Tag: technocracy

The Woke Emperor’s Clothes

Post author By neilg63
Post date 1st September 2026
No Comments on The Woke Emperor’s 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 the credential. He was elevated as the representative of a category.

What a label is for?

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 did a version of this:

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), you may either sink into a deep depression and question your self-worth or identify with an alternative culture that may better accommodate your idiosyncrasies or at least give you another 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.

Tags biotech, eugenics, psyop, technocracy

All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Your Life in their Hands

How progressive middle managers want you to place your trust in official experts

The Labour-dominated Westminster parliament approved the third reading of The Terminally Ill Adults Bill (commonly known as the Assisted Dying Bill) by only 314 to 291 votes after defeating amendments that could have offered some minimal safeguards, such as forbidding doctors from pre-emptively presenting assisted suicide as a care pathway, which could be dangerous with patients in a deep state of melancholy or suffering from mild dementia. Only the unelected House of Lords may now revise the legislation before it becomes law. It comes as little surprise the French Parliament also recently passed analogous legislation. Contrary to media portrayals, the policy does not come from a large grassroots movement, but straight out of the World Economic Forum playbook via a spider’s web of NGOs and charities. Just as the technophile professional classes look forward to extending their lives through AI-guided medicine, epigenome reprogramming, somatic and cognitive augmentation, they seem happy to relieve plebeians of their suffering through end-of-life ceremonies.

Some may argue that we already have euthanasia in all but name, leaving millions of atomised commoners to while their time on a cocktail of audiovisual entertainment, comfort food and risky medications, which in combination often have undisclosed side effects. With a reduced quality of life and limited personal independence, especially with long-term medical conditions such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, angina, atrial fibrillation and most ominously dementia, sooner or later we’ll end up in hospital at the mercy of medics who may decide whether to keep us alive or give us life-shortening palliative care.

As early as the 1990s the Liverpool Care Pathway provided a framework for the triage of worthy and unworthy patients, by prioritising different approaches depending on the perceived quality of a patient’s remaining life, which in the case of lonely dementia patients is likely to be very diminished. While a public outcry led health authorities to phase out the Liverpool Care Pathway in 2013, only seven years later, tens of thousands of covid patients were given high doses of midazolam, which Dr Luke Evan MP described as essential to a good death and asked the then Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, to check if supplies would suffice.

Groupthink

In her many prime-time TV appearances promoting her Assisted Dying Bill, Kim Leadbeater MP exuded her complete deference to the medical establishment. While Labour politicians often like to appeal to our compassion for the weakest in society, their underlying assumption is that we all share the same belief system, espoused by the progressive mainstream media. They look on the experts behind the covid lockdowns as tech deities whose conflicting logic must never be questioned. They worship the likes of Anthony Fauci and Chris Whitty with a quasi-religious zeal. To question these messianic figures provokes not just unease, but accusations of betrayal, as though one has violated a moral or spiritual covenant. I know from dealing with my extended family of past and present Labour activists which subjects and celebrities to avoid in polite conversation. It’s seldom a good idea to question Greta Thunberg’s saintliness. However, judging from books I’ve seen on prominent display in the houses of Labour-activist relatives, the likes of Bill Gates are also held in great esteem, despite his obsession with overpopulation. Unlike many on the cultural left, I’ve swung from a position of population pessimism in the early 2000s, when I believed the expansion of consumer affluence could not scale to the projected peak population of 10 billion human beings, to a more optimistic stance. Yet the peak oil event came and went in 2008 as living standards, by common metrics such as access to electricity, clean water and life-expectancy, continued to improve across the former third world. Not only did obesity become a bigger health challenge than undernourishment, but policymakers began to worry more about an ageing population with fertility rates dropping way below replacement level.

Sacred Cows

Nothing compares with the biggest sacred cow of them all, the NHS. Labour activists will typically blame all its failings on Tory cuts and creeping privatisation, while turning a blind eye to its one-size-fits-all attitude to healthcare as well as its growing obsession with mental health surveillance. While we once hoped our public health service could save us, the onus is now on us to save the NHS through our compliance with public health edicts, namely to put the common good before narrow self-interest.

It does not take a huge leap of imagination to see how public health groupthink could persuade civic-minded but atomised individuals to make the ultimate sacrifice for the common good of younger generations. Online influencers and soap opera storylines could subtly lionise assisted dying volunteers as symbols of virtue doing their bit to help combat climate change or free up valuable healthcare resources.

End of Life Ceremonies

Once planned life termination is normalised, funeral companies or social services could organise celebration-of-life events to let relatives and old friends say their last goodbyes. While farewell ceremonies may seem a good way to end your life if you’re a well-connected high-achiever suffering from a terminal illness, other prospects loom for the lonely with limited financial means and whose only social life is online, a cohort that’s likely to grow over the coming years.

Is it completely beyond the realms of possibility that community care coordinators, with a little help from AI agents, could first identify lonely individuals with decreased autonomy and then invite them to a celebration-of-life event with all their favourite music and food as well as long lost friends and distant relatives contacted after trawling through social media. In their absence, creative community care coordinates could recruit people from a similar cultural background or reach out to occasional online acquaintances to wish farewell to someone about to transition to the next world. The scary bit is that the prospect of one last party with old and new friends could persuade many to agree to high-tech euthanasia.

Tags euthanasia, Labour Party, technocracy

All in the Mind

The Ongoing War Against Humanity

Post author By neilg63
Post date 25th December 2024
No Comments on The Ongoing War Against Humanity

Are you a burden on society?

