. Rather than learning to live alongside nature and adapting technology to help humanity as it has naturally evolved over the millennia, the technocratic elite now seems hellbent on radically modifying human nature itself.
The Green-Grey Alliance
The convergence of all mainstream parties and big businesses behind the biosecurity state and the Green New Deal should not have surprised the more astute political analysts among us. The controversial progressive policies of the last decade such as open-door mass migration, gay marriage, gender theory lessons in primary schools and proactive mental health screening did not grow organically from grassroots campaigns against social injustice. All these initiatives came from powerful lobbies deeply embedded in NGOs, academia, mainstream media outlets, private and public sector agencies. They may well have co-opted a few activists from communities with genuine grievances. On the surface, Black Lives Matter is about racial equality. In practice, this well-funded organisation promotes anything that destabilises close-knit ethnocentric communities that value strong families. This is almost the polar opposite of what most Black Africans want. BLM leaders do not just support the LGBTQ+ agenda, paving the way for transhumanism, they’re fully on board with the covid narrative, wear submissive face-masks at staged protests and have yet to utter a word of criticism against the multi-trillion dollar mRNA-vaccine roll-out. Rest assured that BLM did not voice any concerns over the suspicious deaths of five black presidents who failed to cooperate with the WHO’s mass mRNA-inoculation plans. Within little more than a year Burundi’s Pierre Nkurunziza, Tanzania’s John Magafuli, the Ivory Coast’s Hamed Bakayoko and Eswatini’s Ambrose Dlamini died prematurely and Haiti’s Jovenel Moïse was murdered. All presided over countries with very low covid-related death rates and growing populations but had expressed scepticism about mass inoculation. Their successors have all fallen into line with the WHO’s plans. Black lives only matter if someone’s high-profile death can sow the seeds of racial disharmony by blaming the white working classes for the crimes of their ancestral rulers. Not surprisingly, this organisation has enjoyed massive corporate support especially among cybertech, entertainment and sports giants.
More disturbing has been the authoritarian drift within a broad spectrum of the liberal green left. Tony Blair’s support for vaccine passports, around 15 years after trying to introduce mandatory ID cards, should surprise nobody. However, many who once opposed military adventurism, the abuse of corporate power, profit-driven environmental destruction and the over-regulation of people’s private lives, have now embraced zero covid, something that could only be achieved with total biological surveillance putting an end to the last vestiges of personal freedom. Admittedly long before covid entered our daily lexicon, idealists had to reconcile the conflicting demands of wildlife preservation, ecological stability, universal prosperity, human rights, peace, personal freedom and democracy. We had been led to believe we could have our proverbial cake and eat it, but you need not be a genius to see how these virtuous goals conflict with each other. We cannot clear forests and savannahs in the world’s most hospitable regions to make way for more farms, mines, roads and urban settlements without depriving other species not only of their habitats but also of their functional independence. Likewise, once our life support systems depend on advanced technology and supply chains controlled by a handful of interconnected corporations, we too descend to the status of zoo animals. Our freedom is now at the mercy of our technocratic zookeepers and conditional on our compliant behaviour.
Around 2018 Extinction Rebellion appeared on the scene. It recycled the extreme techno-pessimism of earlier radical ecologists. They believe if we don’t cut aggregate human consumption forthwith, we may soon face a man-made cataclysm that may wipe out our species. However, rather than advocate greater self-sufficiency and seek common cause with grassroots opponents of crony capitalism, Extinction Rebellion (XR) targets the consumer habits of the Western working classes. Most of the recent rise in demand for non-renewable resources has come from what we once called the developing world. Most Western countries have fertility rates below replacement level and, since the 2008 banking meltdown, have seen falling per-capita consumption, as young people’s priorities have shifted from car culture to electronic gadgets. Whether you believe our overconsumption of fossil fuels may destabilise our climate or not, growth in India and China would offset radical reductions in Western Europe. XR’s activities would hasten the demise of the Western working classes and, as is already happening, empower the very tech giants they claim to oppose. XR has attracted mainly wishful thinkers and dropouts from the affluent professional classes, whose antics facilitate the transition from the old model of hyper-consumerism to the new model of hyper-surveillance.
The same activists who once campaigned to keep the state and church out of people’s private lives when it comes to consensual sex or recreational drugs now oppose personal freedom when it comes to natural unmasked faces or informed consent on medical procedures. A few years ago, trendy metropolitan professionals may have liked to express their support for progressive causes such as saving refugees, tackling climate change by adopting greener technology or standing up for their rainbow coalition of worthy victim groups. At least their concerns, however impracticable or counterproductive, related to the plight of natural human beings. Now they virtue-signal their compliance with a puritanical narrative that transforms organic human beings into potential biohazards. All of a sudden, the chattering classes have co-opted a compulsive obsession with hygiene and a blind faith in the biotech industrial complex. The common denominator here is the triad of the mass media, academia and NGOs posing as independent charities, trade unions and think tanks. These have come out almost unanimously in favour of stronger corona containment measures and accuse all sceptics of murderous irresponsibility. Their tactic is to frighten us into submission unless we succumb to groupthink and relinquish our personal independence outside carefully monitored environments. Intelligence is no longer a measure of one’s analytical powers or problem-solving skills, but an expression of one’s internalisation of the presumed scientific consensus. This only works if you assume the experts employed by the organs of global governance have your best interests at heart. The growing rift in society no longer runs along left vs right or libertarian vs authoritarian lines but pits conformists against free thinkers. Behavioural psychologists have persuaded a critical mass of ordinary citizens that so-called covid deniers and antivaxxers threaten their freedom and health. Corporate technocrats and environmentalists have perversely joined forces to reset the world’s economy. Now the fake greens and elitist left sing from the same hymn sheet as the WEF (World Economic Forum), the WHO (World Health Organisation), the tech giants, the big banks and retail empires. They have buried their differences over the profit motive and industrial waste and concluded that humanity is the problem.
The New Master Race
Over the last 18 months, many leading scientists and medical professionals have been unpersoned and confined to the dark web of the alternative media. Meanwhile, other approved experts, such as Dr Anthony Fauci in the USA or Prof. Christian Drosten in Germany, have acquired an almost godlike status in the eyes of social conformists. Postmodern deference to scientism differs little from medieval deference to religious leaders. The architects of public opinion have thus simplified complex scientific questions to soundbites about our collective responsibility to each other. Politicians can now get away with sweeping generalisations based on a selective interpretation of available data unchallenged as they talk down to their subjects and dismiss any divergent opinions as mere conspiracy theories. Behind the thin veneer of public relations officers posing as elected representatives or acclaimed academics, a global governance network pulls the strings of the disposable talking heads we may want to hold accountable. Unsurprisingly, we see variants of the same policies rolled out in diverse jurisdictions around the globe.
The technocratic classes probably make up less than one percent of the general population, but they now consider themselves superior both to the plebs and their underlings in middle management. They have now cleverly exempted themselves from most coronavirus regulations that affect the plebs with exclusive travel corridors and resorts. Some may have posed before cameras to publicise their covid vaccinations, but we have no proof they received the same genetic code injections as the underclasses.
On a more serious note, current events across the prosperous world from Canada to Australia via Western Europe, clearly show the global governance classes are acting in lockstep to wage a war of attrition against non-compliant free-thinking citizens and guide the acquiescent majority to a new reality of socially engineered submission.
