Tag: biotech

Categories
All in the Mind

The Woke Emperor’s Clothes

Fauci's New Clothes

and the roots of creative confabulation in a culture of false narratives

Choreography:

Jason Arday is dead and the people who built him have arranged their faces into expressions of grief.

He was appointed professor of the sociology of education at Cambridge in 2023, at the age of 38, and was reported everywhere as the youngest Black professor in the institution's 800-year history. The story travelled around the world without a single editor asking to see the workings.

It took three years to unravel the claims and it did not begin with an ideologue. Jack Grove, a reporter at Times Higher Education, had assembled a 63-page report documenting how large sections of Arday's work appeared to have been taken, without proper citation, from a thesis written by another student in 2009. Grove has said the Metropolitan Police contacted him and asked him to stop approaching Arday because of the effect on his mental health. On 21 July 2026 the philosopher Nathan Cofnas published his own findings on Substack, having run Arday's 2015 dissertation through Copyleaks: many passages are lifted with minimal editing, sometimes retaining copy-editing mistakes. Cofnas was candid about wanting to discredit the university's ideology of DEI. Both of those things are true at once and the second is now being used to bury the first.

Arday denied the accusations, attributed the errors to his purported autism and said his accusers were motivated by racism. His publisher, Simon & Schuster, stood by him and praised his professionalism and integrity. Note what was offered as a defence to a charge of unattributed copying: a diagnosis. The label was still doing its work right up to the end.

He resigned from Cambridge and Jesus College on 5 August 2026, writing that what he had experienced had gone far beyond scholarly disagreement. He was found dead at his home in London on 14 August, nine days later.

Then the choreography began. The Chancellor of Cambridge condemned a racist feeding frenzy. On 20 August, Ghent University suspended Cofnas pending an investigation into his conduct. Within a fortnight the affair had been pressed into a shape that everyone with a reputation to protect could live with: a Black academic hounded to death by racists.

Notice who is absent from that shape. Not Cofnas, who is in it as the villain, nor Grove, whose three years of documentary work have been folded into the frenzy and forgotten. The people missing are the ones who appointed him, profiled him, published him, booked him, funded him and showcased him for three years without ever once asking whether the story was true. They appear nowhere, not as villains, not as fools, not even as witnesses.

The emperor's new clothes were always described in the same terms: finer than anything that had come before and visible only to the worthy. What we are invited to admire today is a brighter, healthier, fairer and more inclusive future for all. Instead, the managerial classes seek to re-organise society by deciding who may think and who counts as fully human.

Nobody in the crowd is embarrassed. That is the part of the story we tend to forget. The courtiers who praised the cloth on Monday do not hang their heads on Tuesday. They simply turn and praise the next thing, at the same volume and in the same voice.

What he was made into:

Cambridge University lies at the heart of the globally oriented woke establishment. Unsurprisingly, the Greens and LibDems do amazingly well in one of England's most prosperous counties, home not only to a prestigious educational institution, but also to leading IT and life science players, including Arm Holdings, Amazon R&D, Microsoft Research, Apple, Roku and Broadcom as well as AstraZeneca, Illumina, CRISPR Therapeutics, Danaher (Abcam), Gilead Sciences and Lonza. Big Tech bankrolls the University, either directly or via intermediaries like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with its Gates Cambridge Scholarship.

The big brains at the tech giants know all too well that in the near future they will need only a top tier of highly intelligent engineers and scientists to drive the fourth industrial revolution, but a much larger army of middle managers and engagement catalysts to keep tabs on the rest of natural humanity. Only the best and brightest get to work at Cambridge, unless their professional role serves purposes other than academic or scientific excellence.

This is what I have elsewhere called progressive eugenics: a selective impulse that has dropped race and class in favour of perceived educability and ideological alignment and sorts people through diagnosis and medicalisation rather than through breeding programmes. I will not rehearse the whole argument again here. Jason Arday is what it looks like applied to one man.

He excelled as a motivational speaker and a poster boy for the victimhood-industrial complex on the back of his skin colour and his disability status. Those diagnoses were not incidental to his rise. They were his qualification. He was elevated as the representative of a category.

What's a label for anyway?

I have worked with severely learning disabled adults, which is not a qualification, but it is a view of these questions from underneath rather than from a lectern.

One man I worked with had been diagnosed with Asperger's despite barely being able to make himself understood. He spoke in mumbled metaphors: "My dad builds bad houses" meant that his father was an architect who had once been sued. He had been on strong epilepsy medication all his life. He could solder capacitors onto a circuit board without having any idea what the board was for and draw basic shapes on a computer screen. He had real neurological deficits that his label did little to help.