Few slopes are as slippery as the 35 pages of the new Assisted Dying Bill in England and Wales, replete with enigmatic terminology and subjective reassurances. In a sign of the times, the second reading passed through the UK Parliament by 330 to 275 votes. A few powerful speeches gave me hope that some MPs might rethink in time for the third reading, but few can deny that the establishment supported what they deceptively call dignity in dying. Indeed, a well-funded lobby group of the same name, formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, in cahoots with the woke global media empire behind LBC and The News Agents (featuring none other than Jon Sopel, Emily Maitlis and Lewis Goodall), plastered the London Underground with posters portraying photogenic middle-aged adults, presumably with a hidden terminal illness, celebrating the end of their physical existence on planet earth.

Before 2020, public opinion firmly opposed any moves towards the legalisation of euthanasia, which, for the sake of clarity, means intervening to cut short someone else's life when we have the means to let life go on. This may involve either active euthanasia by administering lethal drugs or gases, or passive euthanasia, with the withdrawal of life-sustaining nourishment, basic bodily care, or treatment. Most edge cases concern switching off the life-support systems of patients in an irreversible coma. The development of functional MRI scanners and electroencephalograms (EEG) has enabled clinicians to determine whether someone's brain remains functionally alive, but in rare cases, people have survived prolonged comatose states.

The Terminally Ill Adults Bill technically restricts assisted suicide to over-18-year-olds with less than six months left to live, but who determines how long someone is likely to survive? The course of many life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, is extremely hard to forecast with accuracy. Many have defied the prognosis of medical experts. Indeed, sceptics of invasive treatments such as chemo and radiotherapy have long pointed to the disturbingly high incidence of remission compared to natural remedies like the Gerson method or immunotherapy. We now effectively have a cancer industrial complex, if I dare coin the term, with nearly one in two adults expected to develop cancer at least once in their lifetime. Recent US data from 2017-2019 shows men have about a 41.6% lifetime risk, while women have a slightly lower risk at 38.7%.

Medical Meddling

Proponents of the assisted dying bill are keen to emphasise the importance of choice and, wait for it, bodily autonomy, but they also tend to favour the proactive administration of medications and invasive procedures for the common good of wider society, something they like to call modern medicine, rather than a more holistic approach focusing on diet, exercise, a strong immune system and natural remedies. The mechanistic approach, favoured by euthanasia advocates, assumes that we should conform to the needs of a complex society that exploits technology not only to stop the spread of perceived pathogens but also to cleanse itself of irreparably defective individuals, who, as George Bernard Shaw once opined, can no longer justify their existence. It gives a new meaning to the original purpose of public healthcare to look after us from cradle to grave. The medical profession is now involved in every aspect of our intimate lives, from conception and fertility treatment to end-of-life ceremonies, as well as every step in between. Doctors can now artificially lengthen or shorten our lives, with plausible deniability about any adverse effects of their preferred prescriptions.

The counterargument is obviously that modern medicine has helped boost life expectancy at age 5 in much of the world from around 60 or below at the turn of the 20th century to over 80 by the year 2000. The rise in life expectancy at birth is even more dramatic due to a steep decline in infant mortality. In 1900, it was just around 45 in most of Western Europe when most mothers still gave birth at home with the help of lay midwives and without access to incubators or other medical advancements we now take for granted. Nonetheless, if you could survive early childhood, were well-nourished, had access to clean water and air, kept fit with a strong immune system and escaped serious accidents, you could still live into your 60s, 70s and beyond, but life was shorter and fraught with adversity. Unsurprisingly, people in traditional low-tech societies counted each new day as a blessing. People had a much more spiritual outlook on life, tended to trust in God and reconciled themselves to nature's fate.

Of greater philosophical importance is our respect for both human life and free will. It took the best part of two millennia for modern civilization, as it evolved in the 19th and 20th centuries, to afford all human lives the same intrinsic worth. If all lives really do matter, irrespective of your social status, perceived intelligence, prowess, or physique, then as a matter of principle, we should always discourage others from taking the easy way out of their malaise through suicidal ideation or by using subtle means to promote self-sacrifice among atomised individuals with low self-esteem.

What matters is not so much how long you live but that you live your best life in a society that values both self-determination and human survival. Historically, most people now confined to care homes, wasting away their final years in a strictly controlled environment with minimal personal independence and often diminishing dignity, would have died of natural causes. We might simply have learned that a sixty-five-year-old grandfather had collapsed while chopping wood for his stove. The true cause of death may well have been mild dementia or a heart attack, but the unfortunate incident happened in the pursuit of autonomy. The flip side of proactive medical interventionism is that it often undermines human nature and, most of all, our desire to be masters of our destiny as free agents.

Do Not Resuscitate notices epitomise all that's wrong with modern healthcare, placing our lives in the hands of strangers. A better approach would be a clear statement telling medics not to intervene without your consent. While most of us may want the public health service to be there in the event of serious accidents or medical emergencies, we do not necessarily want to be lulled into institutionalised numbness surrounded by condescending nurses amid kitsch memorabilia and piped music. Some of us would rather muddle our way through life than schedule our demise to suit someone else's agenda. If we take life in our stride, we may well live to a ripe old age, but natural tragedies may get the better of us without round-the-clock medical vigilance. Live and let live!

Tags medical fascism, medical freedom, mental health, technocracy

All in the Mind

Phasing you out

How the progressive elites want to eliminate the undesirables and that might include you

Is it just me or does anyone else think the more politicians and celebrity influencers pretend to care about the disadvantaged, the more they justify measures that will quietly phase out the plebeian misfits they want to exclude from their vision of a greener, brighter and fairer world?

By greener the progressive elites mean with fewer useless eaters. Brighter and fairer may also imply the eradication of the unenlightened.

In little more than a hundred days, the new Labour administration in the UK has not only clamped down on dissent, released murderers and rapists to free up space in prisons and denied cash-strapped pensioners winter fuel payments; it is now letting MPs debate the Assisted Dying Bill on a slippery slope to eugenics.

