This three-part series of essays attempts to distil the essence of Patrick Wood’s latest book – The New Economics of Technocracy. Part I covered the essentials of the economics of the new Technocratic order being rolled out, and how the three-layered system of control is intended to work.

In Part II, I covered how the destruction of Gaza is laying the path for an unfettered Technocratic experiment that, if successful, will construct a comprehensive end-to-end Technate from the ground up. I also examined Wood’s analysis of the interplay between Technocracy and Islamic Finance, which may help to explain the apparent zeal with which GCC countries are embracing, and financing, Tech Finance infrastructure.

In this third part, I’ll explore Wood’s thesis on the meaning of the war on Iran. I’ll wrap up with my thoughts on how to fit this into the bigger geopolitical picture.

When offering my own analysis and perspectives, I will make this clear by presenting my supplementary analysis in italicised paragraphs to avoid misrepresenting Wood’s ideas.

India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) and the war on Iran

IMEC, a planned trade corridor linking India to Europe via the Arabian Peninsula, was unveiled in September 2023 at a G20 summit in New Delhi. Framed as the West’s answer to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, if successful, IMEC would make China’s project obsolete. It is also an alternative to the Suez Canal. Wood contends that “IMEC promises to cut transit time between India and Europe by 40% compared to the Suez Canal route.”^[1]

Wood asserts that^[2]:

“IMEC is not just a trade route. It is a control corridor – a fully integrated system of rails, roads, shipping lanes, ports, fibre optic cables, energy pipelines, and data centres stretching from India to Europe. Whoever controls the architecture of that system controls the flow of goods, energy, data, and money across three continents. That is precisely why Technocrats want it”.

This is also an energy dependency architecture and not just a trade route. Wood explains that^[3]:

“IMEC’s pipeline infrastructure is specifically designed to move that energy from India and the Gulf to European markets – filling the supply vacuum created by Europe’s deliberate decoupling from Russian energy after 2022.”

The IMEC project unveiled by Biden in 2023 was a state project. However, under the Trump administration, it has been “repurposed into a privatised artery connecting Gulf compute power to Indian digital labour… The corridor’s architects are not governments but sovereign wealth funds.”^[4]

Gaza, the south-western terminus, is an important node linking the Middle East part of the corridor to the Mediterranean and Europe. The Board of Peace believes it has secured the Gaza node, now emptied, for unfettered development.

Another vital node is the Strait of Hormuz, which of course brings us to the current war on Iran:

“Trump’s version of IMEC is critically dependent on the Strait of Hormuz, which has been under the erratic and unpredictable control of Iran. Iran sides with China to keep Hormuz out of IMEC’s (and Trump’s) hands.”^[5]

If we try to understand Gaza and Iran by following the money, this renders the BoP’s Gaza reconstruction project and clearing the obstacles in the Gulf corridor part of a single strategy, with the Gaza genocide and the war on Iran being integral components of that strategy. Wood asserts that regime change in Iran is a “strategic prerequisite for IMEC’s eastern corridor to function as designed. Iranian officials understand this perfectly. They have described IMEC as an instrument of strategic encirclement.”^[6]

In a separate article, Wood reiterated the point that the war on Iran is fundamentally about reintegrating it into the global monetary and trade system. Iran “is the missing node between the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor and the Iraq-Turkey Development Road. For as long as Iran is the system’s enemy, the system’s trade routes remain rival fragments that cannot be joined. Reintegrate Iran, and the fragments mesh.”

The MoU that failed in June put $300 billion of private investment capital on the table to consummate the reintegration. It failed because Iran refused to surrender control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Every single major negotiating break in the war has centred on, and indeed foundered on, control over Hormuz, not the totally phoney pretext of nuclear containment. A 5^th August Reuters piece pretty much sums up the whole point of contention in this war:

“An agreement that gives Iran authority over traffic through the strait would mean the war launched by the United States and Israel in February had resulted in a major shift in ​the balance of regional power in Tehran’s favour. Before the war, the strait was freely open to all ships with no fees…According to the senior Iranian official, Iran is seeking fees of between 5% and 7% of the price of cargoes from ships using the strait. Oman is discussing fees of around 3%, while Washington wants no fees at all. The senior Iranian source said the text of an agreement already on the table envisioned Iran having control of ships heading into the Gulf through the strait, and one of the main sticking points was what role Iran would also have over ships heading in the opposite direction. In ​comments to Iran’s official IRNA news agency, Iranian Deputy ​Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the arrangement ⁠was ‘designed in such a way that commercial ships will pass through Iranian territorial waters, both on the inbound and outbound legs.’ ”

The irony of this war is that if this is an oligarch’s war over Hormuz and the reintegration of a more servile Iran, and if Iran succeeds in holding its ground on control over Hormuz, then the IMEC syndicate will end up in a worse position than they were before the war.

The Abraham accords to normalise relations between Israel and the GCC – described by Wood as “the opening move in a sequence” – represented the recognition of a shared threat from Iran. What we are seeing now is the attempt to eliminate that threat to clear the path for the corridor.^[7]

Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, explained to Tucker Carlson in March 2025 that the Gulf had been identified as a new frontier for AI investment and that it would need a US-backed “security wrapper” to make investments bankable. This aligns with CENTCOM’s role in Gaza, described in Part II. Witkoff envisioned a Gulf-Israel-US architecture that would be “much bigger than Europe”^[8].

Wood’s clarification of the role of data centres is also illuminating up to a point^[9]:

“Data centres are not neutral buildings. They are physical locations where data is stored, processed, and analysed. Whoever owns and operates a data centre controls the data that flows through it – determines what is stored, for how long, under what conditions, and who has access…[F]uture geopolitical influence will hinge not on territory or trade, but on compute power, data policy, and who trains the next generation of large language models.”

I would add that this does not capture the full scale of the ambition behind the manic investment in data centres. In the context of the digital panopticon, the eye-watering sums being invested are a down-payment on the total control of human perception and behaviour. I will expand on this in another essay, referring to a writer I have recently encountered.

Developments in Iraq are not unrelated. On 14 July, Trump met Iraq’s newly selected Prime Minister Ali Falih Kadhim al-Zaidi. Al-Zaidi, a man with gleaming Technocrat credentials, is being warmly welcomed by the Trump administration. He was not elected, but rather chosen by a committee of Iraq’s political parties. That decision was, in turn, forced by Trump, who made it clear that American support for Iraq would be cut off if al-Maliki, the other contender, got the job. Al-Maliki withdrew, leaving the way clear for the preferred candidate, al-Zaidi.

A young oligarch businessman and banker, al-Zaidi has already been labelled by the Atlantic Council as the “Trump of the Mideast”. Al-Zaidi walked away from his meeting with Trump with a pipeline deal, deals to rebuild and expand oil production, a pledge to release frozen funds, and assistance to connect Iraq to Turkey and Europe with road and rail links. It would appear that the core economic objectives underpinning the Iraq invasion are crystallising, and that the next domino to fall must be Iran.

I will make a brief but relevant detour through the Vietnam war, because it underscores the point about the Iraq war, and US wars more generally. The Vietnam war is typically framed as a defeat for the US, but Gloria Guillo’s analysis is white-hot:

“Let’s understand that even victories ultimately become losses because presently all economic systems remain tiny islands in a vicious sea run by transnational oligarchs… If we look at who owns and controls the means of production, the transnational predator class never really lost the war against the people of Vietnam; they just changed their weapons. The bombs stopped falling in 1975, but the real invasion began in 1986 with a single Vietnamese word: Đổi Mới, meaning ‘renovation’. That was the surrender document disguised as reform because it opened the floodgates to foreign investment… and when the infiltrated communist party passed the Foreign Investment law in 1987, the very first thing they sold was crude oil. It’s no surprise that they shipped it straight to refineries in Japan and Singapore owned behind the curtain by Mobil, Exxon, and others… By the time Bill Clinton normalised trade relations in 1995 with Vietnam, and signed the trade agreement in 2001, the trap was sprung.

Fast forward to right now, 2025: the US is Vietnam’s largest export market… Sounds like a potential victory – more exports than imports, right? Wrong. Who owns the factories? Intel, Nike, North Face, Samsung (on American designs). Who owns the intellectual property? Transnational corporations. Who takes the high value profits home? Transnational oligarchs as majority stockholders. Vietnam gets low wage assembly jobs, the toxic waste, the twelve-hour shifts, and the destroyed fishing villages turned into luxury golf resorts for foreigners – the same villages that survived Agent Orange now drown under concrete funded by Blackrock… America didn’t need to occupy Vietnam with troops. They occupied it with supply chains. They turned a battlefield into a balance sheet. Vietnam is the perfect colony – no US soldiers dying, no anti-war protests at home, just pure quiet extraction. This is the long game of Empire.

First you destroy a country with war, then you rescue it with investment. Then you own it forever through debt, trade dependency, and foreign-owned factories. This is imperialism on steroids… Ukraine is walking the exact same path right now. Soon the bombs will stop, Blackrock will arrive [it has already arrived], the IMF will dictate terms, and some future president will sign a trade agreement, while the transnational oligarchs toast another conquest. So when people celebrate Vietnam’s victory over America, ask this: who really won, then and now? Was it the Vietnamese people who can no longer afford to live on the coast their ancestors fished for a thousand years, or is it the same predator class that turned a war they lost on the battlefield into the most profitable colony they never had to govern?” [emphasis added]

This excursion into Vietnam has another relevance: Vietnam is a founding member of the Gaza Board of Peace. While Vietnam attempts to put a positive spin on this, it should be clear from this series of articles that occupying a seat on the BoP is an attempt to legitimise bare-faced international buccaneering. As a highly profitable colony of transnational capital, it is hardly surprising that Vietnam’s ruling class should now be playing its part in laundering Empire’s crimes.

The $300 billion of investment funds included in the aborted June MoU was not a gift. It was transnational capital telling Iran to open its doors in the same way that Vietnam eventually did.

The bigger picture

How does Wood’s analysis fit with my geopolitical lens? Quite well actually. The 30,000-foot view of my lens is that a fake form of multipolarity is serving as a vehicle for the institution of a global Technocracy dictated by transnational capital, the head of which snake is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). This agenda is being ably abetted by that wolf in sheep’s clothing – the UN, together with other international policy-implementing bodies. It is a fake multipolarity because all the allegedly different poles are in agreement on the end destination – total digital enclosure, and the means of achieving it. The different poles are thus chimeric images of the same beast.

The three-layered control system for the new economic order to which all major powers are committed consists of programmable money, asset tokenisation, and digital ID. I got into a discussion about this very recently with a new friend. He argued that the global drive in this direction does not represent collaboration among major powers, but rather a technological arms race. This is partly true, but I believe it is a mistake to view it solely as such. Where technology is concerned, it is true that the major powers would compete strenuously in a technology race as a matter of principle since the perceived negative consequences of opting out, both military and economic, are too great. It is also true that all major powers view authoritarian population control as an integral component of managing their vested interests. Technocracy offers the enticing prospect of unfettered population control, and all governments, controlled as they are by the moneyed ruling class, are gleefully embracing this form of extremism as the answer to their managerial problems.

However, viewing the unified global approach to Technocracy as purely a technology arms race misses a fundamental point. The global monetary system is evolving to the described three-layered system, and this transition is a joint venture of all major powers. The joint nature of this transition is not seen as optional by the major powers because they are all inextricably intertwined in the current global monetary system. If the transition is to work, they all have to cross the bridge together to avoid a calamitous unravelling of the monetary system. The international economic order, both old and new, is what unites them. On this single point, they are all agreed – they must all move together in order to survive, or they may all sink together. This is the source of their unity of purpose in implementing the New International Economic Order, wrapped up in various international policy agreements such as Agenda 2030.

The countries whose central banks are BIS members, and who are committed to the digitalised monetary control grid, represent 95% of the world’s GDP. These countries include China, Russia, the US and its Western allies. Iran is not a BIS member, but even if its establishment were opposed to this global monetary system transition, it is not really in a position to resist it. I would add that given how comprehensively the Iranian establishment folded during the covid psyop, we have to question whether it would have any inclination at all to oppose the global monetary transition to controlled digital infrastructure. (There were a few governments in the global south that opposed the covid debacle, and they paid a heavy price.) So, if the contents of the dinner table are not in dispute, or at least not up for negotiation, it is more likely that the current conflict is, for all sides concerned, a fight for a better seat at the table. When that fight is over, it is more than likely that we, the People, will still be facing the digital dragon.

Iran’s ruling class, including its own oligarchy, controls a vital node in an emerging corridor from which the transnational oligarchy stands to profit greatly. Iran’s ruling class has calculated that it has sufficient leverage and military capability to resist playing second fiddle to the GCC-US-Israel transnational power nexus. Iran may be motivated by a complex mix of national and cultural pride, as well as local oligarchic interest. Which of these is the dominant factor is anyone’s guess. But Iran is fighting for its seat at the table.

A significant part of Iran’s calculus may also be linked to China’s assessment of what it stands to lose – the Belt and Road Initiative – by acquiescing to regime change in Iran. Thus, China may be using Iran as a willing proxy in its fight for a seat at the table. It is likely that we are seeing a confluence of Chinese and Iranian interests.

However, the transition to the global digitalised monetary system is in fact the war for Technocracy on humanity, and, as far as I can tell, all major powers are in agreement on this agenda. This makes the ruling classes of all major powers enemies of the people. To the extent that Iran’s resistance is successful, it will weaken Zionism. That is obviously to be welcomed owing to the inherent evil of Zionism, and because the global ruling class is, not coincidentally, Zionist – the West openly, China and Russia covertly.

Ultimately, cheering on the end of the US empire in this conflict is understandable but futile from the standpoint of the ultimate endgame – the Technocratic war on humanity. It is also futile from the standpoint of what the real empire is – it is global transnational capital and, from its perspective, the US is merely a temporary staging post on the map. So, while we can hope for Iran to deal a fatal blow to Zionism, I am not sure how, or if, it would change the BIS’s Technocracy endgame. And I am not sure how, or if, it would change the Board of Peace’s fascist agenda for Gaza.

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!

Buy Me A Coffee

^[1] Patrick M. Wood, The New Economics of Technocracy: You Will Own Nothing, Coherent Publishing, 2026, Ch. 9, Pg. 161.

^[2] Ibid., Ch. 9, Pg. 159.

^[3] Ibid., Ch. 9, Pg. 166.

^[4] Ibid., Ch. 8, Pg. 148.

^[5] Ibid., Ch. 8, Pg. 148.

^[6] Ibid., Ch. 9, Pg. 162.

^[7] Ibid., Ch. 9, Pg. 162.

^[8] Ibid., Ch. 8, Pg. 149.

^[9] Ibid., Ch. 8, Pg. 150-1.

This three-part series of essays is intended to distil the essence of Patrick Wood’s latest book – The New Economics of Technocracy. Part I covered the essentials of the economics of the new Technocratic order being rolled out, and how the three-layered system of control is intended to work.

In this second part, I cover how the destruction of Gaza is laying the path for an unfettered Technocratic experiment that, if successful, will construct a complete Technate from the ground up. I also examine Wood’s analysis of the interplay between Technocracy and Islamic Finance, which may help to explain the apparent zeal with which GCC countries are embracing, and financing, Tech Finance infrastructure.

When offering my own analysis and perspectives, I will make this clear by presenting my supplementary analysis in italicised paragraphs to avoid misrepresenting Wood’s ideas.

Within a few weeks of 7^th October 2023, it was already obvious that a genocide in Gaza was underway. So, in an attempt to appeal to those who were indifferent to the suffering of Gazans, I warned that if you claimed to be opposed to the New Normal techno-fascist agenda but were not calling for a complete ceasefire in Gaza, then you were complicit in accelerating the agenda you claimed to oppose. When you defend the freedom of those beyond your borders, you are also protecting yourself from the prison warden enslaving people outside your immediate boundary. In the case of Gaza, that prison warden is the global ruling Zionist mafia, which, as the word “global” denotes, operates everywhere. If you aren’t prepared to defend the freedom of others ‘over there’, then be prepared to enter your jail cell over here.

Patrick Wood’s book – The New Economics of Technocracy – has, sadly, provided me with the vindication I never wanted. With the destruction of Gaza complete, the world’s powers, including its GCC satraps, who either actively participated in the destruction or idly sat by, have found greater unity of purpose in how to profit from the ruins than in how to prevent the genocide.

In November 2025, the UN Security Council welcomed the Board of Peace, describing it as “a transitional administration with international legal personality”. [emphasis added] Subsequently, as if suffering from multiple personality disorder, the UN Human Rights Office issued a press release revealing that the UN’s own independent experts described the Board of Peace as “an illegal and illegitimate manoeuvre by powerful States driven by nostalgia and avarice”. [emphasis added] This article’s purpose, which will come as no surprise to readers, is to drop a few hints as to which of the two statements is the more believable one.

We will all be Gazans

The Board of Peace (BoP) is a body that will supposedly oversee the reconstruction of Gaza, whose destruction was entirely a matter of choice for the global Zionist alliance that committed this crime against humanity. The BoP’s charter names Donald Trump as its chairman^[1]. The chairman is not the holder of an office, but an individual. There are no term limits, and he has sole authority to nominate his successor. He also has sole authority over membership of the body. As we shall see, this is the first sign that Gaza is to be converted from an illegally occupied territory into a private fiefdom. The UN – that wolf in sheep’s clothing – has welcomed this manoeuvre. China and Russia, alleged champions of justice and leaders of the mighty BRICS bloc set up to supposedly challenge the West’s economic dominance, meekly stepped aside in the UN Security Council and effectively gave it their blessing.

The BoP was not established by treaty or by any act of the US Congress.^[2] Trump has pledged $10 billion of US taxpayer funds to the BoP, but Congress has not legally appropriated these funds.^[3] To underline the status of the BoP as an investment vehicle, a permanent seat on the board costs $1 billion. Permanent membership is also at Trump’s discretion.

Notable founding members are Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, the UAE, Argentina, Hungary, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Kosovo, Albania, Kazakhstan, and Morocco. Slovenia’s prime minister said it was “dangerously interfering with the broader international order”, and Italy’s prime minister said that participation was incompatible with her country’s constitution.

Beneath the Board membership, there is an Executive Board where Wood asserts the real power lies. It comprises seven individuals all appointed directly by Trump. Currently they are^[4]:

- Marco Rubio (US Secretary of State)

- Jared Kushner (Trump’s son-in-law and ‘special envoy for peace’)

- Steve Witkoff (Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East and co-founder of his family stablecoin operation World Liberty Financial)

- Robert Gabriel Jr. (Deputy National Security Advisor)

- Tony Blair (Former UK Prime Minister)

- Ajay Banga (President of the World Bank)

- Marc Rowan (CEO of Apollo Global Management, which manages $600 billion in assets)

There is no Palestinian representation on the Executive Board.

Beneath the Executive Board is an operational layer called the Gaza Executive Board. Kushner, Witkoff, Blair, and Rowan appear again on this Board in addition to other high-ranking GCC, Egyptian and Turkish officials. There is a Dutch UN coordinator on this board.

There is no Palestinian representation on the Gaza Executive Board.

The only Palestinian representation in the whole BoP structure is in a committee beneath the Gaza Executive Board called the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG). It is a committee of technocrats whose only permissible input relates to technical administrative issues.^[5]

Kushner manages Affinity Partners, a $4.6 billion private equity fund backed by $2 billion of Saudi sovereign wealth fund money, and $1.5 billion from Qatar’s sovereign investment fund. He has outlined a $70 billion reconstruction vision for Gaza that creates “one economic bloc linking the port of Haifa in Israel to Muscat in Oman”.^[6]

The presence of Kushner, Witkoff (World Liberty Financial stablecoin), Banga (World Bank President) and Rowan (Apollo Global Management) on the Executive Board signals that the BoP is not a humanitarian reconstruction committee, but rather, in Wood’s words, “an investment syndicate with governance authority over the territory it intends to develop.”^[7]

To guarantee the security of the investment, the BoP has authorised the creation of an International Stability Force (ISF) of 20,000 troops drawn from Albania, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Morocco. They will be led by a general from the US Special Operations Command Central. The operational infrastructure – the Civil-Military Coordination Centre (CMCC) in Southern Israel – was set up in October 2025 before life was officially breathed into the BoP. Apart from giving investors confidence to purchase tokenised assets in Gaza, the CMCC will provide the muscle to enforce BoP governance decisions.^[8]

At the drop of a hat, 20,000 troops have been provided to protect the infrastructure of a billionaire investment syndicate, but 20,000 troops were not available to intervene in a genocide.

In January 2026, Drop Site News obtained leaked CMCC documents that revealed the outline of plans in store for the already severely traumatised Gazans. These plans include:

• Biometric surveillance at checkpoints.

• Monitoring of purchases.

• Educational programs promoting normalisation with Israel.

• Maintaining a registry of Palestinian ID numbers.

• The use of electronic shekel wallets to “mitigate diversion of goods and funds to Hamas financial channels.” In other words, programmable stablecoin as the medium of exchange and control.

An Al Jazeera correspondent reviewing the plans called it “a laboratory for government surveillance”. While this goes some way to describing what the BoP has in store for Gazans, Wood’s assessment is closer to the mark. Gaza is the template for the development of Technocratic city states – Technates. Razed to the ground with virtually nothing left except a traumatised population, it is a blank slate for “the first full-stack deployment of technocratic governance.”^[9] As Wood points out, “the scale of the destruction is not incidental to the reconstruction plan. … Gaza is a greenfield. Not because it was empty. Because it was emptied.”^[10]

“No prior Technocratic initiative has simultaneously controlled the monetary layer, the investment layer, the governance layer, the surveillance layer, the connectivity layer, and the physical design layer within a single bounded territory, administered by an interlocking network of financially connected private actors, operating under the authority of one man. Until Gaza.”^[11]

It is primarily the Left who have been at the forefront of protest in the West against the Gaza genocide, but they need to start seeing the bigger picture, which affects not just Gazans. There is still much work to be done, but they need to stop prematurely celebrating the “end of the US empire”; not because this would not be a good thing to celebrate – it definitely would – but because the US empire is not the empire we really need to be concerned about. It never was. Follow the Money because the Money is the Empire, and right now it’s laughing all the way to the bank. Look at what is happening in Gaza^[12]:

“The people whose territory is being administered, whose financial system is being replaced, whose land is being tokenised, and whose daily transactions will flow through a privately owned stablecoin have no seat at the table where decisions are made.”