No two of the adults I worked with presented remotely alike. One could kick a ball around the courtyard and swim a length, but could not dress himself, needed help in the toilet and would lash out at staff who touched him the wrong way. Another could walk only when the mood took her, shuffling along on someone's arm for weeks and then striding off into town on her own. Nothing in either case was described by a diagnosis, because a diagnosis was never there to describe them. It was there to determine funding, placement and eligibility and, in Jason Arday's case, publicity. There are thousands like them across the UK and the labels fit none of them any better.

It's not so much that the labels are too readily given out, it's that they are administrative instruments dressed as medical findings. They sort people into castes for institutional convenience while telling you almost nothing about the person in front of you.

What nobody checked:

Jason's backstory affirmed a narrative of overcoming the handicaps of neurodivergence and racial prejudice. In many ways it validated a Guardianesque worldview in which social services and public healthcare had somehow failed him in his early years, while framing the beloved NHS as central to everyone's lives. It was a story that a great many institutions wanted to be true and not one of them appears to have spent an afternoon establishing whether it was.

Start with the therapy. Jason claimed to have received ten hours of speech therapy six days a week before he finally uttered his first word just before his twelfth birthday. That is sixty hours a week. No NHS speech and language service has ever provided anything remotely like it, to anyone, at any time. This is not a claim that required investigative journalism to test. It required arithmetic.

As for his childhood itself, his classmates Jonathan Stewart and Magnus Okuonghae remember a chatterbox and neither of them can reasonably be accused of anti-black racism. They were not hard to find. They were findable in 2023, when he was being profiled, by anyone who picked up a telephone.

Then the marathons. He first reached a large national audience on ITV's Surprise Surprise! in 2012, when he highlighted his celebrated feat of running 30 marathons in 35 days back in 2010 to raise money for Shelter and Shooting Star Children's Hospice, despite suffering a seizure and a hairline leg fracture. Reports in the Richmond & Twickenham Times and Your Local Guardian describe a finish at Piccadilly Circus with friends joining segments of the route, but record no formal validation of all 30 runs. The Guardian reported uncritically on Arday's meeting with tennis champion Andy Murray, billing him as an epileptic marathon runner who had carried the Olympic torch through Merton and been mute until the age of 11.

And then the work. Arday's own memoir revealed that one of his examiners struggled to see any original contributions in his work. That examiner did his job. Nobody above him did.

I make no claim about what Jason Arday believed about his own childhood. The epilepsy is documented, and periods of selective mutism following seizures are entirely plausible; a real and modest difficulty could have been inflated into a miracle of recovery by people who needed the better version. What is not in doubt is that basic old-school fact-checking was trivial and that it was never done because nobody in a position to do it wanted the answer.

The same machine, six years earlier:

None of this was invented for Jason Arday. Six years after the techno-elites locked down much of the world's population for our own good and coerced billions into accepting genetic injections, one of their superstar scientists has been publicly humiliated. Not only did Anthony Fauci plead the fifth on most questions about the inconsistencies of his covid-era edicts, taking advantage of his constitutional right to remain silent rather than accept responsibility for his actions or explain the blatant contradictions between his private correspondence and his public pronouncements, but former President Joe Biden had already given him a preemptive pardon. Fauci remained calmly seated as Senator Ron Johnson revealed admissions in Fauci's diaries about the known link between mRNA injections and miscarriages, as well as about urging colleagues to suppress such information for fear of encouraging vaccine hesitancy. "I asked around a bit more and another issue came up that you need to be aware of. Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester."

It turns out the guardians of covid truth were wrong both ethically and scientifically and dissident voices in the wilderness whom the former experts denounced so vociferously had the correct instincts.

Now all the celebrity scientists, fake-progressive opinion leaders and mediagenic influencers who waxed lyrical about the covid jabs and shouted down sceptics are trying to rewrite history. Did they really want to send the unvaccinated to modern-day leper colonies or put us under house arrest until we complied with their biotech mandates? Did they really urge pregnant women to get jabbed and repeatedly dismiss any side effects such as myocarditis as deranged conspiracy theories? Now they're backtracking and the truth seeps into the mainstream thanks to the tenacity of a few whistleblowers. Not one of them has explained how they came to be so certain, so loudly, for so long.

Even if we assume the mRNA injections had a neutral effect on most recipients, the billions squandered on promotion, distribution and enforcement could have been better invested in essential infrastructure such as water treatment, sanitation, transport links and sports facilities that could have saved far more lives. If the government were so concerned with people's health, why did it not invest in new reservoirs to meet growing demand for clean water or ensure that all children have easy access to safe and clean parks untarnished by the artefacts of urban decay? Yet the health-and-safety experts chose to keep people idle at home, glued to electronic devices, inhaling stale air in tiny bedrooms and bingeing on processed snacks. No wonder millions, including many who complied with covid edicts, have lost their trust in officialdom. Why would you accept medical advice from someone who cannot define what a woman is?