It’s been sold to us as medically assisted life termination for the chronically ill and especially for the growing numbers of dementia patients in care homes, who would not survive without the wonders of modern medicine. To put things into context, the Alzheimer's Society’s Dementia 2019 report showed an increase from 75,000 people with dementia in care homes in 2001 to over 180,000 in 2019. Longer life expectancy, an ageing population and greater reliance on residential care can only account for part of that dramatic rise. While the total number of care home residents in England rose by around 23% between 2001 and 2017, the proportion of residents with dementia grew by nearly 150%, according to a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2020.

The BBC has long softened public opposition to mercy killing with many heart-wrenching documentaries about sufferers of debilitating conditions such as motor neurone disease who want to say their last goodbyes to friends and family before doctors help them transition peacefully to another world. While euthanasia is still, at the time of writing, against the law in all parts of the UK, some affluent citizens have travelled to the Swiss Dignitas centre to end their lives. During the second lockdown of late 2020, the former health secretary, Matt Hancock, announced severe restrictions on travel abroad, except for the purposes of assisted dying, prompted by his colleague, Andrew Mitchell, who argued perversely that new coronavirus regulations could deter people from travelling to Switzerland for an assisted death. This is the same MP who ushered Labour and Tory MPs out of the chamber before former MP Andrew Bridgen began his speech on covid-19 vaccine deaths and injuries and, as a mere coincidence, has had no qualms about being photographed alongside the WHO's largest corporate sponsor, Bill Gates.

If we look further afield to other Western countries like the Netherlands and Canada that have already legalised euthanasia, we see a clear trend. Once the public accepts the need to help the very old and frail die with dignity, well-funded charities lobby the government to expand the service to younger and younger adults with agonizing and seemingly untreatable physical and mental health conditions. In Canada, a woman with a history of depression and self-harm was offered Medical Assistance in Dying, or MAiD for short, instead of better social care. Meanwhile in the Netherlands, 29-year-old Zaraya ter Beek, allegedly on the autistic spectrum, became the youngest healthy adult to be granted the right to seek euthanasia, despite having a boyfriend and appearing in several awareness-raising documentaries.

What worries me most is the toxic influence of disheartening mainstream media narratives about apocalyptic climate change and online cults that prey on the vulnerable without real-life friends, but who identify with one or more existential psychological categories that separate them from general natural humanity. Establishment media outlets have taken great care to disown the wilder advocates of self-harm. Indeed, they often exploit the spectre of online disinformation and radicalisation to justify more censorship and thus to cover up inconvenient truths. The same laws that empower the state to block access to child porn can also deny access to truthful reports of heinous war crimes or corporate malfeasance. While Facebook and Tiktok censored posts about covid-19 vaccine injuries, they have allowed countless groups promoting self-mutilation, extreme fasting and assisted dying. All you need is for an online influencer with a large following to announce that he and she is seeking help to transition to the next world.

End-of-life technology is fast evolving from rudimentary suicide pods to brain-computer interfaces that could soon do away with the need for a physical human body or, in a manner of speaking, upload someone’s consciousness to the cloud leaving only a brain in a jar hooked up to a network of computers. If you lack a sense of purpose and self-worth in your terrestrial life, the prospect of transitioning to a virtual existence is very tempting, even if you could easily vanish into thin air in the event of a random network fault or power outage.

The covid scare, with its widespread statistical manipulation and medical malpractice, set the stage for the normalisation of medically assisted homicide by highlighting the distinction between essential and non-essential workers. If you are deemed non-essential, then you may either comply or die. Concepts that would have, prior to 2020, been considered unconscionable have now become thinkable for the greater good of future generations.

Weasel words about cultural alignment and community values often serve to exclude anyone who cannot or will not conform with the emerging woke technocracy. Those who cannot adapt to this progressive Brave New World are being marginalised and guilt-tripped about their personal failings, leading inevitably to the proliferation of mental ill-health among the newly disenfranchised. This is what’s happening to millions of atomised young adults across the Western world dealing with job insecurity and volatile relationships, succumbing to drug addiction and comfort eating. Only this week we learned the government’s solution is to offer the unemployed obese weight loss injections, effectively making further social welfare contingent on their participation in clinical trials for Ozempic or Mounjaro, despite kidney dysfunction, hair loss and suicidal ideation being among their many side effects. The irony is that many long-term unemployed benefits claimants are on antipsychotics known to boost appetite and trigger rapid weight gain.

For decades, millions of us have had to contend with emotional conflicts between our natural bodily and psychological imperfections and media portrayals of shiny happy people performing at the top of their game. Soap operas can have in a similar effect to porn. They both provide grossly unrealistic representations of experiences we desire. We may crave exciting social lives, large villas with swimming pools and superlative bodies as much as the euphoria of erotic performances, but back in the real world few of us will ever approach the exuberance we see on TV or online. By attempting to achieve the unachievable, people can easily fall into despondency and fail to find partners who can live up to their fanciful expectations.

Despite all the technological advances of the last century, we have never been more dissatisfied with our lot in life. In the old world, we treated each new day of life as a blessing and coped with bodily imperfections with great humility. Today even minor disfigurements, without the emotional support of loved ones, can cause severe depression.

With the expansion of artificial intelligence and robotics, growing portions of the once essential workforce will become non-essential without a sense of purpose in life. The introduction of universal basic income will empower the state to link social credits with behavioural and ideological conformity. The scary part is that once you are locked into the corporate control grid with no bargaining power, the managerial classes can control every aspect of your private life and if you are, as George Bernard Shaw put it, more trouble than you are worth to the system, they can coerce you to agree to assisted early life termination. You may be excluded from mainstream society not because you have committed any crimes, but because of your lack of cultural alignment. Once excluded, your house arrest could be so unbearable that you opt for an easy way out.