The choice we now face is to either toss the BoP on a bonfire before Gaza is forced into a new period of colonial subjugation, or we accept the same Technocratic fate for all of us.

Islamic finance and the Sharia bridge

Here are some statistics Wood presents for the unbanked in countries with predominantly Muslim populations^[13]:

• Egypt – 85% unbanked

• Pakistan – 87%

• Afghanistan – 90%

• Yemen – 93%

• Turkmenistan – 98.2%

The percentages seem very high so I decided to sense check them against other sources. For example, The Banker claims that while Egypt’s unbanked percentage was 90% in 2011, it had dropped to 57% in 2024. That’s high, but still significantly lower than the 85% quoted by Wood. In a February 2025 report, Arab News claimed that 64% of adults in Pakistan had bank accounts in 2025, which would put Pakistan’s unbanked at 36%.

Wood’s source is World Economic Forum data from 2017, so perhaps the discrepancy is due to the figures not being updated. While I am less confident that his figures are current, further research using more recent reports confirms the general premise of his argument that the percentage of unbanked in these countries is significantly above average.

The extent to which these figures are driven by poverty or rejection of Western finance systems based on religious concerns is not clear, but either way, the System’s controllers are clear-eyed about the solution. Recall the words of India’s architect of the Aadhaar biometric identity system: “Everybody should have digital ID; everybody should have a bank account; everybody should have a smartphone. Then, anything can be done.”

Wood contends that^[14]:

“The compatibility between Technocratic asset-based economics [covered in Part I] and Islamic finance is the most underreported story in global economics today. It is also the story that explains, more than any other single factor, why the Gulf monarchies are not merely funding the new system but actively building its infrastructure from the ground up.”

The Quran has a prohibition against riba. It forbids any “predetermined, guaranteed return on a financial transaction that is not tied to an underlying asset or real economic activity.”^[15] Christianity once did the same – it proscribed usury, although the concept of riba is wider than usury in that it also forbids unequal exchanges between parties.

Wood notes that “the prohibition against riba did not soften to accommodate Western Banking.” Instead, “Western banking began to restructure itself to accommodate the prohibition. The result was the development of an entire parallel financial system… that operates not on interest-bearing debt but on asset-backed transactions, fee-based services, profit-sharing arrangements, and leasing structures.”^[16]

Wood explains how three core Islamic finance instruments align with Trump’s BoP and World Liberty Financial stablecoin USD1:

• Murabaha is cost-plus financing. Instead of lending money to facilitate investment, the financier purchases the asset on behalf of the client and resells it at a disclosed mark-up. The profit-margin is embedded in the transaction as a fee, not a time-based charge on borrowed money. Wood posits that this is precisely how a stablecoin transaction using USD1 operates – “it settle[s] through fee-based mechanisms rather than interest-bearing instruments”.

• Ijara is leasing. “The financier purchases and retains ownership of an asset, then leases it to the client for a fixed rental fee.” Wood contends that in the tokenised asset Technocracy model, fractionalised assets generate revenue streams functionally equivalent to Ijara leasing.

• Sukuk, commonly referred to as “Islamic bonds”, represent “proportional undivided ownership in an underlying tangible asset, usufruct, or service. Money is not lent. The sukuk holder owns a share of something real.

Wood addresses whether tokenised asset-based economics fuelled by digital stablecoin money provides a bridge for Sharia to cross, and has concluded that they are a marriage made in heaven. The emerging Technocracy system using an “asset-based token…generating returns tied to asset performance rather than interest, transacted through fee-based platforms rather than interest-charging banks, recorded on an immutable blockchain ledger”, is the 21st century version of the Energy Certificate. However, he unequivocally states the gamechanger for onboarding the huge number of unbanked people in the Islamic world is that “the riba prohibition does not merely permit this system. It accelerates its adoption.”^[17] Financial inclusion thus becomes a Trojan horse for Technocratic enslavement.

Before I read Wood’s book, I knew nothing about Islamic finance, so I am in no position to opine strongly on his conclusion, which may seem controversial to some. I did not get any sense of Wood courting controversy with an unseemly agenda, and I would not have engaged seriously with his theory had I thought so. On the contrary, he is ahead of the curve in sounding the alarm about the Technocratic agenda for Gaza, of which most Palestine activists seem to be unaware.

In any event, his thesis appears to be well-supported by the concrete steps many Islamic countries are taking to establish themselves as Fintech leaders, moving apace towards Technocratic infrastructure. Moreover, the GCC countries are collaborating fully with the plan for a Technocratic hellhole in Gaza.

In January 2026, Pakistan signed an agreement to explore Trump’s USD1 stablecoin for cross-border payments while nearly nine out of every ten Pakistani citizens (using Wood’s 2017 WEF data) is not plugged into the West’s financial system.

Recall from Part I that the UAE’s National Security Advisor, Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan, has a 49% stake in Trump’s USD1 stablecoin operation through his firm Aryam Investment. The leading nations in Islamic FinTech – Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia – are the nations building AI-crypto-energy infrastructure.

The title of a Forbes article cited by Wood – Fintech Is The New Oil In The Middle East And North Africa – dates back to 2017, and provides a strong clue to both the trend in the Middle East and that it did not begin yesterday. The article noted that “interestingly, Islamic banks are enthusiastic about the prospects and are investing in digital initiatives, according to a recent EY report”. [emphasis added] The founder and CEO of a Saudi-based payment processing startup added that “Fintech’s penetration into Islamic finance is still in its nascent stage, however, it could help Islamic banks become more efficient and scale up their operations”. [emphasis added]

Wind the clock forward to June 2024 and this Linklaters report sees “the Middle East emerging as an oasis for tech and fintech”. “Many Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have embraced the digital revolution by setting ambitious goals to diversify their economies away from oil and gas”. A key factor behind uptake in fintech activity has been supportive regulation.

Global Islamic finance assets are projected to rise from $5.98 trillion in 2024 to $9.7 trillion in 2029.^[18] Trump positioned himself to ride that wave before he took office, and has continued to cultivate close ties with GCC money. Apart from investing in significant AI infrastructure deals, the UAE’s MGX fund purchased a $2 billion minority stake in Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange. MGX is Binance’s first institutional investor, and the payment was made with World Liberty Financial’s USD1 stablecoin.

The UAE’s MGX fund “is also involved in Stargate, the United States’ major artificial intelligence infrastructure project, and a giant AI data centre to be built in France at a cost of up to 50 billion euros ($54 billion).”

When Trump toured the US’s GCC satraps in May 2025, included in his entourage were the oligarchs and their generals spearheading the digital Fourth Industrial Revolution: Sam Altman, CEO of Open AI; Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX; Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia; Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon, and; Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir. In the immediate aftermath of the tour, deals worth over “$2 trillion were announced. These included the construction of a five-gigawatt AI campus under the UAE/Stargate banner^[19].

All of which has led Wood to assert that^[20]:

“The Gulf monarchies are not merely investing in a new technology. They are building the physical infrastructure of a new economic order – and they are doing it with American chips, American software, and American political patronage, in exchange for capital flows that benefit a remarkably small network of individuals.”

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!

Buy Me A Coffee

^[1] Patrick M. Wood, The New Economics of Technocracy: You Will Own Nothing, Coherent Publishing, 2026, Ch. 5, Pg. 75.

^[2] Ibid., Ch. 5, Pg. 77.

^[3] Ibid., Ch. 5, Pg. 78.

^[4] Ibid., Ch. 5, Pg. 80.

^[5] Ibid., Ch. 5, Pg. 80.

^[6] Ibid., Ch. 5, Pg. 81.

^[7] Ibid., Ch. 5, Pg. 82.

^[8] Ibid., Ch. 5, Pg. 82-83.

^[9] Ibid., Ch. 6, Pg. 95.

^[10] Ibid., Ch. 6, Pg. 99.

^[11] Ibid., Ch. 6, Pg. 95.

^[12] Ibid., Ch. 5, Pg. 80-81.

^[13] Ibid., Ch. 7, Pg. 117.

^[14] Ibid., Ch. 7, Pg. 118.

^[15] Ibid., Ch. 7, Pg. 118.

^[16] Ibid., Ch. 7, Pg. 119.

^[17] Ibid., Ch. 7, Pg. 125.

^[18] Ibid., Ch. 7, Pg. 122.

^[19] Ibid., Ch. 8, Pg. 141-2.

^[20] Ibid., Ch. 8, Pg. 142.

Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses substack.

I have previously reviewed Iain Davis’s excellent book The Technocratic Dark State, and I strongly encourage you to get a copy if you haven’t already. The next book on your reading list to get to grips with the global Technocratic prison under construction is Patrick Wood’s The New Economics of Technocracy, also available on Amazon.

(I am not financially affiliated in any way to either of these book sales, so whether you click those links and buy or not makes no odds to me.)

These two books are highly complementary, each delving into the subject in a distinct way but with the same sobering conclusion.

Patrick Wood’s latest work is a compelling read. This series of articles will hopefully impart the nub of it, and encourage you to pick up the book to extract its full value.

When offering my own analysis and perspectives, I will make this clear by presenting my supplementary analysis in italicised paragraphs to avoid misrepresenting Wood’s ideas.

Taking a leaf out of the Technocrats’ accelerationist mantra, I will dispense with my customary desultory chit-chat and get stuck in. I’m going to attempt to draw out what I believe are the three most important themes in the book:

1. Part I covers the big picture – understanding the endgame, the route they’re taking, why, and how ‘they’ want it to work. Wood explains why the debt dilemma might be used to bring Technocracy’s plans to fruition. Most analysts bang on about how the debt bubble is going to burst in everyone’s faces, including the ‘geniuses’ that made it. Not so, according to Wood. It is a means to an end, and I confess to being heavily swayed by this thesis. Why else would they keep pumping it up with gay abandon?

The map for Part I is:

a) The birth of Technocracy.

b) Extremism and Technocracy.

c) How Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission rejuvenated Technocracy in 1970.

d) The three layers of control – programmable money, asset tokenisation, and digital ID.

e) How the three layers of control converge into the Beast System.

2. Part II covers what Gaza’s got to do with it. We’ll also explore how the new economics of Technocracy provides a very convenient bridge for Islamic Finance to cross.

3. Part III delves into the emerging India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) as a potentially pivotal factor in the US-Israel war on Iran. We’ll look at Iraq and Iran, and why a particular faction of the global plutocracy is desperate to see the Iran domino fall as neatly as Iraq appears to have. I’ll wrap up with big picture thoughts about the geopolitical lens through which to view the war on Iran.

How long has this been going on?

I’m aware there’ll be a fleeting repeat of material I covered in my review of Iain Davis’s book, but it’s necessary for a smooth progression to a pivotal moment in the history of Technocracy in 1970, which I did not cover previously – the formation of the Trilateral Commission with its mission to forge a New International Economic Order.

We can trace the birth of Technocracy to the publication in 1934 of its bible – the Technocracy Study Course. Operating out of the basement of Hamilton Hall at Columbia University, M. King Hubbert and Howard Scott produced a 280-page manifesto that proposed a scientifically managed society. Run by engineers and technicians, their vision advocated the replacement of private property, free markets (if such a thing ever existed), the price-based monetary system of economics, and representative government.^[1]

Technocracy was, and is, utopian in the mind of a technocrat, and dystopian to more balanced minds. In 1937, Howard Scott explained the full sweep of Technocracy’s frightful ambition^[2]:

“Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population… For the first time in human history, it will be done as a scientific, technical, and engineering problem. There will be no place for Politics, Politicians, Finance or Financiers, Rackets or Racketeers… Technocracy will distribute by means of a certificate of distribution available to every citizen from birth to death.”

Money was to be replaced by the issuance of energy certificates, the purpose of which was to track and record, in real time, the production and consumption of every single person within the system. To achieve this, it would be necessary to maintain “a record and description of the individual.” The Technocracy manual made it clear that the record and description of the individual were not incidental features. The record of the individual’s usage of energy certificates made it “a simple matter at any time for the Distribution Sequence [a management function within the centralised system] to ascertain the state of a given customer’s balance… With this information clearing continuously to a central headquarters we have a case exactly analogous to the control panel of a power plant”.

Thus, the idea of traceable energy certificates encapsulates the ability to control consumption at the individual level – what is consumed, how much is consumed, and when it is consumed. When we discuss the 21^st century evolution of this aim, we will see how the combination of programmable money and digital ID replaces the energy certificate.

Fundamentally rooted in Scientism, this ideology held that the entirety of society’s problems was answerable by science and science alone. Following logically from this extremist viewpoint was that technicians, or Technocrats, alone were eligible to run society.^[3]

Extremism and its relevance to Technocracy

I want to touch briefly on what extremism is, and who the extremists in our society really are because this is very relevant to Technocracy.

The Establishment’s nexus of corporate, political, academic, and media control would have us believe that all extremism and extremist ideology has its genesis in far-right politics or religious ideology, specifically Islam. Hence the term ‘Islamic extremism’. We have been conditioned to associate Islam with extremism, when in fact it has become increasingly clear that the most extremist ideologues are in fact running our so-called democracies in the West. While seeking to locate extremism on the periphery of mainstream society as something that seeks to usurp the Establishment status quo, academic Astrid Bötticher is unwittingly hoist with her own petard as she lists the characteristics of extremism^[4]:

• It “understand[s] politics as struggle for supremacy rather than as peaceful competition between parties with different interests seeking popular support for advancing the common good”.

• It “seeks to conquer… by creating fear of enemies within and outside society.”

• It “is, due to its dogmatism, intolerant and unwilling to compromise.”

• “…viewing politics as a zero-sum game, [it] tend[s]… to engage in aggressive militancy, including criminal acts and mass violence in [its] fanatical will for gaining and holding political power.”

• “At the societal level, extremist movements are authoritarian, and, if in power, extremist rulers tend to become totalitarian.”

• “Extremists glorify violence as a conflict resolution mechanism and are opposed to the constitutional state, majority-based democracy, the rule of law, and human rights for all.”

All of the above features encapsulate: the entire Cold War and Operation Gladio; the baseless expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War with the subsequent never-ending wars in the Middle East, using terror groups fomented by the US empire as the pretext; the violent and destructive neo-colonialism of the global financial empire, and; the way in which governments in the West have rolled out the New World Order since 2020. The extremist barbarians are not at the gates; they have been occupying the citadels of power in the West for a very long time.

The Covid psyop itself was extremist in all its elements: shutting down the global economy purportedly to pursue an unrestrainable virus, and making re-entry to normal life conditional upon coerced ‘vaccination’. The shutting down of, and policing of social media debate to silence all dissent to these extremist policies. The subsequent Ukraine war and genocide in Gaza, accompanied by the fomentation of Russophobia and the persecution of those protesting against genocide. The attempt to criminalise ‘climate denial’.

A recent and highly relevant example of Establishment extremism is the US government’s recent response to popular opposition to the proliferation of data centres across the US. If you need proof that the ruling class has prioritised the cultivation of data over the cultivation of human life and well-being, you need look no further than the current obsession with data centres. States with the greatest concentration of data centres will consume more electricity than the residents in those states, and in most cases will force the costs of energy up for residents. The demands on water resources present similar challenges.

There are few issues in the US that unite voters across party lines, but data centres is one of them. In a June Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 14% of respondents would support a data centre being built in their community. Reuters described Americans’ resistance to data centres as being “inseparable from broader unease about the future of AI and corporate power.” What is the Trump administration’s response? By Executive Order 14318, federally-owned land and resources are to be used for the development of data centres. In other words, taxpayers will foot a substantial portion of the bill for a project to which they are opposed. Aligning with Bötticher’s characterisation of extremism, Trump’s response to the resistance is: “You can’t fight it. You have to go with it”.

To the extent that extremism is a mental illness, the attempt to portray extremism as something confined to the Muslim world or the far right should be seen as a psychological projection of a disease that primarily infects the ruling class in the West. Crucially in relation to the premise of this article, Technocracy is merely another manifestation of Western ruling class extremism.

Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission

Returning to the progression of Technocracy from its precarious beginnings in 1934, the ideology lay dormant for three decades in the absence of both the technology to implement its vision, and irrepressible ideologues to successfully proselytise a movement. That changed in 1970 when a new acolyte in the person of Zbigniew Brzezinski rekindled the fire. As a political strategist and professor at Columbia University, the alma mater of Technocracy’s founders, Brzezinski published Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. Eerily echoing the ideas of his predecessors, he explained that what he termed the “technetronic era” would herald a “New International Economic Order”. This era, he wrote:

“involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behaviour and keeping society under close surveillance and control.” [emphasis added]

Brzezinski did not merely write a theoretical treatise and then retire into obscurity to tend to his allotment. The vision he articulated is a work-in-progress nearing completion. David Rockefeller, the son of John D. Rockefeller Jnr, who not coincidentally donated the real estate to house the United Nations, was so enamoured of Brzezinski’s work that they co-founded the Trilateral Commission, the global think tank whose stated mission was to create the “New International Economic Order” to which Brzezinski had referred, and which was to be built on the bedrock of Technocracy^[5].

By 1979, the Executive Branch of the US government had been virtually taken over by Trilateral Commission members, and its tenets are now firmly embedded in the UN Sustainable Development Agenda. Since 1973, six out of seven World Bank presidents have come from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission.^[6]

“Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values” in order to “keep society under close surveillance and control” – it is clear that Technocracy, as the intended “New International Economic Order”, is a core pillar of Western ruling class extremism.

So, what has 21^st century Technocracy achieved towards the stated goals of its 1930s founders and Brzezinski’s vision of a technetronic dictatorship? 21^st century Technocracy hinges on three layers of control and all of them are being built at a pace that ensures the architecture is erected much faster than accountability can follow. Most of it is either illegal or simply circumvents due process at the national level. And pretty much all of it is unethical. So the protagonists are fully aware that success lies in seeking forgiveness after it has been built rather than permission beforehand. They intend to make Technocracy a fait accompli, banking on the political cost of undoing it being greater than the political will to stop it.

The three layers of control

The three layers of control are not theoretical. They have not yet overtaken the economic and social landscape, but they have certainly arrived, and the controllers have ambitious plans for their ruthless entrenchment.

The three layers are programmable money, tokenised assets, and digital ID. All three layers of enslavement are glued together by appositely named blockchain technology, and the computational power driving its efficiency is AI.

We will discuss each layer in turn to show how their interaction will achieve Hubbert’s and Scott’s goals of tracking the production and consumption of every individual using a record and description of the individual. And indeed, we shall see how this achieves Brzezinski’s vision of “using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behaviour and keeping society under close surveillance and control.”

Layer one – programmable money

Two or three years ago, everyone concerned about liberty and privacy rights was banging on about the threat of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), which virtually every single central bank within the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) family was developing and pilot testing. The concern, which is not a conspiracy theory but a verifiable fact confirmed by the BIS itself^[7], is that every detail of every transaction is visible to the platform operator, which can embed conditions into the completion of the transaction based on the identity of the parties and anything else the platform operator deems fit. This programmable feature of digital money flips it from a medium of exchange into a medium of control.

Every transaction is visible, and digital ID will make every user identifiable. Programmability of the money makes rules enforceable at the moment of the transaction. “You do not need police action to enforce economic restrictions when the money itself refuses to complete a prohibited purchase. The enforcement mechanism is embedded in the medium of exchange.”^[8] [emphasis added]

So, what happened to CBDC in the US? In a classic Hegelian dialectic progression from thesis (problem), to antithesis (reaction), and finally to synthesis (‘solution’), CBDC started out as the problem – full government control over surveilled money. To parry the popular objection, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act was passed on 17 July 2025, representing the antithesis. One day later, the synthesis was heralded by the enactment of the GENIUS Act, garlanding the road to stablecoins – effectively privatised CBDC.^[9] Stablecoins are “privately issued digital dollars, backed by government debt and regulated by federal law, but operating outside the constitutional protections that would apply to a government-issued currency.”^[10]

Six months after taking office, Trump enacted the GENIUS Act, which Wood identifies as “the legislative framework that codifies the stablecoin as the successor instrument to the fiat dollar.”^[11]

Trump makes an excellent case study in why it pays the plutocracy to have a fellow venal oligarch at the helm of the machinery of government. Here are some stunning facts revealed by Wood about how to use the White House to whitewash a banking operation.

• In September 2024, while still on the campaign trail, Trump announced that his sons would launch World Liberty Financial Inc. (WLF), the operating company that would issue a dollar-pegged stablecoin called USD1.^[12]

• Through two companies further up the chain, WLF is effectively 60% owned by a Trump family entity that has strategic veto power over operational decisions.

• The initial founders included the sons of Steve Witkoff, the real estate mogul who would subsequently go on to act as Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East.

• The remaining 49%^[13] is held by the UAE National Security Advisor, Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan, through his firm Aryam Investment. This tidbit will acquire further significance in Part II, when we examine What Gaza’s Got To Do With It.^[14]

• In March 2025, barely two months into the Trump presidency, WLF began marketing the USD1 stablecoin.

• In July 2025, the Trump administration enacted the GENIUS Act, which is the stablecoin legislative framework.