I tried to reinvent my past too:

There are aspects of my own childhood that I wanted to adapt in my late teens and early twenties, for reasons others may not understand. I tried to hide my association with Luton because of high-school bullying. People have different ways of dealing with peer rejection. If your peers reject you because you do not fit in with the in-crowd, you can either try to adapt to their anti-intellectual culture of kitsch consumerism that clashed with your family's quasi-religious devotion to the Labour Party (something I might call proto-wokeism) or identify with an alternative culture that may better accommodate your idiosyncrasies or at least give you another chance to prove your worth. I chose the latter course in two ways. First I hung out with local iconoclasts in their late teens and early twenties often identifying as Trotskyists or anarchists within an intellectualised adjunct to the punk counterculture prevalent at the time. Next, I invented multiple variations of my past that might appeal to a crowd who revered victims of oppression and marginalisation.

I had to remember which story I had told to which people and hope that the different groups I met later in life would never compare notes on the embarrassing details of my teenage years, including my dealings with psychiatric services. My aim was only to build a new identity and still be judged on merit. I found creative confabulation much easier abroad in Germany and Italy than in provincial England, where occasional Freudian slips and inconsistent accents may reveal my true identity.

Luckily I never made a career out of it. It all happened long before the social media era removed anonymity, although for some reason leading politicians have gotten away with deceptive fabrications to win favour with voters. In his 1988 presidential campaign, Joe Biden claimed to have graduated in the top half of his law school class and earned three undergraduate degrees. He later admitted he graduated 76th in a class of 85 and earned a single BA with a double major. More recently Rachel Reeves embellished her customer relations role at HBOS, claiming she had worked as an economist. Neither of them was destroyed by it, because neither of them had been made into a symbol that could be withdrawn.

It is technically easier than ever to verify a wild claim. But verification only happens when it suits those with the means to commission it. When it does not, when government, corporate or NGO interests have an agenda to push, the same resources go into refuting inconvenient real-world evidence and maintaining an alternate reality, at a cost of billions. Powerful lobbies go out of their way to defend the honour of key influencers and useful innocents, and ditch them the moment they stop serving elite interests.

This is precisely what happened to Jason Arday. He built a small career on his athletic achievements and his victim status, and could only get away with fanciful exaggerations because enablers in key places wanted to exploit his naivety. Had someone challenged him early on, he might never have become a Cambridge professor. He could have been a good sports teacher, and he would still be alive to be one.

Why is nobody embarrassed?

While some may question the motives of the race realist Nathan Cofnas, the real blame lies with the multibillion-pound DEI industry. True to form, leading illiberal woke politicians, like Diane Abbott MP and Green leader Zack Polanski, have called for tighter regulation of the press and social media to stop the spread of malinformation. Veracity is no longer a valid defence.

None of this should surprise us in a culture that rewards false identities, such as attributing your emotional challenges to wrong body syndrome, and punishes authenticity and common sense. The categories are handed out from above because somebody upstairs needs the sorting done.

In the story, a child says the obvious thing and the spell breaks. That is the one detail Andersen got wrong. Here the exposure changes nothing at all: the cloth is quietly withdrawn, the tailors are paid, the crowd turns to face the next procession, and the only person who pays anything is the one who was dressed up and marched down the street.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics War Crimes

Our Rulers Want War

Last month, the world’s movers and shakers met up in the Swiss ski resort of Davos. Nominally elected politicians posed with billionaire technocrats and functionaries of unaccountable global organisations like the WHO to discuss how to manage the restless plebs. Hot on their agenda, besides climate change, future pandemics and universal digital ID, was the perceived threat of disinformation, misinformation and malinformation. The last neologism is particularly ominous. They are not only concerned with information that may be factually incorrect, but with indisputable facts which, if disseminated, would incriminate them. Information must now not just be manipulated, but actively suppressed for the greater good of the elite’s long-term plans for humanity.

While the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, shared the stage with Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla, and, without a hint of irony, welcomed the prospect of rolling out a mass injection campaigns within 100 days of the next pandemic, his colleague, Grant Shapps posing as Secretary of State for Defence, made a high-profile speech to prepare us for war with Eurasia. A week later General Sir Richard Shirreff appears on British TV screens to advocate conscription in the build-up to a military conflict with Russia allegedly to defend freedom and democracy.