Dying your own way

Some would argue that we need medically assisted suicide because of the immense success of modern medicine that has kept the chronically ill and mentally infirm on life support. In essence, we intervene to keep people artificially alive and also to facilitate a good death, but at all times medical experts stay in control. Yet many of us prefer to be masters of our own destiny, to live life to the full and then when our bodies or minds fail we let nature take its course.

When my mother retired to a small bungalow after her divorce, she told me repeatedly she wanted to stay there to the end of her days and never fancied ending up in a care home with no privacy or sense of dignity. Alas her mild dementia worsened considerably over the lockdowns and support workers advised us to transfer her to a specialist dementia care home at great expense. We need to ask serious questions about the rise in dementia patients. Indeed, at 88 my mother is among the oldest in her care home, the youngest being in her mid 60s. She is no longer able to make rational decisions about her life. Before moving in late 2022, she told me she didn’t want to bother anyone else and would much prefer just walking the streets alone and dying her own way and I understood her. In times of despair, I have myself considered seeking a way out by travelling to the nearest beach, undressing, swimming out to sea and leaving myself at the mercy of the elements. I never succeeded in this endeavour, because I usually changed my mind long before reaching the destination of my suicide attempt and despite periods of solitude would always encounter another human being giving me a reason to live. On one occasion I reached the River Thames at 3am and decided against diving in because I wanted to see how the spectacle of life would play out. But what if I had chosen instead to see a psychologist who, rather than persuade me to give life another chance, affirmed my despondency? I might not be here today.
Once we empower a legal guardian to agree to assisted death with the best of intentions for all concerned, we have opened the floodgates to the extension of euthanasia to other target groups deemed unfit to inhabit the earth.

Addendum

I wrote a letter to my local MP, Graeme Downie, based on a template from Right To Life UK. After initially sending me a stock reply with platitudes about safeguards, I cited the Canadian and Dutch examples above. It later transpired he had blocked me on X. NewLabour do not debate, they only attempt to inculcate ideological conformity.
My message:

I'm contacting you as a concerned constituent of Dunfermline and Dollar to ask you to speak and vote in opposition to Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill.

This is not the same as turning off life support machines or end-of-life care with strong sedatives for the terminally ill in cases where the choice might be between artificially extending someone's life for a few days or relieving excruciating pain.

Judging by developments in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands, the legalisation of assisted dying will set us on a slippery slope to eugenics, open to wide-scale abuse especially with regard to the growing numbers of marginalised people with mentally health issues caused by atomisation. A 29-year old Dutch woman, Zoraya ter Beek, apparently on the autistic spectrum, has already chosen to end her life ( https://www.thefp.com/p/zoraya-ter-beek-dead-assisted-suicide ). Online peer pressure can easily affect vulnerable young people's sense of self-worth and may lead them to believe they\'re superfluous to requirements.

The risks of assisted suicide were movingly explored in the actor and disability rights campaigner Liz Carr’s recent BBC One documentary ‘Better Off Dead’ (https://youtu.be/gEysXRLTG5M?si=g3KFx2umghZyFOnq), which I would encourage you to watch.

The documentary warns of the dangers of assisted suicide legislation for people with disabilities and living in poverty. As observed in this article (https://labourlist.org/2024/01/euthanasia-assisted-dying-suicide-prue-leith-esther-rantzen/) by Sir Stephen Timms MP, we have seen such dangers sadly become reality in other countries despite the supposedly strict safeguards that were in place when ‘assisted dying’ was first legalised.

And Graeme Downie MP's brief reply:

Thank you for getting in touch with me about this matter. I will only make a final decision on my vote on this issue once I see the text of any proposed legislation but I want to be honest from the outset that, having been very heavily involved in campaigns on this issue in Scotland, I am minded to support a change in the law.

Successive governments, of both parties, have taken the position that the law on assisted suicide is a matter of conscience for individual MPs. The Prime Minister has confirmed that any change in the law on assisted dying will not happen via a Government Bill. A change can only be made via a Private Members’ Bill (PMB); that is a Bill introduced by a backbench MP or Peer.

In my view, if the law does change, it is vital that it also includes strong and proper safeguards. Furthermore, any reform should recognise the concerns that many people have, including those who support reform in principle, to try to achieve the widest possible consensus.

As your elected representative in Parliament, I will monitor developments in this area closely and bear in mind the points you have raised as it is important to generate a wide degree of viewpoints and knowledge ahead of debating such sensitive matters.

The implication here is that our learned MPs know best. Judging by the last 5 years of utter betrayal over health matter, with Labour taking even more extreme stances on medical mandates than the Tories, I have my sincere doubts on their integrity to hold powerful lobbies to account. My final reply remains unanswered.

Did you read my email? We are not talking about edge cases where someone is on a life support machine or is terminally ill experiencing excruciating pain with days to live. We are talking about developments across the Western World to normalise assisted suicide for the marginalised long before the onset of extreme old age or frailty, making people feel superfluous to requirements because they are not socially integrated with a sense of purpose.

This is a very slippery slope, but in Canada a woman with a history of depression was offered MAIDs: https://care.org.uk/news/2023/08/canadian-woman-with-depression-offered-assisted-suicide-after-lack-of-hospital-beds .

Is that the future you want for your constituents ? Can you not detect authoritarian trends ?

Tags assisted dying, censorship, euthanasia, mental health, psychiatry, technocracy

Computing Uncategorized War Crimes

Global Splintering

What’s going on? Are we seeing a divisive split among global technocrats that cuts into the heart of Western administrations? Only a few months ago, Sir Keir Starmer was the darling of the progressive mainstream media. The BBC salivated over him as he entered 10 Downing Street and laid down the new law of the land targeting far-right thuggery and outdoor smoking, while touring Europe and North America to pledge full alignment with the EU and NATO in the fight against Putin, climate change and the enemies of woke progressivism. However, on the Levantine conflict, Sir Keir had to tread a tricky path between the conflicting demands of Labour activists and the Zionist wing of the Military Industrial Complex, by backtracking on his earlier unconditional support for Israeli military incursions in Gaza. At the Labour Party Conference, Sir Keir showed signs of fatigue by calling both for a ceasefire and the release of the sausages (which rhymes with hostages in southern British English).