• By February 2026, WLF had generated $1.4 billion in revenue. The entire WLF ecosystem, controlled by the Trump family, is valued at approximately $13 billion.^[15]

Trump was put in office by the Zionist Paypal mafia, and the Zionist Private-Public surveillance partnership (Palantir). Not only is he being handsomely rewarded for services rendered, but he has so far proven to be the best US President that money can buy. Like children in a sandpit, the Left screams that Trump is stupid. The Left does not yet appear to have grasped the fundamentals of politics in the ‘free’ world. Trump’s apparent buffoonery is in fact a very effective decoy that distracts from his picking of Americans’ pockets and the construction of the digital gulag. And while the Left is clapping like a seal to celebrate the “end of the US empire”, the ultimate Financial Empire – the real global hegemon that hides behind geographical empires – is celebrating the beginning of the end of humanity as we know it.

And, if you’re interested in emerging patterns, here’s another fun fact for Reformers in the UK. Two thirds of Nigel Farage’s Reform funding (£22 million) comes from digital currency tycoon Christopher Harborne, who is one of the owners of Tether, the biggest cryptocurrency in the US. The golden rule of psychopathic rule is: if a trick works, rinse and repeat until it stops working. As I’ve said before, it would appear that Farage’s job is to Trump the UK – give the Right a party that will accelerate the journey to Technocracy, because the mainstream Left are pretty happy with, or oblivious to, that destination anyway. It’s the ‘freedom’ loving right that needs to be hoodwinked into loving Big Brother by a traditionalist, flag-waving, anti-immigrant regime.

And no doubt, like Trump, the business savvy Farage will figure out a way to profit from plugging the UK into the blockchain trifecta of programmable money, tokenisation, and digital ID. If he makes it to Number 10, he really has no excuses for fluffing it now that Trump has given him a blueprint.

Layer two – asset tokenisation and the death of debt

Before we discuss asset tokenisation, let’s start with debt, as it’s the logical lead-in.

Working on the principle that the purpose of a system is what it does, Wood turns the whole debt Ponzi scheme on its head by suggesting that it isn’t a problem for the financial mafia. Or rather, it is a fire that’s being stoked to justify the ‘solution’ on the hard road to technocracy. US government debt currently stands at an unfathomable $39.5 trillion, but by the time you read this article, there’s a fair chance that it will have hit the $40 trillion mark. Absurd as that seems, Wood invites us not to view it as a mistake as he asks: “What if the debt-based system is not simply failing, but is being deliberately driven to failure in order to justify its replacement?”^[16] [emphasis added] But, to be replaced by what?, you ask. A tokenised asset-based system in which digital currency is issued as collateral against assets.

What assets? Well, all existing assets for starters. Tokenisation converts real assets into digital fractions on someone else’s platform.^[17] Wood explains that^[18]:

“When a company ‘tokenises’ a real-world asset, it takes that asset and divides it into thousands or millions of digital tokens, each representing a tiny fraction of the whole. These tokens can then be… traded on digital exchanges, just like stocks.”

However, Wood warns that “fractional ownership is not ownership in any historically or legally meaningful sense.”^[19] He explains that^[20]:

“What you hold is a speculative financial instrument that exists entirely within the rules of a platform you did not build and cannot influence. If the platform operator decided to delist the token, adjust the smart contract, or revoke access, your ‘ownership’ evaporates.”

Your ‘rights’ to that asset are determined by the conditions programmed into the contract on the blockchain ledger, and the stablecoin used to trade it. The true owners of the asset are the token and digital money platform operators. This is permission-based ‘ownership’, which is “a new feudalism in which the blockchain ledger replaces the land registry. In other words: ‘You will own nothing’.”^[21]

There is a new class of asset that hasn’t yet found its way onto the pathocracy’s asset ledger. You will recall from my review of Iain Davis’s book that the plutocrats are licking their chops at the prospect of tokenising, and therefore monetising, Mother Nature herself. There’s a cool $4,000,000,000,000,000 – that’s four quadrillion US dollars, or four thousand trillion – in natural assets that has yet to be tapped.

And, fully sanctioned by the UN Sustainable Development agenda, these assets will be tokenised, which means having a financial value assigned to them on a blockchain ledger to facilitate trading in them, and profiting from the related income streams. Because that, don’t you know, is the best way to steward God’s creation. Perhaps if you look hard enough in the Bible, you’ll find a recommendation in Genesis about monetising natural assets.

These are the group of assets Wood labels as sovereign asset pools – token issuance against land, mineral rights, and inscrutable concepts like carbon sequestration capacity.

How might tokenisation solve the US’s $39.5 trillion government debt liability? Iain Davis posited that governments could trade away real assets, such as land, forests, and parks, in exchange for cancellation of debt paper.

Thus, in yet another classic Hegelian dialectic progression from thesis to antithesis to synthesis, the System controllers have allowed a problem (the thesis of debt-based fiat currency) to metastasise, thus provoking a reaction to unsustainable debt levels (antithesis), and they are now in the process of offering the ‘solution’ (the synthesis of programmable and tokenised digital money). And there is a toll booth at each step in the process where the gullible masses step up and pay for their own destruction.

Layer three – Digital Identity

The first two layers cannot work without digital ID. Recall that the founders of Technocracy in the 1930s were very clear on the goal to register the consumption of every individual, and that this would require a “record and description of the individual”. In 21^st century terms, this requirement is met by digital ID. This is the final lock.

The digital money platform and the tokenised asset marketplace will not be accessible without biometric identification. Anonymous participation will be impossible, and every transaction will be linked to a verifiable individual.

The UN is speaking out of both sides of its mouth by promoting a charter of human rights that includes the right to privacy while also advocating digital ID for every person on the planet under Sustainable Development Goal 16.9. Digital ID, used in the way Technocrats envision, crushes the right to privacy. It is disingenuously marketed as ‘legal identity’, but the ID2020 alliance tasked with achieving the UN’s goal was more blunt in its communication^[22]:

“In May 2016, at the United Nations Headquarters in NY, the inaugural ID2020 Summit brought together over 400 people to discuss how to provide a unique digital identity to everyone on the planet”. [emphasis added]

The idea that a “unique digital identity” could possibly play any role in poverty alleviation would be insulting to the intelligence of a newt. Before the digital era, did poverty alleviation champions suggest that having a government issued passport was the first step in putting food on the table?

Palantir is essentially the privatised arm of the Intelligence Services surveillance apparatus. Entities like Palantir specialise in taking data from disparate sources and fusing it into a single environment where patterns can be identified and individuals tracked. This essentially breaks down data information silos, and makes the information readable by identification systems like REAL ID cards, biometric wallets, and blockchain transaction ledgers.^[23]

How the three layers converge into the Beast System

At the IMF Annual Meeting in October 2022, Bo Li, the then Deputy Managing Director spelt out what convergence of these three layers of control means^[24]:

“By programming CBDC, the money can be precisely targeted for what kind of people can own, and what kind of use this money can be utilised.”

At the IMF Spring Meetings in 2023, Nandan Nilekani, the architect of India’s Aadhaar biometric identity system, which enrolled 1.3 billion people, said^[25]:

“Everybody should have digital ID; everybody should have a bank account; everybody should have a smartphone. Then, anything can be done. Everything else is built on that.”

The convergence of the three layers is best summed up by Wood^[26]:

“You need a digital identity to access the payment platform. You need the payment platform to buy asset tokens. You need the asset tokens to have any claim on property. And every step of the process is recorded, monitored, and governed by rules you did not write, on platforms you do not control, operated by entities you cannot hold accountable. Nothing needs to be confiscated because nothing [is] ever truly owned. The word ‘own’ simply loses its meaning.”

We come full circle to the Technocracy bible written in 1934. The concept of issuing a traceable “energy certificate” to everyone is fulfilled by the interaction of programmable money with Digital ID. Technocracy’s founders were obsessed with replacing money with energy certificates as the measure of consumption and production. Today, programmable money with embedded conditions of use, and traceable to the individual through digital ID, is the stand-in for the energy certificate. The control, monitoring, and recording of consumption as the means to total social engineering is no longer a theoretical aspiration. The destination has remained unchanged, and we are now years, not decades, away from it.

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!

Buy Me A Coffee

^[1] Patrick M. Wood, The New Economics of Technocracy: You Will Own Nothing, Coherent Publishing, 2026, Ch. 1, Pg. 1-2.

^[2] Ibid., Pg. 4.

^[3] Ibid, Pg. 7.

^[4] Astrid Bötticher, Towards Academic Consensus Definitions of Radicalism and Extremism, JSTOR Terrorism Research Initiative, May 2020, Volume 11, Issue 4: https://www.exit-practices.eu/uploads/1/3/0/4/130474014/_b%C3%B6tticher_2017__towards_academic_consensus_definitions_of_radicalism_and_extremism.pdf

^[5] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 1, Pg. 10-11.

^[6] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 2, Pg. 22.

^[7] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 10, Pg. 181.

^[8] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 10, Pg. 181.

^[9] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 2, Pg. 27.

^[10] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 2, Pg. 27.

^[11] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 2, Pg. 27.

^[12] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 4, Pg. 55.

^[13] In explaining who controls WLF, Wood assigns the controlling interest of 60% to the Trump family and then describes “the remaining forty-nine percent” as being held by the UAE National Security Advisor. It’s irritating that this doesn’t add up, but the reason for the discrepancy is not clear. I went with 49% as the Wall Street Journal also reported the share held by the UAE official as 49%: https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/spy-sheikh-secret-stake-trump-crypto-tahnoon-ea4d97e8

^[14] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 4, Pg. 54.

^[15] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 4, Pg. 54.

^[16] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 2, Pg. 18.

^[17] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 4, Pg. 68.

^[18] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 3, Pg. 40.

^[19] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 3, Pg. 41.

^[20] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 3, Pg. 41.

^[21] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 2, Pg. 21.

^[22] https://web.archive.org/web/20180324022236/http://www.id2020summit.org/

^[23] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 10, Pg. 180.

^[24] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 10, Pg. 182.

^[25] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 10, Pg. 182.

^[26] Wood, op. cit., Ch. 3, Pg. 43.

This is the first of a series of transcripts we will be publishing from Freie Linke Zukunft’s Third International Conference held in Erfurt, Germany from 31 July-2 August.

Freie Linke Zukunft — which developed out of an earlier group founded in 2021 in response to the pandemic event — explain their raison d’etre as follows in an online editorial:

“The task today is to build—entirely from scratch—a genuine Left that transcends specific factions and is grounded in social realities. All currents are welcome here, provided they distance themselves from the neoliberal ‘identity Left’—a faction that, visibly to all, sided with the ruling class during the ‘pandemic year’ of 2020.”

Furthermore, there is unanimous opposition to the regime of a state of emergency and to the overt seizure of power by the most aggressive elements of monopoly capital. There is also a clear awareness that a free and socially just society must be built—one in which the exploitation of human beings by other human beings comes to an end.”

Their online publication Magma offers an English language section here.

Introduction to Real Left

Real Left was launched at the beginning of 2021 by the editors of an online journal called Marxist World, only one of whom is still active in the group. It was originally set up under the name Left Lockdown Sceptics, as the main focus at the time was anti-lockdown critique from an anti-Capitalist lens. Left Lockdown Sceptics published articles on a website by the same name. We changed our name in 2023 to Real Left, since lockdowns were by then generally perceived as an historical event. The name change also reflected the fact that our critical analysis had by then broadened to encompass the whole of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, of which the lockdowns were of course, just a symptom.

In the summer of 2021, we held our first conference in London which around fifty people attended. Since then we have continued meeting in person generally several times a year, building a real-life community of leftist dissidents. These events have been well attended and well received, particularly our annual conferences. Through our hosting of a number of such meetings and the publication of hundreds of articles, we have disseminated consistently high quality analysis, commentary, and occasional investigative journalism on what is both the most critical and the most neglected political issue of our age: the struggle against high tech technocratic totalitarianism, or digital enclosure.

That people are able to access such censored and marginalised information, opinion, and community rooted in shared egalitarian and pro freedom values — free of the usual concessions to establishment power that are adopted by those who either seek more mainstream funding or endorsement, or who have failed to decolonise their own consciousness from domination and extraction based control systems like Capitalism, or Zionism — this matters: and we have created a space for it. We have also collaborated with other grassroots initiatives in the freedom movement, including doing an interview for the UK’s “The Light” newspaper, which has a decent circulation of tens of thousands.

Real Left’s challenges, on the other hand, remain steep. Since the early days of the group’s inception we have failed to expand significantly in numbers, and consequently our impact has been limited to the admittedly modest scope of the activities I have just now highlighted. No doubt because genuinely grassroots and egalitarian anti-fourth-industrial revolution resistance represents a potentially significant counterforce to the rollout of the ruling classes transhumanist agenda, we are censored into oblivion through repressive algorithms on social media platforms. This appears to also now be the case on substack, where we have struggled to gain followers over the past couple of years.

The errors of the Pro-Lockdown Left

In the UK the large and energetic resistance to lockdowns spontaneously emerged in reaction to the aggressive Covid fearmongering propaganda campaign and immediate attacks on people’s human rights. It also occured in the total absence of the entire organised left (i.e. trade unions, socialist political parties and publications etc) — as far as such a left can still be said to exist after a five decade war of attrition by the forces of Neoliberalism.

On a quick side note, in the UK (and I believe Germany was the same) the organised/legacy left, with few exceptions, irredeemably disgraced themselves during the Covid psychological operation by backing the diktats of the ruling class. They uncritically swallowed the preposterous fairytale that — for the first time in the history of global capitalism — those with the power to enact (or refuse) a cessation of normal economic activity for an extended period were prepared to put aside profit making for the nobler purpose of “saving granny.” Since then there has been no largescale awakening amongst this led-by-the-nose left demographic. We could perhaps adapt the often quoted aphorism coined by Gil Scott-Heron’s 1970s protest song/poem, “The revolution will not be televised”, to “The revolution will leave the legacy left behind!”

I should however briefly mention an honourable exception to my suggested maxim about the left’s anti-revolutionary character. And that is the important analysis and direct action initiatives coming out of the anti-imperialist left since 2023. At our conference last year Real Left spotlighted the importance of the anti-Zionist movement — the leadership of which has come largely from grassroots activists, not institutions or political parties of the left — in the wider class struggle. And we will be doing so again this year.

From my perspective one major problem afflicting those on the left — and by that I mean not ‘liberals’, but those who identify as anarchists, socialists, materialists, and Marxists — is that they have failed to update their analysis to comprehend the Capitalist system as it operates today. Their critiques are fossilised at the Neoliberal stage of Capitalism, when we have already moved into the Stakeholder Capitalism era. Orienting oneself correctly in the class war without an understanding of this shift is the equivalent of trying to find one’s way to Erfurt today using a 1750 map of Prussia.

A concrete example of such blind blundering would be the far left’s response to any hesitancy to shut-down businesses and civil society in 2020. They denounced the Johnson government’s (slightly) slower off the starting gun and (fractionally) more lenient lockdown response in comparison to some other European countries as, “putting the economy before lives.”

The false assumption underlying such a wrong headed position is that the billionaire class continue to require the proletariat to go out to physical places of work to provide their (exploited) labour and to buy stuff in brick and mortar shops in order to accrue profits for the rich. But in reality the Capital owning class have come up with a superior system of extraction (at least from their perspective). One that requires us to stay in, order in/online and plug in — specifically to the superfast broadband enabled Internet of Things which was laid cable by cable on the deserted streets that those early days of lockdown gifted the telecommunications companies.

The transition to stakeholder Capitalism in fact necessitates all of the following:

• The displacement of most of the physical economy by online commerce/activity.

• The conglomeration of business ownership into the hands of the super-rich and the decimation of independent small business. (See the documented gargantuan wealth transfer that occurred over 2020-2022 from the 99% to the 1%.)

• A major expansion in ambient intelligence/ubiquitous surveillance, or the ‘smartification’ of cities (and homes).

• A widescale acceptance of technology replacing former spheres of primarily human activity across the economic, educational, and social spheres and in the provision of public services.

• The replacement of a legacy liberal civil liberties/human rights framework with the principle of individual rights as subservient to a preeminent collective good — as determined by experts who serve the establishment (technocratic communitarianism).

Every item I’ve just listed was hugely accelerated by the ‘pandemic containment’ measures, but we are supposed to dismiss this as incidental?! Covid was the goose that laid the golden egg for the ushering in of the Big Data Economy, of which the automatons of the managerial class tasked with implementing this transition make no secret in public documents.

I relay this is in fairly granular detail in the third article in my series “The Great Health and Social Care Reset for the Big Data Economy”. The next articles — as yet unpublished — would likely be of more relevance to a German audience. (The articles comprising part one are very specific to the UK NHS transformation program.)

In these subsequent articles I detail a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that indicate that the Covid vaccinations contain military developed graphene based nano tech components, to link humans into the Internet of Bio-Nano Things — an extension of the Internet of Things into the biological domain — for the purposes of control, surveillance, manipulation/modification and biological engineering of humanity at a mass scale. (Sidenote: there are other dissident researchers who have come to a similar conclusion. I do not mean to suggest that I am making an original claim here, only that I’ve attempted to evidence this through some primary sources.)

The case for a meta-materialist politics to confront the transhumanist threat

I mentioned in my introduction my affinity to the life’s work of Rudolf Steiner. Steiner — who died over 100 years ago — presciently anticipated the challenge of transhumanism, or mechanical occultism, as he sometimes termed it. His writings and lectures hold a wealth of wisdom on practical ways that we can meet this challenge.

Whilst allowing for its contributions to the advancement of culture through technological development, Steiner vigorously opposed scientific materialism as the dominant philosophy of the age, on the basis of its inability to penetrate into the deeper spiritual realities which underlie all outward phenomenon, including into the true soul/spiritual nature of the human being. He also warned in strong terms against the disastrous consequences of (atheistic) materialism on the unfolding of current and future civilization. Again, prophetically in light of the ‘pandemic’ event, he specifically warned against

“. . .the danger threatening mankind if what today calls itself science is allowed to lead the way and to insinuate itself into realms where concepts become realities.” (The Karma of Materialism. Lecture 2)

Discoveries of quantum physics have since provided confirmation for the insights of Steiner (and those of ancient metaphysical traditions) and overturned assumptions of classical Newtonian physics through demonstrating, for example, the interconnected, probabilistic, and observer-dependent nature of reality.

This brings me onto a second problem of the legacy left as I see it, which concerns not only, what they think (or more accurately fail to grasp) as I previously set out, but the prior cause of such errors of thought: how they think.

Anecdotally, most socialists outside of pro-freedom spaces that I have encountered are atheists, whereas only a minority of people in the Great Reset resistance share this same attachment to a godless universe. In fact, I have observed this pattern consistently enough to feel justified in making the claim that a worldview that recognises the reality of some form of higher power or divine order (not necessarily, and in fact not usually, in a traditionally religious sense) tends to provide some immunity to falling prey to manipulation by ideologies rooted in abstract materialistic/atheistic concepts, and its (many) illusory fears or superstitions: the phobia of germs or viruses, and the terror of death being particularly relevant to this case.

The ‘head-bound’, dead thinking of the hardened atheist-materialist, divorced from the warming and enlivening wisdom of the heart, proved deeply susceptible to the propaganda of false authorities over 2020-2022, to terrible effects. Steiner said:

“The salvation of our time can only come about if — specifically regarding everything meant to fertilize social life, such as the sphere of law and the life of the state —thoughts intervene that stand in living connection with the spiritual world.” (The Karma of Materialism. Lecture 1)

Such ‘living thinking’ could never deny the vital healing effects we experience in a loving embrace or hand hold, and acquiesce to eschew physical contact with loved ones, or vulnerable elderly, grand-children etc, until such time that an external authority arbitrarily pronounced such life-imbuing touch no longer dangerous/potentially deadly (!)

The fact that the Great Reset resistance — the only cohort who stood against tyranny during the egregious attacks of this period let us not forget — overwhelmingly is spiritual in orientation, (at least in the UK) I argue, points to the necessary evolution of political struggle in the 2020s.

The transhumanist digital-biological life fused control grid (which Steiner characterised as the Eight Sphere) is intended as an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent web, which ultimately would eliminate the possibility of human free will.

I can only understand the deeply evil nature of this threat as an adversarial attempt to mimic and usurp the ever-present, all knowing, and all powerful qualities of source or the Godhead, of which we are all a spark, and through ensnarement into this counterfeit virtual kingdom or empire to disconnect us permanently from our Creator endowed spiritual nature.

Marx gifted us with many very valuable insights into class relations and the nature of capitalism. But I believe he was wrong about dialectical materialism being the driving force of world evolution. The true impetus underpinning the history of human civilizations, rather, is the evolution of human consciousness, and the tensions between forces that seek to either forward, or retard, this development.

The fact is that many of us active in this struggle have already intuited that we are on the battleground of a spiritual war between good and evil powers and principalities, who are fighting over the destiny of the collective human soul. Whether humanity will evolve to the next stage with a deeper capacity for Christ-like love; win the freedom of an inwardly developed morality; and save the ‘I’ of our “I am that I am” from descent into the abyss, or whether we will fall into the realm of sub-human, yet hangs in the balance for each of us.

There is nothing be gained in denying the gravity of what is at stake on this battlefield on which we have chosen to take up (metaphorical) arms, or in avoiding theological or apocalyptic framings to attempt to appear more persuasive to comrades that we have, in reality, already moved beyond.

Advocating for the adoption of such perspectives should not be misconstrued as a manifesto to become solely meditating navel gazers however. What is needed most at this time is courageous and concerted action: as long we are physically embodied in this material realm, there is essential work to be done that only we can do.

On the contrary, I contend that the embrace of such hitherto taboo perspectives in political spaces can provide much needed strength and courage from imparting conviction of the importance of this struggle and our role in it, which will endow us with the capacity to persevere with this work despite the testing times that very likely lie in store.