How can these professional charlatans, who have both on numerous occasions revealed their ignorance on basic science and geopolitics, claim to represent the hapless citizens of the United Kingdom? Who voted to impose medical martial law and digital IDs or to wage war with Russia, Iran and/or China when our armed forces can barely defend our borders? Did we not vote to take back control? How does bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen solve any of the practical challenges we have at home? Do our political speech writers think we all suffer from collective amnesia? Have we somehow forgotten that the UK not only armed Saudi Arabia to the hilt, but the RAF helped train its pilots as they launched airstrikes over Northern Yemen? Why on earth would Houthi rebels be disrupting shipping in Red Sea as Israel flattens Gaza?

In the same week the Indian multinational, Tata Steel, announced it would close the blast furnaces in Wales, as government and opposition politicians prioritise their Net Zero agenda. Did it occur to anyone that we will need an awful lot of steel and aluminium not only to build new energy infrastructure but to fight all the wars our rulers want to pursue.

The days of US military supremacy are over. What happened to the promises of a joint NATO-Ukrainian victory over the Eastern invaders? How could Russia win if its economy is supposedly a basket case economy and its military budget only a tenth of the USA’s mighty $800 outlay? In reality, the Russian bear is only weak if we measure its power in American greenbacks. In terms of raw materials, it’s the richest country in the world with a manufacturing base now larger than France’s and a highly skilled workforce. Western sanctions have barely affected Russia as it deepens its alliances with China, India, Iran and many resource-rich African countries. What we’re witnessing is much more complex than an eastward shift in the economic centre of gravity or a transition to a multipolar world order dominated by China. Many analysts mistakenly assume the western wing of the Military-Biotech Industrial Complex wants to defeat its eastern wing. American tech giants depend on the East Asian manufacturing base. Where do you think all the servers, laptops and mobile phones we need to power the Fourth Industrial Revolution are made? If they’re not assembled in China itself, chances are they’re made in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or Vietnam, all within China’s orbit. Re-localising manufacturing to Western Europe requires plentiful cheap energy, which is now in shorter supply. Europe’s industrial powerhouse, Germany, has had to absorb a double whammy, with the destructions of Nordstream II gas pipeline depriving it of cheap Russian gas and its government’s ideological pursuit of Net Zero policies. Germany even decommissioned its last nuclear reactors in May 2023. You need a hell of a lot of wind turbines and solar panels to power a car manufacturing plant. Unsurprisingly major manufacturers are now relocating to regions with lower energy costs. With highly automated production lines, skilled labour is less of an issue these days.

Now it appears the collective West, as some call NATO and its partners, has abandoned Ukraine to refocus its attention on securing trading routes in the Middle East. Yet Colonel Douglas MacGregor not only foresaw a Russian victory over Ukraine, he’s now predicting the humiliation of the Israeli government and its closest allies, leading sooner or later to WW3 with catastrophic consequences for millions of Europeans accustomed to the relative safety that followed the end of WW2. Amidst all turmoil, governments at loggerheads over the Ukrainian or Palestinian questions, are working almost in lockstep to trap their citizens into a digital control grid. The freest countries in the coming decades may well be those with incompetent governments, shoddy infrastructure and non-compliant citizens not dependent on the central banking system and able to fend for themselves without state handouts or NGO intervention. Adversity builds resilience and cosiness builds helplessness. Many Africans may live in ramshackle huts, but they have learned how to cope in the event of power cuts. By contrast most Europeans would be helpless without emergency generators kicking into action within hours of a power outage. When downtown Auckland (New Zealand) experienced a power failure in February 1998, most of the district’s 6000 inhabitants had to find alternative accommodation and city workers either worked from home or from relocated offices. Residents averted catastrophe only because people could easily move to well-provisioned surrounding neighbourhoods and emergency services acted promptly to deploy backup generators and restore full capacity within 40 days. A city the size of London may not be so lucky in the event of a catastrophic power failure resulting from enemy airstrikes.

I doubt Western intelligence agencies believed an outlay of over $200 billion could easily defeat the Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine. As Julian Assange observed very astutely about the protracted Western intervention in Afghanistan, the aim was not military victory, but to transfer funds to the military industrial complex in a perpetual war against elusive enemies. Not only has the US Deep State armed and trained many of its official enemies to destabilise rival regimes, as it did with Mujahedeen in Afghanistan back in the 1980s, it needs enemies to justify its existence. “War is a Racket”, wrote Smedley D. Butler in 1935. The global elites need the spectres of Putin and Islamic Jihadists to scare the masses into submission. “If we don’t support Ukraine, defeat Houthi militias in the Red Sea or stand up to Iran, we will lose our cherished freedoms and prosperity”, cry the same neoliberals who oversaw the outsourcing of Western manufacturing to the Far East, the downsizing of the Western working classes and colluded with Big Tech to suppress all dissent to the socially and economically destructive lockdowns and biotechnological coercion of the 2020-23 pseudo-pandemic and are busy rolling out hate speech laws to ban all criticism of transgender ideology and ethnic cleansing.