All of a sudden, media reports of sleaze and outright corruption within Labour's upper echelons are rife. The same media outlets that ousted Boris Johnson over two and a half years after his electoral success over Party-gate, because he did not comply with absurd covid regulations, are now gunning for Starmer and his cronies over Lord Alli’s lavish donations. To be honest, Lord Alli’s involvement with the new New Labour project was off my radar. My focus was on Sir Keir’s close ties to the Tony Blair Institute, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and World Economic Forum and on his earlier actions as Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales between 2008 and 2013. He had obviously been groomed as a young global leader who could appeal to a key section of the wider managerial classes while somehow placating the working classes with promises of economic stability and progressive patriotism. The cracks in Labour’s happy family were all too apparent long before the General Election. While the red-tinted party may have regained votes in Scotland from the SNP and from some disaffected Tories in the English shires, it lost votes in many of its former strongholds.

Some alternative media influencers have intimated Sir Keir may have had a gay relationship with Lord Alli. That may have been a scandal 30 years ago, but why should anyone except Sir Keir’s wife care in a society that embraces all expressions of consensual sexuality? To top it all, many of the same pundits have highlighted Lord Alli’s meetings and apparent friendship with Syrian President, Bashar Al Assad, a prime target for US-led regime-change since at least 2010. Things have not always been that way. The Assad family have close links with the UK. Not only did Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, grow up in London, Bashar did postgraduate studies at the city’s Western Eye Hospital in the early 1990s. Later the US and UK courted the new leader when he succeeded his father in 2000 as they attempted to build an alliance of pro-Western Arab leaders in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Alas Assad chose to build stronger ties with Lebanon and Iran to support the Palestinian cause against Israeli repression. That’s when Islamic fundamentalist sects started a six-year long civil war, with the covert support of Western agencies and mercenaries. In 2014 Russia surprised the world by intervening militarily in their first foreign mission since the fall of the Soviet Union to defeat ISIS and its allies and support Assad’s secular government, helping it to recapture most of Syria. The Western media framed Assad as a brutal dictator who gassed his own people with countless claims of war crimes inevitably discovered by Western-funded White Helmets intermingling with rebel Islamic militants. The same self-proclaimed liberal media outlets who would later lie to us about covid, entertained the gullible with their poster child, Bana, whose well-written blog fit the anti-Assad narrative to a T. Yet the BBC had been caught red-handed staging a documentary with crisis actors to implicate Assad in a gas attack. Four years later OPCW inspectors failed to find evidence to blame the Syrian government for the alleged 2017 Douma chemical attack and, unsurprisingly, the Mafia media has gone quiet on the specifics of its blanket accusations ever since, shifting its focus to Vladimir Putin.

Why does all this matter now, you may wonder? Starmer has staked his reputation on ideological conformity, sticking to the dominant fake-progressive narrative, while distancing himself from his more radical policy advisors and Deep State actors. While he could channel his efforts against the spectres of Putin, far-right thugs, smokers and climate change, he could still command the support of most Guardian-reading Labour loyalists and the wider bien-pensant upper-middle classes. Now the US Deep State has pivoted to the Middle East in support of Israel, aiding and abetting an undeniably large scale of death and destruction, Starmer can no longer play the good guy.

Far be it from me to come to Starmer’s defence, but his holier-than-thou demeanour may not be able to stave off the inevitable opposition to direct UK involvement in a war between Israel’s allies and Iran supported logistically by Russia and China. Alliances may shift fast too. GB News talking heads, except for Neil Oliver, and the Reform Party leadership are unashamedly pro-Israel as is the Trump team. The rumours about Keir Starmer’s private life have all the hallmarks of a hatchet job, inspired by the brain behind the Blair project, Peter Mandelson. We may be seeing a split between the one-world-love and Zionist wings of the global techno-cabal. Sir Keir has served his purpose, but there are few charismatic leaders available who will follow the orders of an increasingly unstable and disunited ruling class as the US Empire crumbles?

Tags Deep State, technocracy

All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Open Season on the Plebs

LS Lowry. Matchstick men, football match.

Could the spectre of the elusive far-right be the new covid?

These days left and right-wing refer more to your cultural outlook than your class allegiance. If anything, the richer you are in Western Europe, the more likely you are to identify with the progressive left and the poorer you are the more likely you are to harbour politically incorrect views.

By any fair historical standards, the indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles have never been more tolerant of racial and sexual diversity, if these are the new metrics of progress, and probably more tolerant than the peoples of most other countries. Millions of native Britons of all political persuasions have close friends or relatives who are black, Asian, mixed-race and/or gay. Many leading figures in the so-called alternative right, such as David Kurten or Ben Habib, are non-white and many others, like David Starkey or Peter Whittle, are openly gay. Yet we’re supposed to believe gay-bashing Neo-Nazis have whipped up racial tensions by spreading fake news. Countless polls have shown that while most voters want to live peacefully with their neighbours from different ethnic backgrounds, most believe current levels of net immigration are too high. Many other common concerns such as unaffordable housing, overburdened public services and social cohesion are all linked to migratory pressures. Very few would advocate mass deportations of anyone but hardened criminals, but millions, including many Labour voters, would like to see net annual immigration levels brought down to under 100,000 a year. Even with zero-net-migration (e.g. 200,000 in either direction), we would still need to build more houses and infrastructure as well as invest in better community relations, ensuring that the much-maligned white working classes are not left behind. White working class boys are now the least likely to graduate from university, falling behind their British-Afro-Caribbean peers.