To conclude then, I hold that the progression of the millennia long class struggle of the people against the powers must embrace the Zeitgeist of our post-mechanistic age. We must recognise ourselves not merely as economic agents engaged in dialectical struggles, but as embodied spirits answering a calling on behalf of world karma to stand up for truth, goodness, and beauty in order that the rightful destiny of all living things to exist and evolve in love and freedom becomes manifest.

In this way I believe the revolutionary left (ourselves!) may be renewed and invigorated to most accurately name and effectively confront the satanic bio-digital convergence project, of which the legacy left has proved itself incapable.

Moreover it is likely to also render us a more attractive force to those within the Great Reset resistance at large, given the inhering radical and spiritual tendencies of the rank-and-file (in distinction to the managerial class self-appointed ‘leadership’ factions). This may thereby help to win sympathy for our proposed solutions regarding egalitarian revolution, and enlist more to our number.

The practical implementation of such an overarching philosophy leaves a lot to be discussed, and I hope this is a conversation (or debate!) that we can get into now. I would also like to raise the question of how our two sister groups, (and perhaps others that I am aware of in Europe and the USA) may mutually expand our reach and support one another’s work through future collaborations of various kinds.

I would like to close with a final quote from Steiner in the spirit of encouragement for the significance of our mission as the ‘leftist remnant’, despite our small numbers and (quantitatively) limited or obscure nature of our work:

“We must clearly realise that, from a certain perspective, the smallest and the greatest things we can do are equally important for the whole. Life presents itself as a mosaic composed of individual stones. The person who places a single stone is no less important than the one who conceived the design for the mosaic. In terms of what may be called the divine-spiritual world order, the smallest thing is just as significant as the greatest. If we grasp this, it can save us from much of the dissatisfaction that might otherwise easily arise in life.” (The New Spiritual Age and the Return of the Christ)

Thank you kindly for listening.

Summary of post-talk discussion

It was noted by several comrades that there were a lot of ‘Steiner people’ in freedom movement/most people involved in Steiner initiatives (Waldorf schools, biodynamic farming, etc) did not fall for Covid psy op. One comrade suggested this indicated there was “something right” in their thinking. It was countered that people were thrown out of these institutions for non compliance with MRNA injections or mandates. I noted that the same problem prevalent across society applied: the leadership was corrupted did not reflect the attitudes/desires of the rank and file members.

One comrade who identified as atheist expressed a desire to work together with “Steiner people” as allies and stressed the importance of tolerating and not ridiculing their beliefs. Another who identified as agnostic raised that there is much unknowable, even in seemingly material phenomenon, giving the example of invisible processes mediating between our watering of a plant and its growth.

The Catholic workers movement mentioned as historical example of spiritual-radical political movements. And one comrade made the point that there was openness to spiritual or metaphysical conversations, criticism of technology, and conventional medical approaches within political spaces in the 70s, which subsequently died out.

Points of contention included the rejection of a monotheistic world view, since, as one comrade put it, a single godbeing who is all knowing and all powerful, (lording over a world full of suffering) would itself would be evil. There was a preference for animism as spiritual belief system. (My note: anthroposophy is in greater alignment with animism than is probably conveyed in my poorly sketched snapshot of this worldview.)

Another comrade stated that the economic sphere is the primary driving force of social life. This was responded to by another with point that belief systems/consciousness — whether rooted in atheistic explicit or implicit atheistic assumptions — exist a priori, and itself direct, economic logic.

It was argued that Marxist theoretical tools when properly applied should lead one to the correct conclusions regarding the Covid conspiracy (i.e: nothing further need be added.) And that a Marxist humanism, with its emphasis on autonomy and self determination — and also based on the primacy of the human — can instill the urge to defend the human against such transhumanist attacks.

Someone raised that there may be different interpretations of the findings of quantum physics mentioned, which do not support metaphysical/mystical worldviews.

Issue was taken with term “technocratic communitarianism”: fascism was preferred. Also the idea of a “managerial class”: which, this speaker felt, is not a class per se but a subcategory of the working class.

One comrade described the talk as a “very surprising perspective at a Marxist conference”, “in a good way”. Another said he was interested to look into Steiner with whom he wasn’t previously familiar. And a third expressed that she had wished to discuss the “point of Steiner more intensely” had there been more time. Overall the ideas were met with sympathetically, to an unexpected degree, and I thanked comrades for receiving the talk in such a cordial and thoughtful spirit.

The philosopher Michel Serres observed that knowledge must be paid for in its own currency: the cost of new knowledge is the destruction of old knowledge. This philosophical point has been dramatically and directly played out by Anthropic, the AI company behind Claude and, alongside OpenAI which runs ChatGPT, one of the two major players in the AI world. Project Panama was Anthropic’s ‘effort to destructively scan all the books in the world‘ according to its own internal documents. Millions upon millions of books had spines sliced off, the pages scanned and the remnants pulped for recycling. Many of these books – almost certainly the vast majority – were out of print, and no allowance was made for rare books or unique manuscripts. In a practice that AI companies continue to vigorously pursue, physical books are being bought and destroyed to train models. This includes books that are already digitalised, and books which are not.

The large language models Anthropic runs for customers were built on millions of pirated downloads. Buying the books it has already pirated is basically a loophole: a resolution to the legal challenge this creates confirmed in a ruling by District Judge William Alsup in June 2025 (the same ruling also led to Anthropic paying out a $1.5bn to resolve a class-action suit by authors and publishers). Alsup said that what Anthropic was doing is ‘quintessentially transformative’: training does not mean that it intends to ‘replicate or supplant’ the source books ‘but to turn a hard corner and create something different’. And the books are ‘destructively scanned’ simply because it’s efficient. If you don’t care about collective memory, it’s the fastest way to scan millions of books. Judge Alsup felt that this destruction was actually part of what makes Anthropic’s use of the books transformative, and not a copyright violation (especially since it did not plan to distribute the scans).

However, it’s obvious that by training its AI models on the pulped books, Anthropic is harvesting the content of the books to reproduce the knowledge they hold without acknowledging the source of that knowledge. Whatever you think of copyright and its copyleft alternatives, having your work blended anonymously into an AI output through a model training process without so much as a citation is a destination very few authors support for their work. That’s presumably why Anthropic had to make $1.5bn available to authors (roughly $3000 per harvested book) to settle a class-action lawsuit – and why it tried to keep Project Panama a secret.

Bear in mind that Anthropic had already consumed pirated digital versions of the most commonly-cited works, so that ‘destructive scanning’ of most of the books isn’t actually necessary. Such a sacrifice of culture, the legally sanctioned destruction of millions of already digitised physical books as a means of symbolically (and legally) anointing their transformation into the numbers (known as weightings) that power generative AI responses, is simply wanton destruction. It is the action ‘of an algorithmically determined capitalist system that is sliding ever further into madness’.

However, as any researcher can tell you, there are also vast swathes of literature, journalism, video, film and audio which are unlikely ever to be digitised. The true darkness of Project Panama (and doubtless, its many imitators) may be the wanton annihilation of print runs of books that we will never see again by businesses who won’t bother to retain the images once their contents have been chunked up into tokens and fed into model training. We are burning the Library of Alexandria.

But who will notice, or care? The priority for society is digital, not physical experiences. If a walk through a city centre in the UK is anything to go by, we are through the looking glass. Glued to our phones, we inhabit a world of AI mediation and greater and greater abstraction. What defines us less and less is our embodiment in this place of smell, touch, taste, sight and sound, but the pixels we take up on one another’s screens. If you’re reading this, then we are no exception. Our planet is most certainly physical, but our worlds are becoming more and more digital. We are addictively wired into the pleasures of scrolling, of AI coding, of the vertiginous delight in digital experiences that feel fulsome, even as they are empty: ‘the human animal as a conscious being is now inextricably trapped in the clutches of the machine at a neural, hormonal level’.

Central to this digitalisation is the flux of enormous amounts of information between networks of servers within data centres, a system that is naturally centralised. A case in point is how an enormous portion of the web now runs on AWS, or Amazon Web Services. The problematic nature of centralised information exchange is clear to us and is demonstrated by the COVID event of 2020. Points of view on the situation were designated as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Adherence to a viewpoint was either incentivised by algorithmic boosting or punishable by de-banking and de-platforming of those who dared question the narrative. We see a repetition of this in the swift punishment of those who dare to say they support organisations like Palestine Action. The algorithm knows all, sees all and is all.

We cannot unmake the digital, including the developments in AI. But a flight from centralisation is an appropriate act of resistance. Peer-to-peer networks, localised data storage and the use of open-source systems must form part of any liberation. Books fit such characteristics, being exchangeable between peers, fully self-contained and using that which is innate to us: language.

It is therefore unsurprising that those who wish to centralise, monopolise and control are on a mission to take the book from an embodied form into simple, abstracted, controllable bits. Anthropic’s industrial scale desecration of books in what is both a symbolic and real leap into abstraction. Words feed into word embeddings. Concepts become training weights and can be promoted or hidden from view depending on how our algorithmic zeitgeist changes. The memory hole is being dug. There is no business case for the preservation of that which is rare and unique.

Once these books are replaced with bits, they’re gone, and Amazon’s deletion of editions of Orwell’s Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four from Kindle devices, demonstrates that once that happens, we lose control over our information.

At Real Left, we unreservedly condemn the act of shredding books, and the trajectory it represents. We take this moment to encourage our readers and supporters to be in the physical, localise their information storage, and share that information in as physically embodied a form as they can.

“It’s a very clever kind of story-telling gadget. It doesn’t need batteries, contains almost a megabyte of data, generates no system noise, and is small enough to carry almost anywhere. You can access it instantly, at any point, and you can back up or skip ahead, in moments. The data-transfer rate is about 250 baud – slow by computer standards, but at least twice as fast as a talking tape. The storage medium is permanent and unaffected by heat, cold, or magnetic fields. It should last at least half a century, perhaps longer. No extra equipment is required, to use the gadget; it’s fully self-contained. The only snag is that you have to be a skilled operator to use it, and Jane doesn’t have that skill. Alone in her aluminium room, she sits and stares dumbly at the pages of what her grandmother used to call... a book.”

—Platt and Langford, Micromania (1984)

Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses substack.

Part I of this two-part essay covered the background to the Chinese Social Credit System (SCS) with emphasis on Chinese government policy statements and documents. I also looked at a compelling Stanford University study evidencing an SCS with a scoring system.

In Part II, I’ll take a look at: evidence of SCS activity relating to policing online ‘disinformation’; a scholarly study of China’s Corporate Social Credit System, and; how the suppression of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs accelerated the Chinese surveillance state. Before concluding, I’ll weigh up extreme claims and counter claims as part of a difficult process to try to understand what is true about the SCS.

Evidence of SCS activity relating to policing online ‘disinformation’

Josh Chin and Liza Lin claim in their book “Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control” that the Chinese Cyberspace Administration started a social credit system blacklist for people who posted information online that violated “social morality, business ethics, honesty, and integrity”^[i]. However, they did not cite their source, so I went in search of some.

Matthew Walsh, a journalist reporting for Caixin Global (and now an editor at Agence France-Press Hong Kong), confirmed this draft regulation in a post on 29 July 2019 saying “the Cyberspace Administration of China proposes restricting the internet access of users and providers of online information services that ‘fabricate, publish, or spread information that violates public morality, business ethics, or good faith’ ”.

The website Asiallians also claimed that the Cyberspace Administration of China issued a draft regulation “on 22th July 2019, which aims to blacklist individuals and legal entities for their serious online dishonesty (e.g. fabricating and spreading information online in violation of social morality or business ethics, etc.)”

China Law Translate^[ii] offers a translation of the regulation titled “Provisions on the Governance of the Online Information Content Ecosystem” The actual wording of the regulation is more horrifying than the sources I have quoted above. Article 5 of the regulation sets out seven points governing the content that “online information content producers are encouraged to produce, reproduce, and publish”. The first type of content which is encouraged is:

“Content publicizing Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era; and complete, correct, and vivid exposition of the path, theory, system, and culture of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.”

Article 6 deals specifically with banned content, and begins: “Online information content producers must not produce, reproduce, or publish illegal information that contains the following content:…”. There are eleven prohibitions. Here are some:

“(3) Content harming the nation’s honor and interests;

(4) Content distorting, vilifying, defiling, or denying the deeds and spirit of heroes and martyrs…

(8) Dissemination of rumors, disrupting economic or social order;…”

Article 7 instructs online content producers to “employ measures to prevent and resist the production, reproduction, or publication” of content such as: “Sensationalizing gossip, scandals, misdeeds”, and even “Content that has sexual innuendo, is sexually suggestive, or is readily associated with sex”.

This regulation came into effect on 1 March 2020.

Corporate Social Credit Systems (CSCS)

A June 2023 study by researchers at Stanford Law School and City University of Hong Kong is titled “China’s Corporate Social Credit System: The Dawn of Surveillance State Capitalism?”^[iii]. Putting aside the fact that surveillance capitalism has been dawning in both China and the West well before 2023, the authors claim to provide “the first empirical analysis of CSCS scores in Zhejiang province, as the Zhejiang provincial government is to date the only local government to publish the scores of locally registered firms.”

The authors found that:

“while the CSCS is ostensibly a means of measuring legal compliance, politically connected firms receive higher scores. This result is driven by a “social responsibility” category in the scoring system that valorizes awards from the government and contributions to causes sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party.” [emphasis added]

The scoring system results in redlisting, which confers a variety of benefits, and blacklisting, which “triggers market barriers such as restrictions on obtaining government approvals, greater frequency of inspections, and prohibitions on obtaining credit or issuing stock.” The legal representatives of the entity, as well as the individuals responsible for the infractions, are also subject to blacklisting.

Apologists for the Chinese SCS, and its companion CSCS, may argue that it is intended to fill enforcement gaps in the Chinese legal system and address shortcomings in regulatory capacity. While the studies show that this represents most of the SCS activity, they also provide evidence that it has gone beyond that. Even where the SCS addresses enforcement gaps in the existing legal system, the punishment meted out under it can be disproportionate and arbitrary. But that is also its intention since it fulfils the stated policy of the Joint Punishment system outlined in the CCP’s Planning Outline document: “if trust is broken in one place, restrictions are imposed everywhere”. (Refer Part I.)

The authors of the book Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control cite the example of a local travel agent who was in dispute with his landlord over subletting^[iv]. The agent sublet his space to a noodle-maker who defaulted on payments. The agent settled all outstanding amounts, but the matter of evicting the noodle-maker remained unresolved. Rather than ask the courts to settle that aspect of the dispute, the landlord simply applied to have the agent put on a blacklist, claiming that it was the agent’s responsibility to evict the noodle-maker, and not the landlord’s. The agent, who runs a tour business, absurdly found himself banned from buying high-speed train tickets and plane tickets, and wasn’t allowed to accompany one of his tour groups on a boat cruise.

A statistical analysis of entity scores across the Zhejiang CSCS revealed that the variability in scores across all categories was greatest in the Social Responsibility category, which operates differently from the other categories. In all the other categories, points are deducted for bad behaviour from a starting base score. However, in the Social Responsibility category, the base score is zero, and points are added for good behaviour. Points must thus be proactively earned in this category.

The mean scores for a range of first-level indicators on all other categories were above 96%, whereas the corresponding mean score for Social Responsibility was 38.25%. The high scores and absence of variability in the distribution across all other categories suggests that it is relatively easy to avoid censure in those categories. However, earning Social Responsibility points entails engaging in Party-sanctioned activities and making donations to organisations recognised by the Party. Because of the low mean score in this area, this activity represents an area which researchers called “the largest future payoff to effort”. In other words, those organisations that struggle to meet the acceptable bar through avoidance of bad behaviour are incentivised to make up for it through demonstrated fealty to the CCP.

The CSCS thus introduces Party loyalty as an incentive in market regulation.

The study authors also examined whether political connections could play a role in CSCS scores. Measuring political connections was assessed on “whether any director or chief executive officer (CEO) of a firm is connected with the government or CCP, such that the individual may be able to exert political influence.”

Data was obtained on the government or Party-related positions held by each director and CEO. A director was coded as politically connected if “he or she has served in certain government or Party positions at or above the division level.” The authors found that: “consistent with findings in other areas of the Chinese economy, political connections matter in the CSCS: Political Connections is significantly associated with higher scores”.

The authors concluded that:

“the CSCS, as a data-driven system of evaluation, rewards and punishments for every company in the country, is not simply a credit rating system or law enforcement mechanism, as it has generally been portrayed. Rather, the CSCS is a policy channelling tool of potentially far-reaching significance. As CCP policy priorities change over time, the CSCS scoring system can be readily adjusted by local governments to incentivize and reward policy compliance and political conformity. Consider, for example, the potential of the “social responsibility” category to shape corporate behaviour going forward.” [emphasis added]

How the suppression of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs accelerated the Chinese surveillance state

Though it covers 16% of China’s landmass, the north-west region of Xinjiang is relatively sparsely populated, accounting for roughly 26 million people out of the total Chinese population of 1.4 billion. Officially known as the Uyghur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang, it is now anything but autonomous.

Historically dominated by the Uyghurs, a Turkic Muslim group, it was conquered in 1759 by the Qing Dynasty and formally integrated as a Province in 1884 when Chinese state administration began. Ethnic tensions between Han Chinese and Uyghurs entered a new phase with the establishment in 1949 of the People’s Republic of China, which “went further than any dynasty in imposing its will on the region.”^[v] Since then, state-sponsored mass Han migration and Uyghur separatist ambitions have continually collided, often violently, culminating in a 21^st century government policy of deploying mass surveillance and internment camps to suppress Uyghur identity. Surging religious and ethnic resistance in Xinjiang posed a threat to the Party’s highly cherished Belt and Road Initiative to build a corridor for Chinese goods through Central Asia to the Middle East and Europe.

Reminiscent of an apartheid-style pass system, beginning in 2014, Uyghurs were forced to carry internal passports to restrict their movement while Han Chinese were able to move about freely.^[vi] After an eruption of violence in 2014, Xi Jinping ordered local officials to “show absolutely no mercy” in dealing with separatists^[vii]. He then ordered a new “People’s War” on terrorism, adding that: “The weapons of the people’s democratic dictatorship must be wielded without any hesitation or wavering”.^[viii] A new counter-terrorism law broadened the definition of terrorist activity to include “thought, speech or behaviour”.^[ix]

A step change in the crackdown took place in August 2016 with the appointment of Chen Quanguo to the top Party post in Xinjiang. Chen had just come from the same post in Tibet, where he had been successful in bringing Tibetans under control. One innovation that Chen had pioneered in Tibet, and which was immediately transferred to Xinjiang, entailed the construction of 7,700 “convenience” police stations in two years as part of a “grid-style management” technique that divides communities into small zones for more efficient monitoring. “Each police station was connected to a network of surveillance cameras and … alarm buttons installed in nearby businesses that owners could push to alert authorities of suspicious behaviour.”^[x]

By 2019, Human Rights Watch (HRW) had reported that one million or more Turkic Muslims (out of a total estimated Uyghur population of 11.5 million) had been detained in indoctrination camps for ‘re-education’ or brainwashing. HRW was comfortable in expressing this knowledge as “generally known”, in part because of the leaked “Xinjiang papers” which laid bare the policies and practices dictated at the highest levels of the Party, and which were corroborated by Xinjiang-focused scholars and international media. The policies and practices relate to “mass detentions, mosque demolitions, coercive birth controls, forced labour, ‘population optimisation’ as euphemism for dispersal of Uyghurs, and ‘Sinicisation of religion’ ”^[xi].

HRW describes the use of digital technology in its surveillance effort in Xinjiang^[xii]:

“Beijing then uses the latest technology to collect and analyze information gathered about Muslims there. Some Xinjiang checkpoints are equipped with special machines called “data doors” that—unbeknown to the people passing through them—vacuum up identifying information from their mobile phones and other electronic devices. Machine-readable QR codes are engraved on knives and posted on people’s front doors (and officials are equipped with mobile apps to scan them), allowing the authorities to quickly link individuals to their homes and possessions. To track, monitor, and profile Turkic Muslims, agents also rely on artificial intelligence, including facial and number-plate recognition, which have been connected with surveillance cameras that blanket both the region and other parts of the country. In addition, the authorities collect biometric data—including voice samples, iris scans, and DNA—and store them in searchable databases.”

This is in addition to dispatching “one million government employees … to stay as ‘guests’ in the homes of Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang, with instructions to report any sign of religiosity or unusual thinking.”

HRW also reported in 2019 that:

“The use of mass surveillance is not limited to Xinjiang. The Chinese police are researching and putting similar mass surveillance systems in operation throughout the country. For example, Human Rights Watch has documented the use of a big-data policing platform called Police Cloud, which collects and integrates people’s personal data—from their supermarket memberships to their health records.”

The SCS system requires the hoovering up of massive amounts of data on individuals in order to generate inputs. The beast is fed by data and the operating system that processes that data is AI. Both China and the West are tearing down the walls on data privacy to feed their respective surveillance beasts, but the CCP has far fewer, if any, legal hurdles in its way.

Having examined the sophisticated surveillance system powering the CCP’s crackdown in Xinjiang, HRW concluded that the “Chinese government is perfecting a system of social control that is both all-encompassing and highly individualized, using a mix of mechanisms to impose varying levels of supervision and constraint on people depending on their perceived threat to the state.”

The most up-to-date position on the SCS – dealing with claims and counter claims

The hardest part of this investigation lies in discerning how much is true, and how much is not.

At the extreme end of the SCS denial spectrum is this post by China Law Translate. According to that post “the mythos of the citizen scoring panopticon has been largely dispelled and lingers mainly as a social media trope.” The use of the word “mythos”, as opposed to just “myth”, is presumably intended to signify that a Chinese citizens’ SCS is in the league of Greek legends such as Orpheus and Eurydice. Of course Orpheus didn’t actually venture into the Underworld to rescue Eurydice who had died from a snakebite. That’s mythos! And of course the Stanford study referenced in Part I is just as phantasmagorical, right?