The Western mainstream media has exploited the curious death of the fringe opposition Russian leader, Alexei Navalny, of a sudden cardiac arrest to beat the drums of war against Russia. Little do they care that Western support for Zelenksy's regime has led to the early deaths of over 400,000 Ukrainians and possibly over 270,000 Russian fatalities. We're being primed for World War Three, which this time may see the planned destruction of the Western World as we knew it.

Categories
All in the Mind

The Biotech Industrial Complex

"The Handmaid's Tale" is filmed on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. on February 15, 2019.

In a parallel universe somewhere, conscientious scientists, doctors, nurses and administrators battle with a novel coronavirus that threatens the very survival of our species, while the main media outlets controlled by governments and large enterprises join forces in a heroic effort to persuade us to adapt our behaviour and embrace our new bio-security state for the common good. In such a fantasy world, our enemies are not governments or large corporations, but conspiracy-theorising malcontents who fail to internalise the official narrative. It hardly matters if the tech giants and investment banks are consolidating their grip on wealth and power, while they hold notionally democratic governments to ransom. We are led to believe all these drastic measures, such as censorship of alternative scientific perspectives, heightened surveillance, digital health passports and the growing militarisation of healthcare, serve only to protect us against a nanoscopic genetic sequence invisible to the naked eye.

Yet away from the mainstream media and the celebrity endorsements of our Brave New Normal, Robert F Kennedy Junior’s latest book, The Real Anthony Fauci, has exposed the whole crime syndicate behind the coronavirus narrative. Written very much from a Western liberal social-democratic perspective, Bobby Kennedy has challenged his detractors to fact-check him, not by searching for a quick rebuttal by a corporate fact-checker, but refuting the veracity of his sources with first-hand evidence.

Could the Mainstream Media lie on a such big scale?

Some will switch off as soon as they read the now ubiquitous term, mainstream media. A large cross-section of the chattering classes will instinctively dismiss anything that has not received an official seal of approval or has not been vetted by a fact-checker. The assumption here is that the authorities have our best interests at heart and are somehow trying to protect us against mischievous propagandists.

The UK Parliament is poised to pass the Online Harms Act allegedly to combat terrorism and hatred against vulnerable people. The real targets, as anyone with more than a gram of analytical grey matter on active duty, could work out, are not deranged Islamic fundamentalists or white supremacists, but critical thinkers who do not buy the pandemic narrative or any other narratives that may justify authoritarian control. While the corporate media may obsess with hurty feelings towards protected identity groups, they have launched a hate campaign against those of us who fail to comply with the biotech mafia. As Dr Peter Doshi pointed out at the US Senate event, an antivaxxer is no longer someone who opposes all vaccines, Merriam Webster has extended its meaning to cover opponents of vaccine mandates. In our post-reality world,  a biological woman may not hurt the feelings of a biological male identifying as a woman by simply stating he is not a lady, but media pundits and influencers can claim the unjabbed are the enemy within and must either be locked in their homes or forcibly injected with a mystery substance against their express will despite a dearth of evidence that such injections reduce the transmission of an overhyped viral pathogen.

How long can the wishful thinking professional classes, with their designer face-masks, continue to deny the emerging reality of a totalitarian regime that will keep moving the goalposts to exclude new groups of uncooperative human beings? Today, your compliance may mean being double or triple-jabbed. Tomorrow, it may mean having regular mental health screening to check your social conformity. When will the compliant classes realise that unless they belong to the chosen few, they will be next? When will it dawn on the complacent masses who currently go along with the narrative that their favourite celebrity influencers may be bending the truth? Many will have friends, relatives or neighbours who died with covid-19 on their death certificate. They may believe they died because of covid-19, even if they had other underlying conditions, but soon many will have close acquaintances whose life was cut short within days, weeks or months of their last booster shot. The media cannot hide the steep rise in healthy young to middle-aged adults succumbing to life-threatening cardiovascular and neurological illnesses. Part of me hopes the long-term damage can be limited if we stop at 2 or 3 doses of these new mRNA or viral vector injections, but never in human history has a medical intervention been foisted on people with such zeal and coercion. This is probably the biggest exercise in mass persuasion ever undertaken. To persuade the public at large, the authorities have adopted a tailor-made form of NewSpeak. All of a sudden, having access to something no longer refers to availability but to obligation. Having access to clean water is something we all need, but we get to decide how and when to use this essential resource. NLP practitioners understand this psychological association. If someone claims you have access to something or you are eligible for something, you’re more likely to want to take advantage of your new entitlement. The marketing spiel has shifted from disease control to participation in our new bio-security state. Someone somewhere has decided that human beings may only mingle in real life if an external authority can verify their genetic status. We have had to forgo our rights to free association and bodily autonomy to protect us against a nanoscopic genetic sequence. Yet there appears to be little correlation between mRNA injection uptake - something the media calls the vaccination rate, and covid-labelled infection rates. More tests lead invariably to more positive cases. Indeed, recent data from many European countries clearly shows a higher seasonally adjusted mortality rate for young to middle-aged adults.