As I write, rising food prices have reignited sectarian violence in Bangladesh with mobsters burning down the homes of the country’s Hindu minority. As bad as recent riots in English towns may have appeared, they led to relatively few casualties, if we exclude the murders of three young girls that triggered angry protests in the first place.

Controlled Opposition

So why is the mainstream media obsessed with the mythical far-right, personified by Tommy Robinson also known as Stephen Yaxley Lennon? It turns out Tommy’s main beef is not with people of other races or sexual orientations at all, but with Islam. His hometown of Luton has experienced a rapid demographic shift from mostly white British in the 1970s to a white-minority town today as confirmed by the 2021 census. The growing Muslim community, mainly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent, dominate the town’s inner and western districts. Anyone growing up there since the 1980s would have had a hard time at school as a white supremacist. My mother taught in a primary school in the Bury Park district that went from around 50% Muslim in 1980 to 95% Muslim by the end of the 1980s. Over the next three decades this trend spread to other schools, prompting an exodus of other Lutonians to the outer suburbs and surrounding market towns.

In his infinite wisdom, Mr Yaxley Lennon chose to collaborate with the well-funded Israel lobby via the deceptively labelled and allegedly socially conservative Canadian outfit, Rebel Media. They’ve bankrolled many of Tommy’s court cases over allegations of grievous bodily harm or contempt of court. Mr Yaxley Lennon started the now disbanded English Defence League as a reaction to local protesters shouting “burn in hell” during a home-coming parade for soldiers who had served in Iraq around 2009. Does that mean he supported the invasion of Iraq and failed to understand the close ties between the Military Industrial Complex, the Israel lobby and proponents of mass migration? As much as the establishment media vilify him, I think the Tommy Robinson ™️ brand is controlled opposition, a safety valve for the pent-up anger of the settled working classes, yearning for a bygone interlude of post-imperial Cool Britannia with its iconic mix of rock and reggae bands superimposed on a landscape of industrial decline, creeping Americanisation, half-hearted urban renewal and quirky insular customs.

On the sidelines, genuine ethnonationalists and racial segregationists do exist. Their positions vary from those who advocate monoculturalism within stable nation states to those who want to restore monoracial societies in Western Europe. Britain First, which is not exclusively white, may come close to the first tendency, while only fringe outfits like Patriotic Alternative support the latter. Both tendencies may advocate some form of repatriation or population exchange, although historically such exchanges have seldom been peaceful. However, none of the fringe right-wing groups openly supported the riots or urged their followers to burn asylum seeker hotels. Those calls came from hasty social media posts. In the recent past, many virtue-signallers have wished death on the unjabbed and a journalist by the name of David Aaronovitch called for the murder of Donald Trump, two weeks before an attempted assassination on the former President. This is the same towering intellect who not only supported all of Tony Blair’s wars, calling opponents pro-Saddam fascists, but also wrote a book attacking conspiracy theorists, Voodoo Histories. If you scour social media sites, you’ll see plenty of death wishes directed at undesirables or the perceived enemies of progress. Any violence attributed to the far-right came from feral gangs of disillusioned and largely apolitical youngsters as well as a few agitators who egged on small groups of hotheads on the margins of otherwise peaceful protests. The only examples of online incitement to mindless violence came from some unexpected sources, such as the wife of a Tory councillor, Lucy Connelly, who wrote on X/Twitter “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******* for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it” in the immediate aftermath of the Southport stabbings. These are not the musings of a hard-headed activist of any political persuasion, but outpourings of anger and emotional turmoil. Of the over one thousand people arrested and fast-tracked for sentencing, are many with long-term psychological traumas. A 69-year-old alcoholic was condemned to 32 months in jail for violent disorder and possessing a truncheon, while a 22-year-old young man with learning difficulties got a 26 months jail sentence for smashing windows of nearby residential properties. Meanwhile rapists, muggers and murderers have been released early after only 6 or 12 months in jail for much more serious crimes.

Intellectual Diversity

In the not-too-distant past, we could more easily respect a wider diversity of opinions on the key ethical, scientific and economic issues of the day, as long as we adhered to common social etiquette. I know for a fact many of my Church-going neighbours in the 1970s considered homosexuality a sin, opposed abortion and had not yet embraced colour-blind multi-racialism, largely because most people were, outside of London and a few other urban districts, still boringly pale-skinned, especially in leafy suburbs and small market towns.

I grew up in a staunch Labour household. My father believed he stood up for ordinary working people of all creeds and colours. He campaigned against Britain’s membership of the European Economic Union and supported greater public ownership. We would discuss politics at the dinner table. For a while my elder brother would try to outdo my father’s newfound radicalism. He joined the Young Socialists, supported unilateral nuclear disarmament, opposed US imperialism and took a stand against the racism of the anti-immigration National Front, which had started to pick up protest votes from the disillusioned working classes, although seldom more than 5%. A large map of Palestine showing the expansion of Israel into the occupied territories bedecked his bedroom wall. Apart from occasionally trying to point out their hypocrisy on some matters, I didn’t really engage in meaningful political debate until the age of fourteen when my brother dragged me along to the large Rock against Racism concerts in London and later introduced me to the National Union of School Students with its campaigns for school councils, getting rid of school uniform, banning corporal punishment, ending religious education and providing more explicit sex education. Two of my brother’s comrades persuaded me to attend the union’s small conference. One belonged to the tiny Communist Party (of Great Britain) and the other hung out with the trendier Socialist Workers’ crowd. I may have been the youngest attendee. Indeed, most were either radical organisers in their 20s or sixth-formers (aged 16 to 18) eager to enjoy the free gig and disco laid on that evening. Later in 1978, I would get expelled from high school for distributing NUSS magazines with articles on the joys of masturbation and homoeroticism, both taboo subjects among many Catholic families. I still recall my head teacher’s words: “You’re not mature enough to understand the consequences of this propaganda. You’re being used. You’ll have your say when you’re older.”.