Well, I think it’s highly unlikely that the Stanford study is made-up mythos. China Law Translate then goes on to argue that “businesses, not individuals, have always been the main focus of social credit.” That’s probably true, but using that to dismiss the fact that the remit was widened is disingenuous. The question is: to what extent was the remit widened?

Something closer to the truth can be gleaned from this update posted by MS Advisory, which is a consultancy services firm geared to “provide a full range of financial services to foreign enterprises active in China and Hong Kong.” A big part of their job involves helping clients to understand the Chinese regulatory framework. The post is titled “China’s Social Credit System in 2026: Dispelling Common Myths” and, despite promising to dispel myths (or mythos if you’re acutely peeved by it all), I was comforted by its confirmation of pretty much everything I have explained thus far by reference to scholarly studies. In its key takeaways block, there are two points that help to give a balanced perspective:

• “While there is currently no unified score for individuals, there are currently various social credit measures in place that vary by location and industry.”

• “In 2026, policy work continues on the social credit system, with implementation more focused on the corporate social credit score than the personal score.”

But the opening paragraph of its update does not contradict anything I found. Here it is:

“China’s Social Credit System represents a significant undertaking by the Chinese government to assess the trustworthiness and compliance of its citizens and businesses. Designed to govern social behavior through a comprehensive reward and punishment scheme, the system amalgamates various pieces of a person’s financial, social, and legal information into a single numerical score. This score is then used to impose real-world consequences, ranging from priority services and opportunities for those with high scores to travel restrictions and slower internet services for those with lower scores.” [emphasis added]

Providing more balanced perspective, the post states:

“While the Social Credit System is expected to be fully operational nationwide eventually, some misconceptions persist about its scope and implementation. It is not a monolithic, country-wide system but rather a patchwork of regional pilot projects with varying degrees of enforcement (See Source).”

Its source link goes back to a translation of the CCP’s “Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014-2020)”, published on a Stanford University site and authored by Rogier Creemers whose study I discussed in Part I.

Not monolithic, not country-wide, but a patchwork of regional pilot projects. I think that’s probably closer to the truth. It may well be true to say that most people in China have not had direct experience with an SCS in a personal capacity. Most Chinese citizens might therefore, in good faith, deny its existence. That would not mean that it does not exist in some shape or form, and that it is not an ongoing work in progress. Nor does the fact that it is a work in progress mean that it’s destined to become monolithic. We simply can’t know at this point.

And given that China monitors its citizens both at home and abroad, and that its Cybersecurity laws prohibit the dissemination of “rumors, disrupting economic or social order”, and of online content that “harm[s] the nation’s honor and interests”, Chinese citizens who might have had an experience with an SCS are not going to be volunteering in any large numbers to discuss it.

Conclusion

In concluding, let me first deal with the inevitable accusation of bias, both on my part, and potentially on the part of the study authors. For my part, I am certainly biased, and here’s why I am comfortable with my bias. I abhor any system that purports to impose morality and virtue through reward and punishment. I don’t even have to think about whether my moral value system might align with that of an imposing authority. It can’t. Morality is a heart and spiritual condition that cannot be legislated. We can only legislate against the concrete consequences of immorality, such as physical assaults, theft, breach of contract, and so on. Any attempt to legislate or impose morality is thuggish, and ultimately has nothing to do with a sincere attempt to improve morality. It is about power and control.

So, I am at loggerheads with any authority using coercion to impose its values, good or bad. For a moral compass to be truly authentic, it cannot be externally imposed. Gamification perverts whatever innate morality may have existed, and simply reinforces the absence of an internal moral compass. The measure of a society’s morality is how truly free its members are: to what extent are Natural Law dictates in that society obeyed without the need for external enforcement?

What of the potential bias of the study authors I selected? Do they have an axe to grind? Possibly. You can certainly find studies that laud the Chinese SCS for its potential to deliver some alleged social good. Those studies are biased because they assume that the loss of some degree of individual rights such as privacy is an acceptable trade-off to obtain a proclaimed greater societal good.

However, in the final analysis, my bias, or anyone else’s, is irrelevant because the question that remains for readers is whether these studies (and my presentation of them) provide compelling evidence of the existence of an SCS in China that has the potential to morph into an Orwellian nightmare. And a related question is whether I have omitted facts which, if admitted, would change the conclusion I am about to draw.

The second issue that must be dealt with is the reliability of the studies. At the extreme end of the unreliability scale lies the possibility that the studies were commissioned for propaganda purposes, and that the academics involved produced data and findings out of thin air. This is not impossible, but given the quality of the evidence presented by the academics I referenced, I find it implausible. And again, if the studies and findings are plausible, the question that remains is a simple one: have they proved that China is developing a social control system that has serious implications for individual liberty and basic human rights such as privacy and free speech?

I have concluded that the denial of an emerging Social Credit System in China – one that does seriously threaten basic human rights – flies in the face of both policy statements by the CCP as well as independent researchers who have conducted in-depth studies into various SCS projects in China. Proof that China-maxxers are on the back foot in this whole debate lies in their acknowledgement of the SCS’s existence, hastily followed by downplaying the ethical significance of the state’s attempts to socially engineer the individual’s behaviour to align with political imperatives. If you claim to be in favour of individual sovereignty, the mere existence of an SCS is problematic. The starting point has to be an attitude of cynicism, not acceptance.

Contrary to exaggerated reports in some Western media, researchers acknowledge that it is not yet a single unified system. It is still a work-in-progress, with fragmented initiatives managed by both local government and the commercial sector^[xiii]. It’s far more complex than anti-‘Communist’ propagandists would like it to be, but China-maxxers capitalise on this messiness by emphasising the financial credit aspects of the SCS, while ignoring the encroachment into social engineering proven by actual pilot schemes that scored and punished behaviour outside the criminal legal code. They also skirt around the intent and wording of both CCP policy statements and legislation. To repeat: if you value freedom, it’s your responsibility to shine a light on those threats, not to pretend they don’t exist.

But the most important point I want to make is that, in the final analysis, the whole debate about China’s Social Credit System and whether it is coming to the West is a smokescreen for what is really going on in both China and the West. China does have an SCS, but it’s not yet the total Beast System that some exaggerated accounts make it out to be. And the West might end up adopting something similar, or it might not. The point is that an SCS in the formal sense is not needed for the digital control matrix to succeed. And both East and West are building a Digital Control Matrix (DCM).

With the way the DCM is being built in both the West and in China, total control of each individual is being achieved through the collection of oceans of data on each individual, and by breaking down information silos that prevent information sharing. Centralising personal information storage, or making huge amounts of it accessible to a single authority on a single platform is in effect Digital ID. And linking that Digital ID to programmable digital money will provide an effective SCS without having to call it a “Social Credit System”. The entire world is hurtling in this direction at breakneck speed.

China has virtually no legal restrictions when it comes to collecting its citizens’ data and centralising its storage. The West’s technocratic class has proved remarkably adept at gaming legislation, crafting new laws, or simply ignoring existing ones, to achieve the same goal. Here’s a quick rundown of examples:

• Canada’s Bill C-8 on cyber security opens the door to warrantless access to individual subscriber data, location, browsing history, metadata, and more. A minister of state is able to secretly order the termination of an individual’s internet or phone with no court review. It provides for secret gag orders preventing companies from disclosing why service was cut. And it gives broad powers that could force weakening of encryption.

• Technocracy cannot work without Digital ID. Sam Altman’s company, Tools for Humanity, is manufacturing a biometric iris scanning machine which purports to issue a “proof of personhood.” Playing to the DEI gallery, it states its goal is a “globally-inclusive identity and financial network”. The term “globally-inclusive” is in fact a statement of its intended scope – no human is to be left out of the Digital ID net.

• Mark Andreessen, a Big Tech financier, has bankrolled a US super PAC whose purpose is to elect politicians who will pre-empt and dismantle state-level AI regulation. (Super PACs are U.S. political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.)

• Palantir, the privately owned arm of the CIA’s state surveillance apparatus, is contracting to work with U.S. government agencies to eliminate “information silos”, thus enabling expanded data sharing across government. Removing data firewalls by essentially combining data points into one place effectively creates a Digital ID. Palantir is doing the same work in Britain’s NHS.

The Digital ID sword hovering over the heads of all nations is the UN’s SDG16.9 policy agenda to “provide legal identity for all.” This is thinly veiled code for Digital ID for all humanity, and that’s been confirmed by the ID2020 alliance, which was tasked by the UN to implement SDG16.9. The ID2020 alliance reframed the goal more transparently as “enabling access to digital identity for every person on the planet.” [emphasis added]

As Iain Davis reminds us:

“Governments did not set the policy. The government’s only job is to convert the oligarch’s agenda into binding regulations and law.”

So, while a core aim of this article has been to demonstrate that China does have a Social Credit System that is not benign, the more important point is this: the objectives of that SCS and, crucially, the digital technology to achieve it, are part of a global initiative instigated by the global Public-Private Partnership controlled by the global plutocratic ruling class. The aim is to bind humanity in ever-tighter chains. China is deeply embedded in that architecture, just like every major Western power.

East and West are firmly committed to the use of data technologies to achieve historically unprecedented levels of social control. These technologies, if not resisted, will ultimately have the same depressing effect on humanity everywhere. Narratives to lubricate their rollout will vary according to cultural sensitivities, but it’s the same endgame everywhere. China’s cultural attitudes may support the state’s use of “Social Credit” to soften the blow. In the West, surveillance grid narratives run the gamut of convenience, efficiency, productivity, preventing harm to children and any other vulnerable group that springs to mind, fighting crime, and immigration control.

Population control, whether in China or the West, is a core function of government, and managing the vested interests of their plutocratic overlords is what senior state apparatchiks are paid to do. The war for technocracy is a global ruling class war on humanity. Picking one side in the multipolar fraud that is being constructed is as daft as voting in national politics for the red/blue/any-other-colour team in the hope that party politics will vanquish the corruption of party politics. China-maxxers are doing humanity a grave disservice when they excuse or propagandise China’s efforts to build a comprehensive surveillance grid, of which the SCS is an integral part.

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!

Buy Me A Coffee

^[i] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 225.

^[ii] https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/provisions-on-the-governance-of-the-online-information-content-ecosystem/

^[iii] Lin LY-H, Milhaupt CJ (2023). China’s Corporate Social Credit System: The Dawn of Surveillance State Capitalism? The China Quarterly 256, 835–853. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030574102300067X

^[iv] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 223/5.

^[v] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 19.

^[vi] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 20.

^[vii] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 44.

^[viii] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 45.

^[ix] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 46.

^[x] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 49.

^[xi] Dr David Tobin, The “Xinjiang Papers”: How Xi Jinping commands policy in the People’s Republic of China, https://sheffield.ac.uk/las/research/east-asia/xinjiang-papers-how-xi-jinping-commands-policy-peoples-republic-china

^[xii] https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/08/16/data-leviathan-chinas-burgeoning-surveillance-state

^[xiii] Genia Kostka, Freie Universität Berlin, China’s social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval, 2019, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444819826402

Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses substack.

I’m guessing the reason that the UK Column decided to onboard a China-maxxer^[i] at the beginning of the year is that, like the BBC, they believe in ‘balanced’ reporting. Even I have to admit that after a while it gets a bit tiresome being unbalanced and Anti-Everything, like me. (See my long Anti-Everything list at the end of the last piece I did.) Having a site that is anti some things and pro other things provides a big tent where there’s something for everyone, but I just don’t seem to be grown-up enough to do it.

The UK Column’s resident China-maxxer has recently declared that Social Credit Scores are a Western invention. The emphasis of the denial seems to be on scores and not the Social Credit System itself. Is there a Chinese Social Credit System (SCS) with scores? Is there a Chinese Social Credit System sans scores? Is the whole thing a fiction? If so, that poses a slight problem for those in the not-so-China-maxxing camp because the not-so-China-maxxers do tend to bang on about the Chinese SCS, avec scores and all.

So what’s the score with the alleged Chinese SCS? Now that the dust appears to have settled (for now) on the UK Column’s China-maxxing debacle, one very simple question keeps bubbling to the surface of my mind: what reliable evidence is there for the existence of an SCS in China, with or without scoring?

This question really ought not to rank alongside the great metaphysical mysteries such as: is there a God? What is the source of consciousness? Who really penned the works of ‘William Shakespeare’? So I did some research into the Great SCS Question with the aim of reclassifying it from an ontological mystery to a solved bureaucratic riddle. I’m not certain that I’ve succeeded, but I thought it would be churlish of me not to share my ramblings on the subject so that you can judge for yourself.

The research I will reference comprises mainly scholarly studies peppered with evidence from other sources, including Human Rights Watch, and Wall Street Journal Normies Josh Chin and Liza Lin. I do not assert the findings to be The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth simply because they are from “scholarly studies”. We all know how disappointing scholarly studies can be. I do believe that the studies provide some insights, but they don’t tell the whole story.

Before I begin, I want readers to understand that this assignment was not easy. While I was able to find some studies that were coherent, I had to wade through a fair bit of this kind of quicksand to get there:

“Authority operates through the visible apparatus of the state alongside the subtle orchestration of conduct, through which governmental rationalities become sedimented across the quotidian routines of social existence.”

No, I did not make that up – that was a real sentence in a real study.

I also learnt that if an academic paper on this subject does not have the word “normative” in it, then it stands a fairly good chance of being comprehensible. I have concluded that this is one word of perhaps many that an academic uses to say, “I’m an academic, and I know what I’m doing.” To which they could add: “This paper is going to be inscrutable, but if you’re not prepared to grapple with its inscrutability in your quest for knowledge, then you are not ready for these pearls of wisdom.” Which, when you get right down to it, is the academic version of: “When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.”

In short, I am still recovering from academese, so please spare a thought for me as you read this piece. Or rather, please orchestrate your quotidian routines of social existence in a manner that sediments sympathy for the pains endured by me in my exploration of subtle academic rationalities concerning the study of the visible apparatus of the CCP’s alleged authoritarianism.

The structure of this two-part essay is as follows:

Part I covers a discussion of:

• The background to the Chinese Social Credit System (SCS) with emphasis on Chinese government policy statements and documents. Here, I reference a scholarly study by Rogier Creemers (University of Leiden).

• A compelling Stanford University study evidencing an SCS with a scoring system.

• A China-maxxer’s view of the Stanford study.

In Part II, I’ll discuss:

• Evidence of SCS activity relating to policing online ‘disinformation’.

• A scholarly study evidencing the existence of Corporate Social Credit Systems (CSCS) with a scoring system.

• How the suppression of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs accelerated the Chinese surveillance state.

• Some recent updates of the SCS position, dealing with claims and counter claims of alleged myths in the West about the system.

• My concluding thoughts.

Background to the Chinese Social Credit System (shehui xinyong tixi) with reference to Chinese government policy and relevant Party documents

The idea of a Chinese SCS was hatched in the 1990s, ostensibly as an attempt by the CCP leadership to develop personal banking and credit rating systems to mitigate systemic financial risk in the economy. By all accounts, the scope of the project was expanded to address a perceived societal-wide moral collapse in the post-Mao era in the wake of turbulent economic and social changes attributed to China’s opening up to Western investment in 1978. Trustworthiness and restoring morality became memes that gained currency in the SCS policy arena.

While a financially oriented credit risk management system was certainly a priority for Party leaders, it is unlikely, in my view, that a puritanical obsession with improving morality sought expression in the design of a high-tech bureaucratic behavioural management system. It is more likely that the expansion of the SCS’s scope was driven by the political leadership’s anxiety over the need to manage the inherent unpredictability of a complex society undergoing rapid social and economic change. The prospect of an increasingly rapid exchange of ideas with the outside world, made possible by the emerging internet, must have only heightened the leadership’s anxiety over threats to power.

Thus, by October 2011, and with confidence in the leadership at low levels among the emerging middle class, the official readout of a Party senior leadership meeting framed a new goal of the SCS as “the establishment and perfection of a credit system covering the entirety of society.”^[ii] [emphasis added] Lin Junyue, an American-educated expert in credit systems at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, led the SCS project in its early days. Lin reiterated the preoccupation with morality, saying:

“China doesn’t have churches to enforce morality. You can’t rely just on education. If all you do is lecture people, saying ‘This is how you should do it’, or ‘This way is immoral’, you’re not going to get good results.”^[iii]

He added that the SCS mechanism of real-world rewards and punishments “makes the moral construction process a little more efficient.” In 2016, he told the authors of Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control^[iv]:

“With the Social Credit System it’s there every day at every moment, it’s in every corner of every business and household, recording data. If you do well, it rewards you. And if you’re doing something bad, maybe not to the point of breaking the law, you get a warning about your problems. … It’s a great service.” [emphasis added]

So, we see definite clues from one of the system’s chief designers about its true purpose. We will uncover more of these clues, but for now I will say that the potential murkiness of the definition of “social credit” affords some degree of cover for SCS apologists attempting to deny accusations of a data-driven behaviour control system. This is why it is important to understand the designers’ and policymakers’ view of the term, as described above, and more of which shortly.

I would also add that the potential murkiness of the concept of social credit works in favour of Chinese state planners since, if their intention is to have at their disposal a highly flexible digital tool for managing social behaviour, its appealing moral and civic overtones disguise cruder political control objectives.

I will now dissect a 2018 report by Rogier Creemers (University of Leiden) titled “China’s Social Credit System: An Evolving Practice of Control”. In his paper, Creemers explains the thinking and design processes behind the SCS with reference to Chinese language source material, combined with field visits to China.

Let’s begin where we left off by getting a better understanding of the Chinese perspective of Social Credit. Creemers informs us that^[v]:

“the Mandarin term “credit” (xinyong) carries a wider meaning than its English-language counterpart. It not only includes notions of financial ability to service debt, but is cognate with terms for sincerity, honesty, and integrity.”

In this regard, Creemers cites the Chinese State Council’s “Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014-2020)” as “the most authoritative blueprint for subsequent SCS efforts”, and quotes an objective directly from the document as follows:

“its inherent requirements are establishing the idea of a sincerity culture, and promoting honesty and traditional virtues, it uses encouragement for trustworthiness and constraints against untrustworthiness as incentive mechanisms, and its objective is raising the sincerity consciousness and credit levels of the entire society.”

Creemer’s interpretation, with which I concur in light of the Stanford Study I will be discussing in the next section, is that “the SCS is framed as a set of mechanisms providing rewards or punishments as feedback to actors, based not just on the lawfulness, but also the morality of their actions, covering economic, social and political conduct.”^[vi] [emphasis added]

Creemers’ interpretation is supported by Clause 1 of The Social Credit System Construction Law of the People’s Republic of China, which is still in the draft stage^[vii]:

“The state establishes and perfects a system of incentives for trustworthiness and punishments for dishonesty, promoting and praising honesty and trustworthiness, and legally punishing and restraining dishonest behaviour.”

Further evidence of the Chinese state’s intent to codify and enforce moral and civic virtue can be found in a statement made by Xi Jinping in 2020^[viii]:

“We should integrate the core socialist values into the construction of the rule of law, improve the long-term mechanism for building integrity, increase the punishment of behaviours such as lack of public morality and lack of integrity, and strive to form a good social atmosphere and social order.”

As already noted, the SCS grew out of efforts from the 1990s onwards to instil financial trust in the marketplace as far-reaching economic reforms were taking shape. Creemers alludes to mission creep as the leadership began to see its attractiveness in other areas of governance:

“the linkage between [financial] credit and social management started being explored in local initiatives… Perhaps the best-reported example, however, is the county of Suining, in Jiangsu province. In 2010, Suining introduced a “mass credit” (dazhong xinyong) programme, which measured and scored individual conduct. Citizens were given 1000 credit points to start with. Points could be deducted for infringement of specific legal, administrative and moral norms… On the basis of the resulting scores, citizens were categorized from A to D. While A-class citizens would be granted preferential access to employment opportunities, lower-ranked citizens were to face increasing levels of scrutiny when undergoing particular examination requirements… The Suining government created a public record of the points their [sic] deducted, listing culprits’ names and actions.” [emphasis added]

The Suining trial was in fact aborted owing to popular protest. It is therefore important to note Creemers’ observation regarding the limitations faced by the CCP in its roll-out of an SCS: it faces no meaningful legal constraints and, in that sense, it can do anything. But it cannot do everything, since rejection and popular protest by Chinese citizens pose real constraints.

According to Creemers, the result of this mission creep is that “the fundamental objective of the SCS is instituting cybernetic mechanisms of behavioural control, where individuals and organizations are monitored in order to automatically confront them with the consequences of their actions.” Here we see the application of the panopticon principle of surveillance, which posits that the individual cannot be certain that they are being watched all the time, but assumes a degree of surveillance that makes self-policing almost inevitable. However, the ambition of the Chinese SCS seems to take this a step further – the state’s ability to mine oceans of personal data for transgressions and to share transgressions publicly, in real time, introduces the certainty that everyone is being watched all the time.

Creemers sets the scene with his interpretation of how the Chinese legal system has evolved within the overall state governance structure. Much of the 20^th century for China was characterised by a deficit of stable domestic governance across the entire Chinese territory, and “the first three decades of Communist Party rule were characterised by legal nihilism and continued turmoil.” It was only after the death of Mao in 1976 when a rebuilding of the Chinese legal system began in earnest. In that process, the flexibility of the vanguard Party has been prioritised. Creemers notes that “the 2014 4th Plenum clearly affirmed Party leadership over the legal system, while the doctrine of the “Three Supremes” (sange zhishang) requires the judiciary to first and foremost observe the supremacy of the Party’s cause.”