It's a Technocratic Coup

Both the virus and the so-called vaccines are mere means to an end. Whether either succeeds in significantly downsizing the earth’s population through deadly coercion remains to be seen. Meanwhile, governments have usurped unprecedented powers over our private lives and consigned pluralistic liberal democracy with open debate on all key scientific and ethical issues of the day to history. What remains of democracy is a stage-managed charade with different flavours of the same technocratic fundamentalism. In Britain, the leader of the opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, has called on the government to clamp down on alternative media outlets like Telegram. In Austria and Germany, politicians from all leading parliamentary groups have thrown their rhetorical weight behind mandatory mRNA injections with hefty fines and jail sentences for those who do not comply. The coming months will reveal the dark side of the totalitarian monster behind our politicians. Almost everything the maverick analysts forecast just in early 2020 has come to pass. Quarantine camps, embeddable digital health certificates, robocops and bio-surveillance drones are no longer science fiction. If this were about our health, then we’d look at all-cause mortality, welcome tried and tested therapeutics and allow autopsies with full transparency over healthcare policies. I can think of no other logical explanation for the authoritarian behaviour of governments than a technocratic coup.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Another Twitter Suspension

The tech media giants started with easy high-profile targets, either genuine white supremacists, à la Red Ice, or sensationalist purveyors of American Exceptionalism and half-truths à la Infowars. They knew blocking these channels would only annoy a small subset of their customers. Few politicians would dare speak up in defence of these fringe outlets. Next, they targeted the likes of Stefan Molyneux, with nearly 1 million Youtube subscribers, former President Trump with over 50 million followers and last week the Corbett Report. I find this unsurprising, but also rather perverse. I never subscribed to Stefan Molyneux, but YouTube algorithms would keep suggesting his videos. Before I figured out how to disable auto-play, his videos would often follow other videos on the free speech theme by the likes of Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad. I long suspected Stefan was controlled opposition. His philosophical videos targeted a huge reservoir of dissent among the disenfranchised working classes. If you were not paying attention, you may have dismissed the core precept of his belief system: the fundamental importance of genetics in determining intelligence and success, both within and between racial groups. Such opinions have been rather unfashionable in the public discourse since the end of WW2. However, it’s now becoming glaringly obvious that the elites have public and private opinions on many controversies. Superficially, they pretend to side with the people but behind the scenes, they work to sow the seeds of new divisions and prepare the public psyche for future policy shifts.

Now the likes of Twitter are targeting anyone who challenges the official covid narrative, even those of us with a modest following in the lower thousands responding to someone with fewer than 30 followers. It seems you may hurl all sorts of gratuitous insults and spout some of the wildest scientifically illiterate theories on Twitter, as long as you do not challenge narratives of strategic importance. I’ve read messages supportive of paedophilia. Indeed, one message contained a preview image of a pornographic scene involving a child. I blocked its sender immediately. I admit this represents a grey area in the debate on the bounds of free speech, but I always stress intellectual freedom rather than absolute freedom of expression. I’ve lost count of the number of flat earthers and moon landing deniers active on social media, but their accounts never seem to get blocked.