Anti-racism was one of many rebellious causes that sought to break ranks with Britain’s imperial past and its new role as junior partner of US imperialism, with its covert support for racially segregated South Africa and its proxy wars in Angola, Mozambique and elsewhere. The establishment had not yet fully rebranded itself. Then in 1979, the Southern English working classes rejected Labour as Maggie Thatcher wrapped herself in the Union Jack and promised council house tenants could buy their homes. The new government let failing industries go bust, privatised many state-owned businesses and presided over soaring unemployment. To this day, millions in Scotland, Wales and Northern England hate Thatcher for destroying the country’s industrial heartlands. Labour took a turn to the old radical left, calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament and leaving the EU. For a short while, Labour was ahead in the polls. Then in April 1982, Argentina, under General Leopoldo Galtieri’s military junta, invaded the Falkland Islands. Within a week, Margaret Thatcher’s government sent a task force to recapture the sparsely populated islands 300 miles east of Patagonia. The mass media cheered on the war effort, with dissent confined to a few columns in the Guardian or radical leftwing press. Although Michael Foot supported the war effort, because it highlighted the importance of a strong navy and conventional weapons, the Tories rose in the polls and won a landslide victory in 1983 on the back of jingoism. The suppressed truth is that successive British governments had neglected the Falkland Islands, with only 1600 permanent inhabitants in 1982. In the late 1970s, amid IMF-imposed budgetary constraints, British diplomats had considered transferring sovereignty to Argentina and leasing the islands back to keep alive their outpost around Port Stanley. The Falklands war represented the last gasp of Rule Britannia just as most of British industry came under multinational control. While the UK government spent countless billions to defend the self-determination and customs of a couple of thousand Islanders, it neglected the plight of once proud working-class communities back home unable to adapt to the fast-paced gig economy and often trapped in a vicious cycle of welfare dependence and family breakdowns with a steady brain drain of the best and brightest. Whole neighbourhoods lay mainly empty with boarded-up terraced houses, only to be resettled by new culturally diverse communities, sowing the seeds of future internecine conflict in the event of economic meltdown on a comparable scale to that seen before the breakup of Yugoslavia.

End goal of Surveillance

Some may rejoice at the new government’s focus on far-right thugs as retribution for past colonial crimes, but once the precedent has been set to police private communications for hints of racism that may, in theory, incite violence, it can be applied to any type of dissent. Lincolnshire Police gave the game away by charging 40 year-old Wayne O’Rourke with “anti-establishment rhetoric” in the wake of anti-mass-migration protests. Everyone from the Prince of Wales to the Archbishop of Canterbury has joined a chorus of condemnation not only against reactionary plebs, but against the one tech billionaire, Elon Musk, who still allows free speech on his X/Twitter platform. When the likes of Alastair Campbell, whose dodgy dossier on WMDs persuaded MPs to back UK involvement in the invasion of Iraq, join forces with woke broadcaster, Carol Vorderman, to call on the government to censor social media, you know something is wrong. By now, it must be crystal clear the establishment no longer hides behind the garb of Britishness, except when commemorating the world wars of the last century or celebrating sporting achievements. It has fully embraced global technocracy and sees angry free-thinking plebs as obstacles in their plans to reengineer society.

As recent experience with the demonisation of covid sceptics and anti-Gaza-genocide protesters has shown, it will not stop there. Public health, antisemitism, women’s rights and/or transphobia can be easily invoked to silence critics of mandatory vaccination, Israeli war crimes, abortion, puberty blockers or gender self-identification. All these positions are essentially anti-establishment. The establishment wants medical mandates, an expansion of the war machine (and not just in support of Israel), easier abortion and moves towards transhumanism without natural procreation. However, different cultural groups may stand against these policies. Opposition to abortion and LGBTQ education comes both from devout Christians and Muslims. On current trends, opposition to assisted dying services may also be deemed far-right, a new synonym for heretical.

Just like covid, the symptoms of far-right thinking keep changing and the bug itself is almost impossible to detect without magnifying its strands. It may mean anything from football hooliganism and drunken thuggery to social conservatism or principled opposition to a one-world government. You could test positive for far-rightness by criticising any of the establishment's 2030 Agenda goals for sustainable development.

Tags anti-establishment, far-right, technocracy

All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Progressive Sycophants

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

How billionaire transhumanists captured the middle-class left

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

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

The Big Switch

Many argue the Western left began to cast aside its traditional blue-collar base in the 1960s. However, most leftists still believed in a fairer and kinder world with a substantial transfer of power away from boardrooms to grassroots organisations. The Green Left, as it evolved in the 1980s and 90s, attempted to offer an alternative to unsustainable economic growth and rampant greed. They seemed to stand against the vested interests of the big corporations who wanted to expand markets and lock workers into a vicious cycle of debt and mass consumerism. Lower living standards have never been great vote winners, especially when car manufacturers, supermarkets and airlines collude to sell the dream of automotive bliss and fashion fetishism. Throughout the New Labour years (1997-2010), the economic growth mantra reigned supreme. If dissident economists dared to suggest that endless debt-driven expansion of the money supply will ultimately implode with catastrophic social consequences, they soon got shouted down. Despite all the green rhetoric, car ownership and foreign travel continued to rise in Western Europe until the 2008 credit squeeze. Sales crept gradually up again until 2020. Since then, there’s been a steady decline.