This evolution has had two primary effects on the interaction between Chinese law and the state. Firstly, the state views one of its duties as fostering social morality, and the legal system as a means to that end. Secondly, and flowing from the first, the boundary between state and society is blurred as the state fulfils its aim of a holistic and scientific approach to social engineering.

With regards to the preoccupation with morality, my perspective is that the Chinese state is no different to any other state in that its primary purpose is to manage the interests of a ruling class, which includes high-ranking state apparatchiks. An overarching interest of any national ruling class is behavioural control of the population and, to the extent that morality is an effective control narrative in China, this appears to be rooted in historical cultural norms. Running alongside that is the perceived deficit of trust in society brought about by the Chinese state’s rapid drive towards modernisation since 1978 under a state capitalist framework.

Leveraging morality for social control purposes is hardly a new phenomenon, either for the Chinese state or the Western political system. For centuries in China “the only path to officialdom lay through an examination system based on a canon of Confucian texts, which posited virtue as the central element of governing the person, the family, the region and the empire”^[ix], while the church and state in the West were fused for centuries before an uncoupling began in the 18^th century.

In the post-war era, the West has turned to media control and propaganda as an effective method of population control. Western populations are no longer able to discern truth from fiction, and are therefore putty in the hands of the ruling class. However, as the avalanche of lies and propaganda has perhaps begun to lose some of its power over the last 20 years, the West’s political ruling class has started to mimic the Chinese reliance on psychological manipulation using moral messaging to manipulate public sentiment. This was used to great effect during the Covid psychological operation, while invoking ‘harm’ to adults and children has lubricated the passage of legislation promoting censorship and digital ID controls across the West.

Whereas Chinese cultural attitudes to social cohesion permit a blatantly paternalistic deployment of “Social Credit” narratives as a means of psychological manipulation, the West has increasingly relied on the more insidious social control techniques of gamification^[x] and nudging, which, as Creemers points out, are supposed to be unnoticeable – “individuals are steered through the exploitation of inherent biases and unconscious decision-making strategies”^[xi]. The Chinese SCS certainly has a significant element of gamification to it, but a comparison of the different social control techniques in China and the West merely highlights how planners must attend to cultural specificity to ensure their success.

Returning to the Chinese SCS, the Joint Punishment System, outlined in the CCP’s Planning Outline document is noteworthy. Creemers tells us that:

“The principle behind punishments was disproportional sanction, as summarized in the phrase ‘if trust is broken in one place, restrictions are imposed everywhere’. The programme is based on a blacklist system: identified miscreants are entered on a published list, which means they are blocked from specific activities. The first area where this mechanism was implemented, and still the most wide-ranging one, is the punishment system for ‘untrustworthy persons subject to enforcement’ (shixin bei zhixing ren), which addresses non-performance of legally binding judgments. Subsequently, individual departments started developing their own, more focused blacklist systems for their own policy areas... Following the initial experience with punishment for failure to perform court judgments, the blacklist scheme was expanded to include the broader administrative apparatus. Individual ministries started publishing separate systems for blacklisting within their own jurisdictions…” [emphasis added]

Creemers goes on to list offences typically included for blacklisting, most of which appear to be the sort of behaviour that might warrant classification as a crime. However, at the core of the system is its operation outside of a more rigorous legal system subject to due process. It is highly flexible and therefore subject to almost instant policy changes. Thus, Creemers tells us that “Shenzhen installed facial recognition cameras and listed repeatedly caught jaywalkers”, and “news media and institutions such as Human Rights Watch identified cases where individuals who had been politically active had been listed without proper notification, and without apparent recourse to appeals procedures.” [emphasis added]

Social Credit Systems developed by private tech businesses are also part of the SCS landscape. “Sesame Credit combines elements of a traditional credit scoring system with components of a loyalty scheme.” In addition to its more traditional credit scoring data categories, there is a scoring category for “social relationships, referring [to] the extent to which one interacts with good friends and behaves in a friendly manner on the platform.” There is a lack of transparency about how specific actions alter one’s score, and speculation about Sesame’s alleged invasiveness and propensity for behavioural control was fuelled when a Technology director “suggested in a press interview that persons buying nappies would be seen as more trustworthy [than] someone playing video games for ten hours per day.”

It is important to put all of this into perspective by noting Creemers’ conclusions. As of 2018, the SCS was not a single integrated entity and could not be portrayed as the Orwellian dystopia conjured by some sections of the Western media. Despite the clear policy objective to implement technological systems to serve the dual role of a financial and wider monitoring system of ‘trustworthiness’, its primary role at the date of Creemers’ report was in the arena of combatting fraud and generally enhancing confidence in commerce. However, Creemers has evidenced how this goal has not remained bounded, and the reality is that:

“Party ideology still fundamentally believes in social engineering on the basis of system science, on the malleability and transformability of the individual, and a rather maximalist approach to social intervention that sees this reading of the SCS as an attractive vision. Not only the SCS plan, but also national big data and artificial intelligence strategies explicitly intend the expanded use of automated, data-based systems for social control.”

While serving to confirm the existence of an SCS with a stated objective of extra-legal social management, Creemers’ report provides a balanced perspective of the scope of China’s SCS and its evolution.

Stanford University – Assessing China’s National Model Social Credit System. Updated 15 July 2025. (Hereafter referred to as the Stanford study)^[xii]. (PDF version.)^[xiii]

This study begins with an overview of the structure of China’s social credit system (SCS):

“According to official documents, China’s social credit systems are designed to augment social governance by promoting order, encouraging “civilized” behavior, and expanding government oversight where legal tools fall short. Rather than a single unified system, China’s social credit systems are comprised of multiple experiments run by different agencies. These can be categorized into four types: (1) blacklists for serious legal violations; (2) a government-run financial credit report system; (3) commercial credit systems from tech firms that use algorithms to predict creditworthiness; and (4) city government-run systems that collect data on behavior and combine rewards and punishments.”

The first sentence is important since the authors are characterising China’s SCS using the CCP’s own official documentation. Unless we believe that the study authors have been dishonest or misinterpreted the official documents, the wording of the study clearly describes a social credit system that is more expansive than a mere credit rating system. This accords with the earlier Creemers study covered in the previous section.

The explanation also makes clear that it is not a unified system. The emphasis of the systems also varies from financial behaviour to social behaviour. The Stanford study focuses on the fourth category: “government-run systems that collect data on behavior and combine rewards and punishments.” The study informs us that “out of about 330 cities in China, 19 have such local systems.”

This study homes in on a city in the northeast of China with a population of one million. The city has been anonymised as “Meritown”. Further research into this indicates that the reason for anonymisation by the researchers was to protect the identity of bureaucrats and residents who were interviewed. However, it appears to be possible to identify the actual city by reference to the official documents and data used by the researchers.

The SCS in this city scores people according to 389 rules, 124 of which reward good behaviour, and 265 of which punish bad behaviour. According to the study authors, “66% of offenses…already fall under established laws and regulations. Others expand local government authority into moral and social domains beyond the law.” [emphasis added]

The source data for the analysis is:

“the 2019 Regulation of Meritown Society Members’ Social Credit and Evaluation, which defines the rules and scoring metric of the system. The authors also analyzed 45 additional Meritown policy documents referencing credit (xinyong) and supplemented this with fieldwork conducted between 2019 and 2022, including participatory observation in three communities and over 100 interviews with residents and officials. They use the Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China Law and Regulation database and the China Law and Regulation Database to determine whether a Meritown SCS indicator was already legally sanctioned.” [emphasis added]

The study goes on to note that:

“The system gives every adult in Meritown a social credit score tied to their national ID, starting at 1,000 points (level A). It draws data from agencies like traffic police and banks and relies on village and residential committee staff to report everyday behaviors, such as trash disposal. The system scores people using 389 rules — 124 reward good behavior, 265 punish bad — and classifies them into eight levels (AAA to D). Perks like heating bill discounts go to top scorers (AAA), while those rated D face police monitoring. Scores change over time and can be appealed online. Researchers grouped punishable actions into six types: political, economic, disorderly conduct, moral and ethical, defying authority, and unspecified punishment. The researchers grouped positive behaviors into five areas: donations, volunteer work, governmental work, social honor, and reporting problems. ” [emphasis added]

Also noteworthy:

“the system also allows local authorities to act more flexibly than the law, adapting the scoring system to shifting policy priorities. For instance, the number of volunteer-related rewards increased when the city promoted a civic engagement campaign, and during the COVID pandemic new rules were rapidly added to penalize behaviors like not wearing a mask (–10) and reward participation in disease control efforts (+100).” [emphasis added]

Acting “more flexibly than the law” or acting “beyond the law” is thus demonstrated by the study and reinforced by this observation:

“67% of the political offenses involve petitioning local government — an activity legally allowed but often discouraged by local officials.”

Additional flexibility is evidenced by the fact that points change as policy changes.

Disturbingly:

“Unlike the legal system, which looks at intent and context, very different actions are treated as equal. For example, 300 hours of volunteer work (+50) can cancel out abusing a family member (–50).” [the “+50” and “-50” denotes the points given as reward or deducted as punishment]

The Stanford study concludes that:

“Meritown’s SCS reflects the discretionary judgments and priorities of local officials, often through vaguely defined indicators that allow for strategic ambiguity and administrative flexibility. This ambiguity, while enabling adaptable enforcement, raises concerns about legality, legitimacy, and bias. The system’s scoring method tends to disadvantage already marginalized groups, particularly rural residents. At the same time, government employees experience both privileged opportunities for credit accumulation and heightened internal surveillance, reflecting the dual role of the state in disciplining society and itself.” [emphasis added]

A China-maxxer’s self-incriminating view of the Stanford study

Ashley Dudarenok markets herself as a “globally recognized China digital authority and serial entrepreneur connecting global businesses with China’s dynamic market and its groundbreaking innovations.” It’s not an entirely neutral starting point, but is she a China-maxxer? After looking at a page on her website dedicated to explaining how China’s Social Credit System works, I have concluded that she is a China-maxxer, and here’s why.

Dudarenok seeks to paint the overall SCS as a system solely dedicated to monitoring financial creditworthiness and dealing with debt default, similar to credit scoring in Western economies. Thus she introduces the Chinese SCS as “aim[ing] to improve trust in transactions, enforce existing laws, and reduce fraud across sectors.” She does a very good job of sticking to this line until she runs into problems when describing restrictions imposed on supposed payment defaulters.

She says “they face restrictions on consumption beyond necessities”, and lists some of these restrictions, which relate to air travel, train travel, access to hotels and nightclubs, expensive schools for children, and so on. But surely any normal and proportionate system targeting financial defaulters should aim to address the default itself through recovery of the debt, as well as managing access to further credit to mitigate market risk?

Dudarenok runs into further problems when she acknowledges the existence of the Stanford Study and seeks to downplay its findings. She acknowledges one of the study’s findings that 66% of ‘offences’ that triggered points adjustments were already sanctionable under established legal codes. However, Dudarenok’s interpretation of this is: “the social credit system thus echoes existing enforcement rather than creating new offenses.” [emphasis added] This is a false statement since 34% of the offences were not covered by existing legal sanctions and therefore constitute new ‘offences’ created by the SCS outside of the existing legal framework.

She goes on to state that “severe infractions, such as political petitioning,… can result in immediate downgrading to lower credit levels.” However, the Stanford study notes that petitioning local government is “an activity legally allowed but often discouraged by local officials.” Dudarenok does not address this. She also does not address a study finding that 67% of political offences, a significant majority, involved petitioning local government, which is not an offence under the law.

Dudarenok seems confused since she does acknowledge that “the city’s system also demonstrates the discretionary and uneven nature of local social credit programs.”

Again, we get a sense that all is not well in China-maxxing world when Dudarenok discusses “social credit demonstration cities” where “local governments integrate credit into urban management—for example, awarding points for voluntary service and deducting points for littering or traffic offenses.” We’re back to fluffy phrases like “urban management”, and we’re firmly back in the territory of a reward-punishment system outside the formal criminal code. The China-maxxing narrative falls apart when Dudarenok acknowledges that “many of these experiments have been criticized for being overly punitive or intrusive.” [emphasis added] She goes on to say: “Wenzhou and Rongcheng reformed their programs in response to public backlash, with the central government emphasizing voluntary participation and reward-oriented incentives.”

There really is no denying, even on the part of China-maxxers, that, while we can argue about its scale, there is an SCS operating in China since the discourse evidences a systematic points system that goes beyond the existing criminal legal code. It may still be a work in progress, and there is some recorded resistance owing to its “intrusive”, and somewhat arbitrary, nature. It is also clearly not transparent since Dudarenok acknowledges under a heading “Legal Uncertainty and Due Process Concerns” that “Some individuals learn of restrictions only when attempting to travel or complete transactions.” And again, Dudarenok’s highlighting of “legal scholars advocat[ing] for standard notification templates, accessible appeals, and expedited delisting after compliance” emphasises the absence of due process.

Under a heading “Overlap with Morality and ‘Civilized City’ Campaigns”, we are informed that “specific local pilots blurred the line between legal compliance and moral behavior, assigning points for courtesy or community participation.” Why not simply maintain a transparent and clear criminal code within the existing legal framework?

The bottom line seems to me that if you are a China-maxxer trying to explain that China’s Social Credit System is not really a social credit system, you are already on the back foot since the clue to its true nature lies in the first two words of its name – social credit. Even the Chinese government does not deny that it is attempting to manage social behaviour outside the existing criminal code.

In Part II, I’ll look at some evidence for: SCS activity relating to policing online ‘disinformation’; Corporate Social Credit Systems (CSCS), and; how the suppression of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs accelerated the Chinese surveillance state. I’ll also tackle weighing up extreme claims and counter claims in trying to decipher the truth about the SCS. I’ll then wrap up with concluding remarks.

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the Buy-Me-A-Coffee link below. Thank you!

Buy Me A Coffee

^[i] Iain Davis’s definition of China-maxxing is helpful: “the clear shift in Western media and social media narratives away from blanket vilification of China and its government toward uncritical promotion of Chinese government initiatives.”

^[ii] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 220.

^[iii] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 220.

^[iv] Josh Chin and Liza Lin, Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, 2022, St Martin’s Press, USA, Pg. 222.

^[v] Creemers, Rogier, China’s Social Credit System: An Evolving Practice of Control, May 9, 2018. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3175792 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3175792

^[vi] Creemers, Rogier, China’s Social Credit System: An Evolving Practice of Control, May 9, 2018. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3175792 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3175792

^[vii] Mitchell Gallagher, The digital panopticon: China’s Social Credit System and the postmodern surveillance state, 2026. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17427665261458112

^[viii] Mitchell Gallagher, The digital panopticon: China’s Social Credit System and the postmodern surveillance state, 2026. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17427665261458112

^[ix] Creemers, Rogier, China’s Social Credit System: An Evolving Practice of Control, May 9, 2018. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3175792 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3175792

^[x] Gamification is the practice of adding game-like elements such as points, badges, and progress bars to non-game activities. Its purpose is to achieve desired behavioural outcomes by manipulating the natural desire for achievement and competition.

^[xi] Creemers, Rogier, China’s Social Credit System: An Evolving Practice of Control, May 9, 2018. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3175792 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3175792

^[xii] https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/assessing-chinas-national-model-social-credit-system

^[xiii] https://fsi9-prod.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2025-08/trusting_by_numbers_7.15.25.pdf

This article is an edited version of a blog originally published on Gavin Mounsey’s substack. Gavin is an author, activist, animist, voluntaryist and regenerative garden designer based in Canada. You can buy his book ’Recipes For Reciprocity : The Regenerative Way From Seed To Table’ either as a physical copy or ebook from his website.

There is a tidal wave of computer generated machine thinking diluting genuine creativity and original human expression on Substack right now. This mind numbing torrent of regurgitated words (digitally pilfered from past human works) that are recombined is dominating the feeds, gaming the algorithms and opportunistically preying upon those with short attention spans with clickbait, high impact (low quality) content.

The Dead Internet Theory has been confirmed my friends, so what now?

Those of us that still value real creative works that were made manifest by human beings developing their craft need to support each other otherwise many meaningful works could be drowned out in the noise and they may resign from their dream to share creative works and instead choose a corporate 9-5 to pay the bills. New writers with immense gifts to share with humanity are like germinating heirloom seeds that could provide nourishment for the soul of our human family if supported, yet they increasingly find themselves in the midst of a machine monoculture of fast growing GMO seeds, sucking up all the nutrients from under and around them, choking out the sunlight and making it hard for them to grow.

I want to offer a space where we can clearly perceive genuine human heartbeats behind creative works in the midst of this storm of machine generated noise.

This list is about providing a space for the light to shine down on those carrying their unique creative gifts forward in earnest, honing their craft without cutting corners and hopefully, offering a way for those that are able to support your works so you can grow and thrive despite the GMO (Generated Machine Output) publications growing at alarming rates all around us.

Thus, as I said in this note, If you are a writer on Substack that does not use generative A.I. for writing drop a comment so others that value genuine undiluted human writing can support your work.

Please share, cross-post and get this out into your non-substack networks in what ever way works so that those that want to support original human creativity and writing will know where to look

(FYI - In the context of what I am talking about with generative A.I. assisted writing here, I am not talking about spell check, nor voice to text or vise versa, I am talking generating whole paragraphs and articles with prompts then editing).

As promised, I stated in a note that if I could not find an existing list of good publications on here that do not use ChatGPT and other generative AI slop factories to write, I would compile one myself.

These people made their own declaration that they do not use generative A.I. for their creative works and/or nominated non-AI dependent creators they know. I did not go and vet each individual as I trust those that cared enough to engage to be honest.

Please support original human thoughts and creativity by checking out these writers and creators and sharing this post. Substack Taglines/publication bio and or brief description of the non-AI dependent creators works shared after their name/publication title. If you are tagged here and want something brief added after your name to describe your work, send me a private message or email (at recipesforreciprocity@proton.me).

Non-”A.I.” (LLM) Dependent Writers and Creators List -

Please support original human thoughts and creativity by checking out these writers and creators and sharing this post. My sharing the Substack Pages listed below does not necessarily mean I agree with what they publish, only that they have declared they do not use generative A.I. for writing. If you are tagged here and want something brief added after your name to describe your work, send me a private message or email (at recipesforreciprocity@proton.me).

- Dana Driscoll (Her website The Druids Garden offers spiritual journeys in tending the living earth, permaculture, and nature-inspired arts.)

- The Corbett Report (Award-winning investigative journalist, James Corbett founded The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent political and societal analysis.)

- Margaret Anna Alice (Examining media narratives, propaganda, mass control, politics, psychology, history, philosophy, language, film, art, music, literature, culture, and health with a focus on COVID to unmask totalitarianism and awaken the sleeping before tyranny triumphs. )

- Edward Slavsquat (“Writing about Russia.” He uses wit and humor to deliver important truths on a range of other topics as well.)

- Rowen White (Indigenous seed-keeper and storyteller; listening to the land, writing and weaving beauty to seed a radically creative and liberatory future.)

- Unshadowed (IAF) (Formerly known as Ice Age Farmer. “Don’t fight the shadow. integrate it.” Offering presentations such as “Regenerative Reality: Permaculture From Soil to Soul“ at The People’s Reset (aka Greater Reset) Conference.)

- Mishelle Shepard (Her website Kensho Homestead offers excellent resources and hilarious memes. Mishelle is a writer, gardener, teacher and chronic student.)

- Whitney Webb (Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She is contributing editor of Unlimited Hangout and author of the book One Nation Under Blackmail.)

- MellowKat (“Grow your own food. Invest in your home & community. Stop giving money to the corporate whores & fake philanthropists. No one is coming to save you. Get up.” https://www.bitchute.com/channel/mellowkat/)

- Iain Davis (Independent investigative journalist, author and blogger from the UK. “Check me out at https://iaindavis.com. Find me at UnlimitedHangout, Geopolitics and Empire, the OffGuardian and elsewhere.”)

- Cram Brook Publishing (Original poetry and faerie tales with recorded readings, as well as original and traditional music for the whole family. “Cram Brook Publishing offers storytelling steeped in natural imagery and ethical pondering, in observance of the intertwining of natural and mystical phenomenon.”)

- Mary Poindexter McLaughlin (“Offering words to open hearts and minds at this critical time.” Author of a bunch of plays and poems, and Co-Writer of Tantra Yoga: Journey to Unbreakable Wholeness.)

- Derrick Broze (Journalist, author, documentary film maker, public speaker, and activist. He is the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network and author of How to Opt-Out of the Technocratic State.)

- Fiona (“Biophilic by design. Witch by birth. Wild foods forager, medicine maker, artist and poet, living an unglamorous off-grid life in a persistently green and soggy corner of the PNW. Furtively feral.”)

- Gabriel (Author of Libre Solutions Network. “Interested in building a better digital future and also documenting my weight loss journey. Pray for peace, always.” )

- Tessa Lena (She Fights Robots substack.)

- Take Back Our Tech (“Let’s use tech that doesn’t use us. We’re an educational movement and community, raising awareness on privacy and sharing solutions in many areas. Desktop, web, mobile, hardware, communications, and much more!”)

- Key’s Keys (“I am a writer, artist, and spiritual guide who writes for those that feel lost, to remind them of their inherent worthiness,and to remind myself, and others, that we are not broken, to always, in all ways- choose Love.”)

- Noel Spangler (“I am the writer and founder of New World Humor, a publication dedicated to satirizing the New World Order. My work has also appeared in Slackjaw, Weekly Humorist, Points in Case, and other online publications.”)

- Max Wilbert (Third-generation political dissident. He fights for the natural world.)

- Vera Sharav (Holocaust survivor, human rights activist, author and filmmaker. She founded the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. She is about to publish a book that I look forward to reading.)

- Frances Leader (British female activist, 73, geo-political writer, banned from most social media, writing exclusively on Substack. She is opposed to tyranny, totalitarianism and technocracy.)