The usual excuse is to protect community guidelines. You may naïvely think this is just about good social etiquette in the digital space. Some may have worried that such guidelines prevented open debate on issues such as unsustainable migratory flows or the promotion of transgenderism in schools for fear of offending vocal lobbies or vulnerable individuals. Now the assault on free speech has extended to anyone critical of the biotech industrial complex. The covid scare has unmasked our ruling classes, who still hide behind the façade of saving lives. Big Pharma lobbyists have been very active for many decades. Since the advent of social media, they’ve employed people to counteract any claims they do not like. I recall a long thread about the massive over-prescription of antidepressants. This could potentially offend people dependent on such psychoactive meds. By the same warped logic vegans may not highlight the horrors of slaughterhouses for fear of offending meat eaters. Initially the thread involved genuine users with a range of views. The next morning, I received a deluge of unfavourable replies with all the hallmarks of professional copywriters and was stupid enough to waste valuable time interacting with someone who could almost immediately respond to any first-hand evidence I gave with peer-reviewed reports on the safety and benefits of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (such as Prozac). These people always claim to be mental healthcare professionals. None of these tweets were flagged as abusive. I first encountered the Twitter thought police in 2019 about a misinterpreted sarcastic reply with the trigger word “kill” I had forgotten about. My comment paraphrased someone’s illogical statement (Do you want us to kill ourselves?). I gladly deleted it to restore my access. Lesson learned: avoid certain trigger words unless you make the context abundantly clear. Now what kind of gratuitous offence could earn me a one-week suspension? Threatening to kill someone? Overt racism? Denying that anyone has ever died as a result of covid-19? Nope. I merely claimed that numerous trials have proven ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are safe and effective treatments for the kind of respiratory illnesses associated with sars-cov-2. Whom exactly is this offending? I can only suspect that my interlocutor, going by the handle of Justin Time, works for the social media monitoring arm of the biotech industrial complex. They want to suppress any suggestion that the new experimental gene-therapy injections, marketed as covid-19 vaccines, do more harm than good. If alternative treatments are proven to be safe and effective, then the new injections will lose their emergency use authorisation and the whole case for authoritarian bio-security measures, with its lockdowns, mandatory masking, antisocial policing and digital health certificates, collapses.

Categories
All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Censorship is a Licence to Kill

Free speech saves lives

The ultimate irony of ironies is that we should rely on the government, the mainstream media and social media giants to protect us against dangerous misinformation for the greater good. Allegedly such misleading information could discourage impressionable people from following official guidelines. This paternalistic attitude relies on the flawed assumption that our rulers have our best interests at heart in the same way as most parents set boundaries on their children’s behaviour. Our new guardians of truth, masquerading as fact-checkers, would have us believe that we can still hold our administrators to account, but only if we choose safe candidates of which the mainstream media approves.

If we have learned nothing since the outbreak of the covid scare in March 2020, it’s that politicians, including prime ministers and presidents, play second fiddle to a global network of technocrats. Out of the blue, scientific advisers appear on TV to promote radical solutions to perceived emergencies that would otherwise be very unpopular. Medical emergencies may justify almost anything. Even the spectre of suicide bombers killing innocent commuters, shoppers, revellers and concertgoers failed to persuade the public to forgo basic civil liberties such as the freedom to walk around one’s neighbourhood and mingle informally in public spaces.

All of a sudden, every aspect of our public and private lives is under the scrutiny of remote experts, whose wisdom we may no longer challenge for fear of being smeared as miscreants. The message we get from our middle managers could not be clearer. They do not trust us to look after ourselves without their endless guidance. No doubt, most human operatives within our mushrooming people management apparatus sincerely believe they have our best interests at heart. However, behind their apparent good intentions lies an assumption of moral and intellectual superiority. Most disturbingly the notional political left, once known as the liberal intelligentsia, have called on the state to tackle the perceived scourge of misinformation from dangerous covid deniers and anti-vaxxers, often likened by mental association with Holocaust deniers and Luddites. Those who claim to stand up for disadvantaged communities no longer trust commoners to think independently, manage their private affairs or even retain full bodily autonomy. Our representatives act like teachers debating how to deal with troublemakers in their classes. They do not fear ruffians, whose ill-tempered antics may justify more surveillance and psychiatric screening, as much as they loathe free-thinkers who challenge them intellectually. Over the last nine months, we’ve witnessed the police crack down not just on peaceful protesters opposed to creeping technofascism, but on birthday parties, weddings and small businesses such as gyms, shops selling non-essential goods, restaurants, pubs and hairdressers. One may wonder whether police officers have any time left to investigate burglaries, muggings, rapes or murders.