Twenty-twenty may go down in history not just as the beginning of a virus-themed technocratic coup, but also as Peak Car. It was the year the big global banks decided to put mass motoring into reverse gear. For decades, lenders literally created money out of thin air to help young adults onto the car-owning ladder. Governments spent billions on multilane highways intersecting an urban sprawl of housing estates and retail parks hostile to humble walkers and cyclists. Now the big banks and energy cartels advertise the wonders of the green economy and our transition away from the era of material growth with effortless travel to a low-consumption digital future with compact 15-minute neighbourhoods serviced by drones. The tech giants support universal basic income because they know most monotonous clerical and manual jobs will soon be fully automated. Last but not least, the same biotech industry that facilitated covid tyranny also bankrolls the transgender and neurodiversity lobbies. The Wellcome Trust funds both the purported neurodiversity movement and transgender inclusion. While the old ecology movement backed local organic farming and herbal remedies, the new green-branded corporate left champions genetic engineering, global supply chains and lifelong dependency on dodgy pharmaceutical products.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags left, technocracy

All in the Mind Power Dynamics

Whither Humanity?

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

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

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

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

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

Tags master race, technocracy, Tyranny

Power Dynamics

Trendy Lefties – The No-Logo Generation

Post author By neilg63
Post date 19th May 2001
No Comments on Trendy Lefties – The No-Logo Generation

Over the last 30 years middle-class students have embraced a series of cultural fads, some pure commercialism and others worthwhile causes, which later sold out to commercialism. Beatlemania, anti-Vietnam War protests, Punk Rock, Rock Against Racism gigs, CND demos, gay pride marches, Reggae music, politically correct speech, MTV and anti-WTO demos. Wow, so it's now cool to join the international campaign against globalisation, boycott brands and recycle environmentalist rhetoric - before we settle down to the serious business of earning a living in the rat race.

In the same period much of the world has undergone the most thorough transformation of the economy, environment and lifestyle ever. After a crippling war Vietnam now hosts sweatshops with some of the world's lowest wages. Former CND members are now prominent Nu-Lab politicos advocating humanitarian militarism and slandering opponents as fascists. Homosexuality is a big business and homophobes are vilified as outmoded bigots, while politically correct speech masks real intents. Secret services plant agent provocateurs and assorted troublemakers at anti-WTO demos to trigger violent police repression. Neoliberal intellectuals appear on TV voicing doubts on the extent of globalisation with platitudes about a greener future. Multinational PR executives promise their goods are not made by child labourers and their involvement in Public Private Initiatives will help to pay for school sports facilities in socially deprived neighbourhoods. MTV shows multicoloured faces with captivating views of African village life interspersed with Black American rappers jumping on gas guzzlers.

What do young nologoers want? ask vote-hungry politicians. Walmart-style hypermarkets with unbranded consumer goodies? Trendy mountain bikes with child seats to replace the Land Rover or Grand Cherokee on the school run? Neatly packaged documentaries on Discovery channel? Holidays in Kenya? Volunteering to raise funds for Oxfam? Food labelled "organic" with a 50% price markup?

Think of the coup they'd achieve, if they could persuade a personable Irish musician to hail Nu-Labs third-world debt-relief scheme.

Mass marketers know what the affluent trendy wishful-thinking middle class really wants. They want to indulge, but be seen to care. They need their safe homes with all mod cons, cars complete with bike carriers and dinghy trailers, computers, mobile phones, foreign holidays, rewarding jobs and social life - or in its absence soap operas, Hollywood movies and pulp fiction. The better educated want better, environmentally friendly and socially conscientious food.

Affluent teenagers see the English language, rock music, international (i.e. mainly US) movies and video-games as liberating forces that will let the world live as one to paraphrase John Lenon. Out with the old and in with the new, let's embrace the multicoloured harmony of Coca Cola ads set in Zambia and IBM think pad spots filmed in Tibet. The more educated will later backpack across Africa, South America, the Indian Subcontinent and South-east Asia before commencing their careers in web-design, PR, advertising, law, insurance, business intelligence, HR management, public services admin, education etc.

The big question is why so few stop to ponder if and why the globalisation of transnational corps with their brands and logos is necessary to save capitalism? All too often we tend to look at symptoms rather than root causes. Global brands and sweatshops are symptoms. Greed and capitalism's innate need for constant growth with diminishing returns (the bit Marx got right) are the causes and explain why capitalism can no longer grow in protected national markets.

There is only one thing worse than narrow-minded nationalism: Internationalism controlled by an oligarchy of corporate and superstate interests.

If we were to implement the far-reaching structural changes required to bridge the north-south and rich-poor gaps, divert resources away from opulence and hedonism to nutrition, sustainable farming, environmental renewal and education, most service sector jobs in post-industrial states such as Britain would disappear overnight. More significantly most residents of wealthy countries would have to accept a lower material standard of living with car dealerships, filling stations, advertisers, law firms (largely dependent of corporate greed), high street and Internet retailers going bust. Indeed with the bankruptcy of all businesses reliant on the Stock Exchange and the abolition of the arms trade, Britain would no longer earn all the extra revenue it needs to import goodies from the rest of the globe.

In the near future we will see two alternative reformist solutions to world's ills. The neoliberal intelligentsia will advocate benevolent globalisation coupled with foreign aid linked to IMF and WB economic diktats and humanitarian intervention to solve ethnic disputes caused by economic woes and covert destabilisation. Charities and NGOs will be taken on board to sell these policies and reassure doubters of their harmful effects.

The alternative, unthinkable to neoliberal globalisers and internationalist Marxists alike, is a return to national pre-colonial economies centred around farming, essential raw materials and natural renewable energy sources, in which self-sufficiency in staple foods and energy represents a prerequisite for a sustainable economy and for independence from unaccountable global institutions and multinationals. Trade would still take place, but among equals, and governments, freed from the restraints of international capitalism, would be more accountable. Technological advances would not be abandoned, but harnessed for the good of all and not for profits of the few. It is only by decentralising government and giving people the means to determine their own future, that we can see the evolution of a fairer low-impact society that values long-term sustainability and social cohesion more than fashions, consumption and indulgence.

Tags democracy, technocracy