- Collapse Life (Focuses on the challenges and triumphs of surviving and thriving in our turbulent world. Publishes a weekly bulletin on Sunday, called “Notes from the edge of civilization.” Hosts a podcast featuring a different guest each and every Saturday.)

- David B Lauterwasser (“Just a Human Animal who loves his Natural Habitat.”)

- Visceral Adventure (Adventure Architect. Art Alchemist. Parent. Traveler. “Conspiracy Theorist. Woo-woo seeker. Label Avoider.”)

- Moss Wayfinder (Author of Rebirth of Reindigenized Relations, a “True man trying to escape the Truman show”.)

- The Sioux Chef by Sean Sherman ( Oglala Lakota, Founder of: The Sioux Chef / NATIFS.org / Owamni / Indigenous Food Lab / Tatanka Truck. Author of Turtle Island)

- Sarah Kendzior (Author of They Knew, Hiding in Plain Sight, the View From Flyover Country and The Last American Road Trip.)

- Isadora Raven (“I’m a reading nerd, art enthusiast, and writer living in rural north Florida.” )

- Jen Downey (“Practicing skepticism as best I can. Anti-ideology & pro knowledge development process. Author, The Ninja Librarians books.”)

- Alicen Lenora Grey ( Writer. Sonic Artist. Professor of Symbology. Lover of light. )

- Liz Reitzig (Raw milk mama, food-and-farming policy analyst, entrepreneur, permaculture gardener, and teacher. “I love making food for people.”)

- Betsy Barnum (She writes a Substack called This Changes Everything in which she comments on the importance of knowing that viruses don’t exist, bacteria don’t cause disease, and contagion is a myth.)

- Kimberly Steele (Midwestern American who writes about pragmatic occultism, mass psychology, and self-realization. Her book Sacred Homemaking: A Magical Approach to Tidying hits shelves in Spring 2026.)

- Mycological Memories (A project highlighting the cultural, ecological, and mythological roles fungi play across the world. “Acting as both collector and curator, I aim to document and preserve untold stories of fungi, blending narrative storytelling with factual insights.” )

- Geri White (“I am a Certified Holistic Equine Hoof Care Practitioner with a Equine Sciences Degree and have 3 Natural Hoof Care Certifications from the ESA, AHA and PHCP. I currently serve as a Field Instructor and Mentor.”)

- Anciana Sage (“My writings are the tinder, in rekindling the sacred embers of ancient wisdom.”)

- Tereza Coraggio (Author of How to Dismantle an Empire and Third Paradigm on Substack, YT & Rumble. “A mother’s pov on global economics, geopolitics, world war truth, scriptural analysis, psyops, socio-spirituality, metaphysics, sexual dynamics & community sovereignty.”)

- Kent Peterson (“A retired car-free guy who lives in Superior, Wisconsin. I type one page a day (sometimes a bit more) and I try to make it interesting.”)

- Ea Himmelbjerg 🌿 (Danish, lived around the world, poet, journalist, cat lover, therapist. )

- Patricia Burke (News curator for those on the front lines, at Patricia’s Substack for Safe Tech International and Smart Meter Science. She works her tail off collating news about EMF/RF.)

- Robin Motzer (Focused on shifting paradigms, increasing collaboration and reducing harm for humans, nature and animals, and connecting people with nature to Make World Soul (Anima Mundi) Healthy Again. Writes about the art and science of health and self-mastery. Robin is also an author of Wildlands, which does a lot of advocating on the local and State level, for animals, nature and humans.)

- Alissa Bonnell (Alissa is from the Pacific Northwest with ancestral roots that extend to northern Scandinavia and the British Isles. She loves wandering the landscape, foraging wild food and medicine, feasting with friends and family, and being a village auntie.)

- Jae Bee (“Ocean Groupie 🌊 Mountain Admirer🏔Tree Hugger 🌲 Moon Lover 🌝 Solar powered ☀️ Human Being listening to my ❤️, gut, and brain. Here to tell my story and listen to your story… Red nor blue, for team humanity!”)

- Kinder World 🇺🇸 (Reports on animal rights, animal welfare, artwork, health, plant based, tech, Cellular Agriculture, ecology, wildlife, sustainability, pandemics and related news.)

- Leia’s Blaster (“Poems at the end of the world. Indigenous land defender, writing poetry for a revolution where we end settler colonialism for all.”)

- weedom1 (“An escapee from industrial health care is lost in the weeds of midwestern flyover country, finding an abundance of plants which are useful as food and medicine.”)

- Elizabeth (“Student of human behaviour, including my own. I write slice-of-life stories and share information. I am a dual citizen of Canada and Ireland. Traditional Cradle Catholic.”)

- Bea Sharpe (Neurodivergent teacher, writer and gardener.)

- Priya (Physician, activist, basic human. “I write on substack. Where my ADHD runs wild and free and my opinions are unfiltered! And I am unapologetically and authentically ME!” https://doctorsagainstgenocide.org/)

- Burhinus (“Old geezer loving nature. Mainly birds and boots having set a target of seeing 200 species of birds in the UK each year and a target for walking / hiking 1,000 miles in the year.”)

- Helge (“I am a multimedia performance artist, author, ex educator, fashion designer, upholsterer, painter, DJ (alternative), anarchist and non conformist.”)

- Pris (Mandala Artist and Poet)

- Strength For the Journey (Aspiring writer, gardener, foodie, and crafter.)

- Justin Ward 🌲 (bloodandpine) (Nature ᴡorshipper, social worker, writer. “All words and images are my own. I believe inraw human expression.”)

- Andrew Welch (Respected speaker, writer, and self-taught ecological economist.)

- skyra (“Literature Corner- quotes, poems from the classics: Medicine Corner- plant profiles, herbs: Gardening Corner- permaculture techniques, plants: Creative Corner- my art, poems, my creations.”)

- Abby Payne (A nurse, poet, and storytelling guide. “I help soulful humans slow down, find calm, and live fully in presence.”)

- Kay (Actor, director, poet.. and now, author. “Working on a novel, so soon may want to reach my readers here and listeners, too, since I’m a voice artist, too, and I’ll read it myself. No AI voices, either, please!!”)

- Christopher Cook (Voluntaryism. Human rights. Philosophy.)

- Luisa Perkins (“Novelist, cookbook author, wife, mom, corgi owner.”)

- Heather Martel (“I am a writer of historical sci fi and creative nonfiction, a novice Druid, a tarot reader, as well as an academic historian of sixteenth-century colonialism, climate science, and a queer Atlantic occult.”)

- Dave Wise (Neoteric Wood Art) (“Seeing the simple beauty in life, nature, and relics of the past. Regenerative art, off-beat humor, crafts, and some music. Friendship await all who enter here. neotericwoodart.com”)

- Christin Ritz (A practitioner of non-credo macrobiotics writing about the cycle of change through the lens of the changing seasons, the energetics of food, nine star ki, health, happiness. and truth.)

- Erin O’Regan White (A writer’s catalogue of the native wildflowers of Montana.)

- Martin Agius (“Reclusive writer born in London, sometimes sighted in San Francisco gazing longingly at the doors of the old Plush Room on Sutter Street. A Drain of Pale is an original Victorian Sensation novel in weekly installments.”)

- Tessa Halbrehder (“Minnesota-born & raised. Staten Island life for a long while now. Old dogs can learn new trix.”)

- Karen Hartman (“An award-winning playwright (me) mines ancient dramatic principles and a range of current wisdom to expand creativity, capacity, and freedom in the face of real-life human drama (a.k.a. yours). More on me here: www.karenhartman.org )

- 🧿Merveye (“My mission is to turn seeing into art and healing 🧿 Old soul • tarot & oracle • spirituality • rebelution • memeology • fuck the system • mental health • social worker.”)

- John Gonter (Writes about wild and local foods, the outdoors and the connection between. )

- The Word Herder (Jaan Carter, The Word Herder. “Random analysis, opinion, and canine humor, woofing, scratching, and digging hoooooooles. And sometimes leaving protest in the Oligarchy’s shoes.”)

- Jonathan Foster (Fiction and creative non-fiction writer. “A fearless explorer of the human condition. Wordsmith and forest walker.”)

- Jody MacPherson (“She/her, born at 319 ppm, started as a journalist, went to the dark side (PR), left fossil fuels because of the environment, dabbled in politics, went to government for a decade but returned to journalism.”)

- Natalie Viglione (“Writing for souls reclaiming coherence ⚜️ CHRIST-allized cells through mineral alchemy + vibrational attunement. Ancient druid grove rebuilding on our land One Song Grove & holding reverence for the beauty of Eternal Living Source in Living Form.”)

- Sandy K (Non-Materialist PhD scientist in ecology & entomology; artist, Reiki Master, yoga practitioner, meditator, astrologer, Certified Bio-Well practitioner, and other non-local skills.)

- Calvin Perrins (“Here to help uncage minds by educating on the subject of natural law and how the English Common Law Constitution is self governance in alignment with natural law.”)

- Doreen Agostino: (Seniorpreneur, Author, Radio Host, Editor, Life Coach, In-formation synthesizer.)

- Lieze Boshoff, M.Sc (HCN) (“The Conscious Scientist • Author & Independent Researcher • Exploring anomalous perception, metaphysics, and the nature of reality in a consciousness-first cosmos through the lens of science and philosophy.”)

- DJ (“Writing about my faith. 🧐 Building THRY Internet Research Platform. 📈 Solomon Investment Research Technology 📚 Books 🎛️ DJing.”)

- Adam Lane (“Free-range autodidact, Rebel Philosopher, psychonaut, and student of Cognitive Jujitsu. Defending your right to own your own mind. Devoted to Intellectual Honesty.” https://linktr.ee/AdamSTI)

- ahjuma (Woodland Aesthetics substack.)

- Natasha Clarke (“I have a home in the Pacific Northwest where I practice herbal medicine while keeping my hands busy making works of art. To see what I create https://www.mavenworkstudio.com/drums.”)

- Mind of Matt (“I’m a writer, crafter, and constant ponderer.”)

- Amanda Rouse (Works with language, images, movement, and voice. Her writing is informed by expanding perspectives and healing with body.)

- rocknrollsailor (Outspoken contemporary beatpoet, performer, audiovisual creative, contemporary animist.)

- Isa Kara (“My life is a journey of Sophianic Sacred Feminine remembering, sometimes I weave that into words, and sometimes I just write the musings of a menopausal bog witch.”)

- Ann Phelps (Herbalist, foodie, and a bit of a mystic.)

- Josie Beug, DVM, CVA (A veterinarian not bought off by Big Pharma or Big Pet Food. “I use acupuncture, herbs & food to help my patients live a healthy, long life! I love to teach people how to reconnect with their pet’s natural healing abilities and with nature itself.”)

- Sanity Jane (“I connect Sane humans out here in the Mild Wild West and far beyond, as well as provide a plethora of useful services, including in-person events and much more.”)

- Leigh Shefford (“Writer writing about his writings. I intend to do a sort of behind the scenes and look into my inner workings, there’ll also be an occasional short story or snippet thrown in too.”)

- Charlotte Pendragon (“Here to take her audience along on a magical journey.”)

- The Last American Vagabond (The Official Substack for Ryan Cristián and The Last American Vagabond.)

- Abena Offeh-Gyimah (“I am documenting and preserving indigenous seeds, foods, plants, medicine, and restoring connections to cultural heritage, traditional foodways, and ancestral knowledge.”)

- Etienne de la Boetie2 (Voluntaryist author who exposes inter-generational organized crime’s control of the “government,” media, and academia. Author of “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History... Exposed! and To See the Cage is to Leave It.)

- Kelpie Wilson (Mechanical engineer, homesteader, biochar consultant, and author of The Biochar Handbook. She also manufactures and sells the super deluxe Ring of Fire Biochar Kiln for those who want to make massive amounts of biochar.)

- Mark Alexander (Graduate of the California Institute of Useless Technology. Former resident of SillyCon Valley for 53 years. “Current resident of the Vermont Home for the Visually Unpleasant.”)

- El Mal De Nuestro Tiempo (“Escribo sobre crimen organizado y desinformación. La miga está en las notas de página.”)

- Reneé Davis (Wife mum of three resisting dystopia, home educator. “100% Natural and zero medication or medical interventions since 2007.”)

- Sadie Dearing (Mermaid & textile artist casting spells with my hands by the sea.)

- Hart Hagan (Environmental reporter. “I promote an ecological approach to farming, forestry and landscaping as the PRIMARY strategy for addressing climate change, not an afterthought. I create webinars, courses and online communities.”)

- Lucy Grabe-Watson (Founder of Ancient Woodlands UK. Advocacy, ecology, and creative documentation. Substack companion to Dear Yggdrasil and other seasonal projects.)

- Veronika Bond (Author of Synchronosophy: A Rough Guide to the Feral Side of Life and Wordkeeper of the wildwordwoods of Symbiopædia ~ a biotope to protect and nurture a new language for the Symbiocene.)

- Ella (Retired cross-border New York attorney now living in Canada. Heartsick American and proud Canadian, fighting to keep democracy, human rights and multilateral problem solving alive with curiosity and kindness.)

- Barbara Sinclair (“If you ask me, “what do you do?” the answer might change from one day to the next. I’m a Sagittarian, and we really don’t like that question. :) I write, make art, and help people heal. Nature is the best medicine of all.”)

- Dwina Murphy-Gibb (Irish/ Ulster/Author, artist, poet and playwright. “My teachings and studies are rooted in ancient alphabets, Vedas, Ogham, Divine Poetry. I meditate and research spiritual Truth.”)

- Paul Schloss (Writer. Author of Outside the Castle. “The Castle can mean many things. Think of Kafka, bureaucracy, Borges, the System, this Machine. For you it may be a faith, a philosophy; the world you have made. And me...I have stepped out of the Castle.”)

- Keala Kelly (Author of The Native Truth, which offers bite-sized thoughts and knowledge about Indigenous peoples’ cultures and resistance to colonization. “I am an independent Native Hawaiian journalist, filmmaker, editor, columnist, podcaster, activist and media strategist.”)

- M Ljin (“Permaculture, ecoculture, wild harvesting & more! Dedicated to only human (and wild being!) content & illustration.”)

- Nina Newington (“Writer, forest protector, gardener, living on the North Mountain in Kespukwitk, first of the 7 traditional districts of Mi’kma’ki. Lichen lover who camps for long periods on logging roads to protect old forests in southwest Nova Scotia.”)

- Jayne Evans (“I am passionate about Homeopathy, good food and gardening. I’ve been involved in the natural health world for over 30 years now.”)

- Mariana Goycoechea (“A teacher, vehemently against AI.”)

- Jane Stoll (Artist/writer/gardener. White Bear medicine Red Road for 40 years.)

- A Declining Democracy (“San Francisco citizen. Commentary on a failing America”.)

- Stephen Scheffler (An artist using painting and photography. https://stephenschefflerfinearts.com/)

- Bill Trzeciak (Retired librarian, actor, writer, teacher.)

- David Kane (“Author of Drippy Trippy Doom and other Weird writings.”)

- Ronlyn Domingue (“I write about deep, sensitive people in strange, transformative circumstances. Author of four novels. Intuitive developmental editor. Crone.”)

- V. N. Alexander (A philosopher of science and a novelist. Her dark comic 9/11 novel, Locus Amoenus and a novel about euthanasia and human agency, Naked Singularity, are now available as audiobooks on all platforms.)

- Biff Thuringer (Novelist. Publisher. Investigative Journalist. Closet Philosopher. Old School Jazz/Rock Funkster. “Heading off extinction, one screed at a time.”)

- Marc Johnson (Ron Paul Delegate, 2012 / Ron Paul voter 1988 / Tennessee Patriot / Grandfather.)

- The Cunning Farmer (“Natural farmer, and esoteric enthusiast. My trade is farming and my passions are the magic and astrology of the Hermetic, medieval and Renaissance traditions, folk magic, herbal and energy healing, my earth goddess wife and my two free range sons.”)

- A. Razor (“Writer of sorts, photographer and publisher and editor at Punk Hostage Press.”)

- Erin Solaro (Citizen and writer.)

- Gregory Pettys (A father, husband and recovering academic turned organic farmer/seed saver living communally in an eco-village in Northern Thailand dedicated to self-sufficiency. A cross pollinator of culture exploring how best to raise children in uncertain times. Author of the publication titled “Hiræth: Post-Activism in the Anthropocene”.)

- Sara (Writes about the economy and markets with a splash of midlife feminist fury. Subscribe for weekly newsletters and monthly research-driven essays. “I consume facts and data, then tell stories to my readers about what is happening and what it means. My perspective and experience are more valuable tools for this work than what a model could generate by regurgitating past works. My work with clients and on my fiction project is the same.”)

- Paul Cudenec (Deeply dissident journalist and author whose work also appears on the Winter Oak and Organic Radicals sites.)

- Amanda Ianthe (Artist/Writer- Creator of Peaceful Return, a resistance movement to reclaim democracy in the age of Big Tech. Advocating for a Digital Exodus. Also writing at Imagine the News (satire) and Drawn to Life (art & reflection).)

- ArtemisForestFairy (Former Musician/Artist/Poet. “Still trying new things. Always Creative, Curious, and Thoughtful. Very Unexpected, by most people’s reckoning....So I’m told.”)

- Michael McConaha (“I write essays, memoir, and poetry with my own head and will publish more frequently here and on paper as I transition away from systems of oppression.”)

- Lloyd Alter (Teaches sustainable design at Toronto Metropolitan University. Author of “Living the 1.5 degree Lifestyle” and “The Story of Upfront Carbon.”)

- Peter Kalmus (Climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Arrested for climate civil disobedience. Speaking on my own behalf. )

- Charles Foster Kane (“The newspaper of record for the New World Order. We are the Special Ones.” Excellent satirical observations of the oligarchy.)

- Kira Thomsen-Cheek (Author of Climate Revolution Now, “Asking did not work. Voting did not work. Marching did not work. Emissions are going up.”)

- Sarah Rose Nordgren (Poet, writer, teacher, and Director of the School for Living Futures. Her most recent book, Feathers: A Bird Hat Wearer’s Journal, is out in February 2024 from Essay Press.)

- Brian Walter (“Writer and a teacher. Reedie ‘88. I don’t take naps; they take me.”)

- Juniper (“I’m a ritualist, soul-healer, and teacher of animism and alchemy. I have a botanical perfumery & share teachings and resources on sacred aromatics and spiritual alchemy. Read on, wild ones.”)

- Margaret Wappler (Author of Neon Green (2016), and A Good Bad Boy:Luke Perry and How A Generation Grew Up, out in paperback March 2025.)

- T Sebastian (Author of: “If You Have Buttons, You’re A Robot” Emotional Integration Coach for Emotional Maturity. “I Expose the Lizard Brain in Politics, Religion & Society.”)

- ASLWrite Fan (I like to write things using ASLWrite, a sub-orthography of SLWrite. I’m not an expert in any way shape or form. Much of this is experimental.)

- Julia Hubbel (“Adventure athlete. Disabled veteran. Attitude is everything, doing the work gets us there. Without community we are nothing. Do what others don’t, can’t or won’t.”)

- JoshuaRayJongema.com (“Canadian-born American. Moved to Seattle from BC, Canada when he was 25, and served in the US Army National Guard as a Mechanic for 6 years and studied nanotechnology at North Seattle College for 3 years.”)

- The Drift (“Raising an eyebrow at the ongoing madness. Z28.310 status. Natural messy human irrational scribblings. All mistakes my own.”)

- Ashley Adamant (“Forager, Homesteader, and Historical Food Preservation Nerd”.)

- Kelsey (she/they) (Queer ecopsychologist, poet, threshold guide. Taught by the earth. Her substack, queeringnature, contains reflections, in both poetry and prose, on the intersections of nature, systems of oppression, and rites of passage though a queer lens.)

- James Governale (“I’m a holistic health coach & writer from Brooklyn, NY. I’m the creator of High Heart Wellness assisting others to reach desired health & lifestyle goals.”)

- Ray Horvath (PhDs in Linguistics and in Communication. Independent, unfunded research of AI-human communication. 47 years of professional and creative publications. 14 years of working with MDs. Has been a factory worker and a professor in the US and abroad)

- Cole Haddon (Screenwriter (creator, NBC/Sky’s Dracula). Novelist (Psalms for The End of the World) | Host of 5am Storytalk podcast. “Storytelling craft deep dives, emphasis on film/TV, in between trying to make sense of the 21st century through the lens of art.”)

- Geopolitics & Empire (Guerrilla podcast run by dissident academic Hrvoje Morić.)

- GrrlScientist (PhD ornithology UW, parrot researcher, SciComm journalist & writer. Currently: Forbes. Formerly: The Guardian. Formerly: AMNH & Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. Microbiologist. Bookworm & recluse. Atheist & Vegan https://linktr.ee/grrlscientist)

- Julie Dee (“UK piss-taking, nature-loving, inappropriate AF lone wolf. My Substack - nicheless mag of sweary rants, 3am musings, stories & poems.”)

- your weirdo friend (Community college prof, podcaster, writer and mass-cooperation strategist. Spirited by the ghost of samuel langhorne clemens. Unwaveringly invested in the common muppet. Lover of democracy. Weird aficionado.)

(FYI: the person above with the substack titled “your weirdo friend” has now blocked me because I posted this and she believes injecting children with an experimental genetic mRNA concoction (that has been known to cause myocarditis and is manufactured by a corporation with a repeat felony track record of fraud) is a good idea. She did not like that I questioned “trusting the science”. Well I will not stoop to her level, and she will remain on this list despite her dodgy behavior.)

- Ācārya Malcolm Smith (Author, translator, Buddhist teacher. Inhabitant of a big blue marble that is in deep shit.)

- Amy Stonestrom (Writer and owner of Stonestrom Design.)