The professional classes seem relatively unaffected by the rollout of harsher corona-containment measures. They can retreat to their comfortable townhouses and country villas and continue working remotely on full pay. They may virtue-signal their compliance with the latest health and safety edicts by dutifully wearing designer face-masks and observing antisocial distancing guidelines in public spaces. Their gut instinct is to side with the experts that their favourite media outlets and employers promote. The chattering classes suffer from an early 21st-century variant of cognitive dissonance. All objective reality is filtered through the lens of manufactured emergencies and virtuous campaigns for endless social engineering. Yet their priorities mutate so fast that yesterday’s heroes may become today’s villains and yesterday’s solutions can easily turn into today’s problems. Once upon a time, the bourgeois left adored the home-grown working classes who powered the industrial revolution. They were the salt of the earth. By the 1960s steady improvements in education, housing, healthcare and general living standards had enabled millions of people from humble working-class backgrounds to join the growing middle classes. After this brief golden age of growing social equality and upwards mobility, the left has shifted its focus away from the working classes to disadvantaged identity groups. At different times they have championed the rights of immigrants, ethnic minorities, gays, lesbians, disabled people, single mothers, female professionals, religious minorities and more recently transgender individuals. Many of these campaigns may be worthy causes, at least those that pertain to natural groups of human beings, but often sow the seeds of new divisions by creating new categories whose interests may appear at variance with those of society as a whole.  Social engineers may exploit conflicting interests between subgroups to educate and regulate the ignorant masses. When immigrants clash with angry natives or Muslims are at loggerheads with the gay community, the managerial classes relish the opportunity to intervene for the common good. The authoritarian right differs only in its traditional emphasis on God, queen and country, which appear outmoded in today’s technologically advanced world empire. We may have mega-billionaires instead of monarchs and scientific advisors instead of deities, but the commoners must show the same deference to their superiors.

With the fusion of large corporations, banks, charities and supranational governments, the old left-right schism has lost any true meaning. It’s now more an expression of one’s cultural allegiance than a coherent political platform.  A charity or non-governmental organisation may pose on the left, while a large commercial concern such as Walmart may appear the ultimate manifestation of capitalism and thus be deemed right-wing. Yet both types of organisations seem totally on board with our Brave New Abnormal, championing draconian restrictions on social behaviour. Big supermarkets, hospitals and TV stations work in unison to promote a new more regimented lifestyle, in which any indulgences are carefully monitored. Once all entertainment, informal socialising and dating moves online, remote organisations can keep tabs on our moods, habits and innermost thoughts. We may have briefly harboured the illusion of a permissive society where anything goes. Yet as our expressions of personal freedom migrated to the digital world via our smartphones and social media outlets, the state began to interfere more and more in our private and social lives. Increasingly you could let all hell loose online via first-person shooter games or hardcore porn but had to mind your language in real life. Youngsters may no longer have feared social opprobrium or arrest if they experimented with risky sexual practices or recreational drugs. Instead, they came under concerted pressure from peers, teachers and the mainstream media to conform to a new politically correct normal that demonised traditions and championed disruption of viable societies.

Once we may no longer investigate and openly debate the veracity of official claims, the authorities may easily manipulate facts to suit their narrative. This empowers them to hide any evidence that links their policies with mass murder. Several studies have shown that lockdown policies, even in countries with advanced infrastructure and welfare systems, may lead to significantly higher mortality than could be caused by mutant viruses.

According to research by Prof. Philip Thomas of Bristol University, lockdowns may claim more than 500,000 lives in the UK projected over a year once we take into account the social, economic and health impacts of long-term worklessness and diminished possibilities for personal development. Dr. Ari Joffe, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and a clinical professor at the University of Alberta, reached a similar conclusion. In a paper titled COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink he finds lockdowns do ten times more than than good.

Lockdowns do not just stop many people, better suited to hands-on practical jobs, from working, they make it much harder to form new friendships. People’s emotional and physical health depend on complex family and community networks. It’s hard to measure the health benefits of enjoying a meal with friends, having a neighbour pop around to check everything is okay or playing cards or dominoes at a local club. Yet police officers have prevented such activities in the name of public health rather than focusing on crimes. The health service has been transformed beyond recognition with direct access to emergency departments and general practitioners denied without first making an appointment online. Sick people are thus left to languish at home. The criteria for attributing deaths to covid-19 are so lax that in recent weeks covid has been mentioned as many as two thirds of death certificates without any statistically significant increase in the seasonally adjusted mortality rate. Only last week Debbie Hicks was arrested for filming empty corridors and wards in a large Gloucestershire hospital. Similar footage has been captured in the UK and overseas. Security guards prevent the public from approaching or filming hospitals, effectively out of bounds to citizen journalists. While the media focus on a few busy intensive care units, we may no longer verify their claims in person with new restrictions on free movement around towns and cities. We’re at the mercy of official reports, occasional whistle-blowers and anecdotal evidence. We have no way to prove whether someone died of covid, with a related viral infection that may have hastened their death or from medical neglect exacerbated by lockdown measures. If early reports of adverse reactions to the new generation of mRNA (messenger RiboNucleic Acid) are correct, we may soon expect our new technocratic establishment to cover up the extent of any resulting deaths.

Technofascism represents a much bigger threat to humanity than any novel mutant genetic sequence.