- Peter Wiggins (Retired engineer. “Interested in science, engineering, woodworking and photography. Passionate about freedom and free choice!”)

- Margi Prideaux, PhD (Author, and now radical #climatecrisis activist. Retired international environmental law negotiator. PhD. Lived and lost in the 2020 climate-driven wildfires. Seeing the world now through the lens of my collapse aware market garden.)

- Iz Lobos (“Publishing poetry and some creative non-fiction and political essays in the future.”)

- Carrie Eldridge (“Mixed media artist, sewist and designer, trying to stay sane in these dark times”.)

- Kalle Pihlajasaari (“Vitamin-D3 advocate.”)

- The Thing She Didn’t Know (Writer, publisher of the novel, “The Thing She Didn’t Know”.)

- LaNita Jones (“Annotated poem, The Song of Un: Illustrated with Digital Art. Metal Artist. Copper Artist. Printmaking. Photojournalism: Macondo Prospect. Solar Plate Lithography. Computer Aided Drafting and Conceptual Design. I am a firm believer in the Third Amendment. My ancestors quarried limestone block for a seminary in Florissant. I would like to have the property back. Think it would be a nice idea.”)

- Karrie Higgins (“UDHD, professionally diagnosed DID system, artist, writer, former English & writing professor, two times Best American Essays notables, Schiff Award for Prose, 2021 NEA & Iowa Arts Council Grantee/stuck in Iowa, missing my beloved Oregon & Utah”.)

- Debora Iyall (Cowlitz tribal elder, 20th Century artist, poet, post punk singer and lyricist from Romeo Void. 21st Century art educator, singer and memoirist.)

- Kari Bentley-Quinn (“Snarky but sensitive X-ennial navigating life as a newly-diagnosed neurodivergent human. I am an award-winning playwright, as well as an essayist, watercolor artist, and theater producer. Proud resident of Queens, NYC.”)

- Richard Seager (“Small business focus. Democracy, terrain theory, transport, equity. I don’t believe in viruses or pandemics. Your health is your business. The profile picture is my ode to my beautiful but estranged wife.”)

- Alexandra Danila (“Come for the colorful drawings, stay for the fiction, book reviews and photo essays. Failed writer, fanciful reader, thinker of useless thoughts, teacher of English.”)

- Lee Sumner Irwin ( Positive aging advocate. Global retreat leader. Grandmother. Lover of crystals and dark chocolate. Award-winning author ~ Radiant Wise Woman: Breaking Free from the Myths of Menopause and Aging Awakening her wild heart.)

- Brett Scott (“I help you to understand the politics of capitalism, money and tech”.)

- Rusere Shoniwa (Writes at

A Plague on Both Houses

Non-ideological analysis of the dystopian reality we're living in. Ideas for understanding and resistance. Promoting the Great FREEset.

By Rusere Shoniwa

about the dystopian reality we’re living in and to promote the Great FREEset.)

- Helen (Examines the insanity of local government Net Zero-based transport policy and author of Casting Nasturtiums, a Permaculture-based exploration of what on earth is going on.)

- Benjamin Conine (“Person against psychotronic/EMF based weapons.”)

- Samantha (Mama, writer and lover of the natural world living in devotion to plants and their wisdom. Musings on wild food/medicine/crafts, reciprocity with the land and honouring the seasons. Originally from Scotland but now homesteading in Central Portugal.)

- Jessica Groenendijk (Writer, former wildlife conservationist, keen nature photographer, and novice rewilder. “Water is my element; shorelines are my habitat. My family, Nature, and seeing people enjoying Nature are my greatest passions.”)

- anabelv.3 (Lead writer for a conservation nonprofit.)

- Laura the Bruce (“Many moons ago I began to realize that this reality is incoherent. For a while, this realization depressed the hell out of me. I have decided to get even. If we’re going to be stuck in this Matrix, I say we reload it to our liking. I write from pure emotion, opinion, and life experience.”)

- Louise Southerden (Award-winning Australian travel writer and author who lives in a tiny house and is quietly passionate about simple, sustainable living.)

- Leigh Shefford (“Writer writing about his writings. I intend to do a sort of behind the scenes and look into my inner workings, there’ll also be an occasional short story or snippet thrown in to.”)

- Charles Foster Kane aka Seamus O’Laoi (Author of Tales From The Lockdown and the Substack publication “The Globalist Gazette” which is described as “The newspaper of record for the New World Order. We are the Special Ones.” Offers illuminating satirical commentary on the nature of the global oligarchy and its attitude towards everyday non-yacht owning human beings.)

- Teresa D Hill, PhD (Independent Epidemiologist. Recovery Guild Substack.)

- Maria (Heart poetry and spiritual reflections.)

- Ruth Gaskovski ( Swiss polyglot, homeschool mother of three, loves especially long classic novels. Leading the analog renaissance in family, education, and daily life in the Machine Age. Bylines in First Things, Inkwell, The Rabbit Room, Doomer Optimism Keynote.)

- Deborah Jeanne Weitzman (Musician, writer, and teacher. “I help creatives find their voice and courage. My novel, The Sinking of the Leonardo da Vinci, is out now on all platforms: https://tinyurl.com/DJW-Amazon. My new novel out in the world called. The Sinking of the Leonardo da Vinci -Has absolutely not one drop of AI. All of it was written by me and edited and Improve by many real editors!”)

- JaneeB (“Human artist, I never have nor will I ever use AI. AI is a criminal enterprise that scraped and stole my work from my website, two years ago.”)

- Bergamotte (Reader of research, critical thinker, artist. Driven to try to help others.)

- Thad Zajac (Angst-filled Xennial documenting the slow death of American democracy.)

- Shahid Buttar (“I work as a constitutional and civil rights lawyer, DJ, MC, poet, and outdoor adventure guide. Come snowboarding with me!”)

- Gigi (“Free spirit girlie with a penchant for wandering and wondering, writer and artist.”)

- Torna Braggison (Folkish Asatruar, writer, gothi and skald.)

- Rachael Sage (“Artist. Writer. Poet. Dreamer. Gen X person. 2nd-place-winning playwright. Lots of emotions. All thoughts, words, and em dashes are my own.”)

- Ruth Zakarin (“Gun violence prevention activist, trauma clinician, slow runner, cat lady, and knitter. Views expressed here are my own.”)

- Summit Treya ( “The road less taken: decades of tech, spirituality and liberal feminism.”)

- Leaf Rhetoric (“Another late comer to Reality who won’t be ready when it takes back control. Here for the therapeutic benefits of screaming lots of commas into the void. Sponsored by Ramford, Substack’s most trusted brand of fictional greenwashed pickups & SUVs.”)

- Lindsay Hounslow (Light) (“I share to nurture spiritual & ecological health within our web of life. My love for plants was cultivated during a decade as a naturalist. I am a yogi, herbalist, mama, gardener, and college faculty member teaching about plant medicines.”)

- Ramona McCloskey (“Author of Stone, Soil & Soul , Anarchist, animist, artist, ecocentric writer on north coast Ireland. Neurodivergent. Decolonising. Uncivilised. Swapped archaeology for agroecology.”)

- Jimmy Billings (Author of Gaelic Re-existence. Anarchist writer in Ireland exploring decolonization and cultural re-connection to the Land. Towards worlds founded on care and autonomy.)

- Parallel Mike (Organic farmer, investor and host of both the Parallel Systems Broadcast & Parallel Mike Podcast. Private coach for investors and people seeking to learn the art of wealth preservation.)

- and last but not least, yours truly! (Gavin Mounsey) :) (I am currently enrolled in a lifetime apprenticeship to nature. Author, Activist, Animist, Voluntaryist and Regenerative Garden Designer.)

If you would like to support my work through buying a copy of my first published book (Recipes For Reciprocity : The Regenerative Way From Seed To Table) you can do so here.

You can also learn more about the next book I am writing (and sharing full chapters as I write them) published as articles here on Substack via this link.

(If you want to be added to this list or suggest someone I should add, drop a comment below).

For pertinent articles on this subject and some supplimentary lists of Authors opposed to computer generated writing (passed off as being authored by humans):

“Are AI Companies Ripping Off Writers? Canadian Authors Speak Out”

“Authors petition publishers to curtail their use of AI”

Against AI: An Open Letter From Writers to Publishers : “We want our publishers to stand with us. To make a pledge that they will never release books that were created by machines.”

“Authors fear they have little defence against AI impersonators : Jane Friedman discovered that Amazon was selling five books under her name that she hadn’t written, but rather seemed to be AI-generated impersonations.”

Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses substack.

Have you noticed the emergence of a New Left Conspiracy Realist movement? Diving down hitherto prohibited rabbit holes, and generally sounding very awake as they stick it to The Man. The JFK assassination? Tick. 9-11? Tick. CIA/Mafia drug-running? Tick. It’s as if they’ve been bingeing on James Corbett and Whitney Webb videos. And about time, right? Finally, the Left is catching up with Bastards Inc.’s game plan.

Not so fast, though. Something’s not quite right with the New Left Conspiracy Realists. It’s not what they’re saying; it’s what they’re studiously not saying.

Coming to a town near you – The New Left Conspiracy Realists

The poster boy for the school of New Left Conspiracy Realists – for my money anyway – is a chap by the name of Aaron Good. Mr Good has a PhD in … something, but in the interests of being catty, I’ll just say he has a PhD in Conspiracy Realism since he was tutored by one of the best – Peter Dale Scott.

If Mr Good is my selected poster boy for the school of New Left Conspiracy Realists, then the poster platform for the likes of Mr Good is Pascal Lottaz’s Neutrality Studies.

Now, before I ramble on any further, I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a witch-hunt. Readers know very well that when I disagree with someone on the facts, I’m not shy to roll up sleeves and rebut … when I think it matters. On this occasion, I am not pointing a crooked Maoist finger at those in need of re-education. I am attempting to highlight what I see as an interesting phenomenon. And in the typical manner of a professional self-aggrandising Conspiracy Realist, I am giving this phenomenon an important-sounding technical name – Mainstream Alternative Media Convergence. Just because individuals are named, it doesn’t mean the names have sinned. They are just part of a trend that I’ve noticed. That’s all. I have no way of knowing whether they are acting in good or bad faith, and I couldn’t give two hoots. What’s interesting to me is the bigger phenomenon of which they seem to be a part.

With that disclaimer out the way, here is Pascal Lottaz and Alexander Mercouris broadcasting from a bus somewhere between Pskov and Moscow. Funny how the Russian political system welcomes influencers from Switzerland and Britain to speak their minds while it passes draconian legislation to silence dissent from Russian citizens abroad. Iurie Rosca informs us that the Russian legislation coming into effect in September 2026 tackles urgent matters such as “abuse of freedom of the media”, “public equating of actions and decisions of the leadership of the USSR with those of Nazi Germany”, and the most spellbinding of all: “minor hooliganism with special characteristics”. The Chairman of the State Duma has warned Russian citizens living abroad:

“This is about protecting the interests of our country. And those who left and continue to harm the Russian Federation, making insulting statements about the defenders of Russia or discrediting our country, may find themselves without property after the adoption of the proposed law for the third reading.”

Mr Lottaz and Mr Mercouris have much to say about declining free speech in their own countries, but are decidedly reticent about free speech suppression in the BRICS-led countries of China and Russia. Or perhaps they do have something to say about Russia’s clampdown on people “making insulting statements about the defenders of Russia”, but I imagine there’s a time and place for criticising Russia, and a coach to Moscow in the middle of summer is neither the time nor place.

Discerning readers will have noted that I have refrained from making libellous insinuations about why the influencers, Mr Lottaz and Mr Mercouris, are on a coach trip in Russia. For all I know, they are good friends who have decided to holiday in Russia together. I will not allow myself to engage in baseless speculation about the possibility of them being on one of those all-expenses paid jaunts to learn about how amazing the Russian state is. We simply can’t know these things, and we must be responsible. It would help though if Mr Lottaz had explained the nature of the Russian coach trip. But, again, I must emphasise – he is under no obligation to do so!

Back to Mr Good. I have been following his exposés for a good few months now, and it pains me to have to confess that I am now in the yawn-suppressing phase. He knows everything there is to know about the JFK assassination, and is an expert on the declining American empire. However, I have been waiting for him to utter just one little sentence about the greatest medical fraud in history that was used to shut down the planet and wage war on humanity – the Covid psyop. Crickets. With all that political criminology on his CV, he ought to know what the Covid years really meant. Then again, if your gallery is packed to the rafters with the mask-wearing cult, then the truth will have to be patient and just wait a little longer.

He also has nothing to say about the threat of the interlocking digital surveillance state and programmable digital currencies. Nothing to say about climate alarmism and the UN’s corporate Sustainable Development agenda.

Aaron Good has written a book about the shadowy nexus of the US corporatocracy, organised crime, and the security state, and the role this nexus has played in numerous State Crimes Against Democracy. Like so many scholars of his ilk, he acknowledges the immense power of the transnational oligarchy and yet, frustratingly, does not seem to know how to factor this immense power into geopolitical analysis. But it must be factored in – it is transnational political power that, by definition, has to play a role in geopolitics.

For Mr Good, it’s all about the declining American empire. The corollary of that blinkered view is that it wouldn’t be such a bad thing to march towards the sunlit uplands of the emerging Multipolar World Order (MWO), led by the leaders in Technocracy – China – and the leaders in protecting the state from insulting statements – Russia.

In short, he’s anti-imperialist, but not too fussed if the world slips from control under a Western empire to an Eastern empire. Hey ho, yin and yang, and all that. The pendulum must swing, and if we’re fed up of the current empire, the only thing to do is to try a new one. I mean, we’ve only been doing this for about 10,000 years, give or take a thousand. Eventually the right Empire is bound to come along, right?

When I initially encountered Mr Good and his fresh-faced crew of Lefty Conspiracy Realists, I thought to myself: there just might be hope for the Left. But after listening to them for a couple of months, it has become clear to me that the lumbering Left still has two left feet.

But wait, there’s more.

China-maxxing and Putinolatry

The furore over UK Column’s China-maxxing scandal will not have escaped readers’ attention. Iain Davis, who I regard as one of the most astute and independent commentators on this subject, has characterised the concern as follows: “following investment from Jahnke, UKC, for the first time, started China-maxxing and began to broadcast multipolar global governance propaganda.” In other words, there is concern over how an increase in UKC’s China-maxxing content coincided with an injection of capital from a large investor, although of course UKC insist they are not subject to editorial control from anyone. It seems, or rather it is alleged – I repeat alleged – that shortly after the large investor invested his large investment, UKC was infected by a South African China-maxxing germ, spelt Jerm if you are South African. Any connection between the China-maxxing germ and the large investment is strenuously denied.

Iain Davis’s definition of China-maxxing is also helpful: “the clear shift in Western media and social media narratives away from blanket vilification of China and its government toward uncritical promotion of Chinese government initiatives.” To which he rightly adds – we should reject both positions.

I am fully aware that I have often bandied about the aphorism: he who pays the piper calls the tune. But I now find myself thinking man cannot live on aphorisms alone. We must be prepared to make exceptions to pithy rules of thumb. I mean, we’re talking about UK Column here – a pillar so upright that it makes A Plague on Both Houses look like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. This grubby purchasing of editorial lines is for the likes of Jeff Bezos and his Washington Post. I just don’t see how it could happen in the Mainstream Alternative Media (MAM), overflowing as it is with torchbearers of truth and justice.

When looking at the right-leaning Mainstream Alternative Media (MAM), even more prevalent than China-maxxing is what Iurie Rosca has poetically labelled “Putinolatry – the disease of puerile anti-globalists”. It entails painting Russia as the victim of Western aggression while studiously ignoring that it: went full tilt on the Covid pseudo-pandemic; is now going full tilt on Agenda 2030, the digital agenda, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and; has no problems in confiscating the property of those who say or write bad words about Russia. And the corollary of Putinolatry is: bring on the Multipolar World Order!

Left and Right MAM both love Big Brother…just like Left and Right MSM

It appears to me, then, that the Left and Right of the MAM are now becoming strange bedfellows. Both are converging on anti-imperialist, anti-war, anti-Zionist themes. Good thing I say. But crucially, both are converging on a pro-Multipolar World Order (MWO) stance, and both are very shy to tackle the techno-fascist endgame to which that very same MWO is leading us. The Left and Right MAM are converging on the most important and non-negotiable issues that the Owners and Controllers need to coral us into the digital gulag. The MAM is the new Mainstream Media, and it only took five years for that to happen.

Of course they are at loggerheads over issues designed to create the illusion of a binary, like immigration. But that is the whole point – unity while operating under the illusion of a binary.

I must add that I’d welcome unity if everyone was united against all the things we need to be united against – list to follow. But will either side ditch party politics for a real revolution? No. They’ll look for a new saviour party, and the controllers will provide one. Reform’s job is to Trump the UK – give the Right a party that will accelerate the journey to Technocracy, because the mainstream Left are pretty happy with, or oblivious to, that destination anyway. It’s the ‘freedom’ loving right that needs to be hoodwinked into loving Big Brother by a traditionalist, flag-waving, anti-immigrant regime.

How does one resist the irresistible pull of Convergence? It’s not that difficult really. Just be Anti-Everything! Allow me to run through the Anti-Everything list. Any Conspiracy pundit who studiously avoids any of the antis in this list may well be a Pied Piper, whether they know it or not. You must be:

Anti-imperialist; anti-colonialist; anti-System; anti-Establishment; anti New World Order; anti-Multipolar World Order; anti-UN; anti-Sustainability agenda; anti-Zionist; anti-Covidian; anti-Pandemic ‘awareness’; anti-medical coercion of any kind; anti-Left/Right Punch and Judy show; anti-Climate Alarmism; anti-Geoengineering; anti Digital ID; anti-CBDCs and all crypto currencies; anti-AI; anti-Fourth Industrial Revolution; anti-all political parties and anti-voting unless voting in the Voluntaryist Revolution for truly independent MPs whose hands will be tied by a Voluntaryist Charter (phew! that was a mouthful), and; anti-tomfoolery.

I have inserted the last one as a catch-all for anything I’ve missed, and I reserve the right to define tomfoolery in the comments section or subsequent articles, if and when challenged by a reader on some material omission.

In articles coming soon, I will re-focus on the looming Techno-fascist threat in order to reinforce what the endgame is.

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!

Buy Me A Coffee

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times – we cannot vote our way out of the mess we’re in. I am now going to contradict, or more accurately qualify, that statement. Voting for political parties will not get us out of this mess for the reasons I outlined in Part I – namely that political parties have proven themselves to be easily corruptible extensions of centralised power in the hierarchy of oligarchic power.

The only people’s revolution that would peacefully, and democratically, turn the tide in short order, with the least amount of disruption to societal structures (at least in the short term), is a revolution that completely hijacks the existing political and governmental structures to make them moral and democratic.

We have already been given the structures for democracy; we just don’t believe we, the people, are capable of running them because we have been fundamentally brainwashed into believing that power has to be centralised in order for systems to operate efficiently and effectively. We don’t believe that good decisions can be made quickly unless they’re made by a small, ‘experienced’ cabal of ‘our betters’.

But there is still a narrow window of opportunity left for us to have the last laugh, and to use these structures in the way they were intended to be used – by us and not by ‘Them’. I’m suggesting that all we have to do is issue a new contract, and issue a P45[i] to the current 650 employees in Parliament.

I’m going to build on David Fleming’s Independent Alliance idea – all credit to him for it. This variation of it, however, creates a broader tent in that we are not asking people to subscribe to our political positions. We are asking them to subscribe to a principle that will result in a less coercive, more honest political system. Unless everyone signs up to a non-negotiable value – voluntaryism – we are not going to get an improvement in politics. Only authoritarians will baulk at that, and that’s fine because they’re the ones who need to be sidelined.

We are asking everyone to subscribe to fully open debate and bottom-up policies and laws that have Voluntaryist guardrails built into them. If mistakes happen, no-one gets hurt. No-one will get everything they want, but we will all get open and transparent debate that ought to skewer the more lethal authoritarian policies that are being driven.

So, starting with the independent MP idea, I will tag on something fundamentally different at the beginning, and then tag on a lot more at the end by proposing a sketch of the mechanisms and the process by which a people’s government could completely usurp the oligarchy, and actually work without any requirement whatsoever for us to obtain PhDs in political science and administration. Everything is already there. All it requires is cooperation and steering by half-sensible people not in the pay of the oligarchy, and not chained by a party hierarchy.

Here is the outline for the Blueprint for the Voluntaryist Revolution. It’s a skeleton which hopefully has enough bones on it to allow the flesh to be added.

1. Formal withdrawal of consent – a repudiation of the current contract.

2. Who is going to lead the Voluntaryist revolution?

3. Changing the contract – telling, not asking, our government to institute elections banning political parties and setting the conditions, and a new contract, for the election of 650 totally independent MPs.

4. How to form a ‘cabinet’.

5. Guardrails to protect Voluntaryism and the first items on the agenda for the new Voluntaryist parliament.

6. The barrier to success.

Formal withdrawal of consent – a repudiation of the current contract

In his famous work, Nineteen Eighty Four, George Orwell wrote of the ‘proles’ (that’s you and me):

“Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”

He was articulating what he saw as a paradox that makes revolution impossible – revolution requires consciousness, but consciousness comes from the actual act of revolution. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the great man was…erm…wrong. History has shown that there have always been enough angry people to kickstart a revolution. They didn’t need to rebel in order to become angry and conscious of the need for change. They first got pissed off, and then they rebelled. Revolution is not the problem. The problem is that there has been an almost equal number of counter-revolutions. Once the revolution has started, the problem is…you guessed it… then what?

So let’s discuss how to start a Voluntaryist Revolution.

The most terrifying thing for the Establishment is nobody turning up for their scams. Frankie Goes to Hollywood said it about war: “Just think – war breaks out and nobody turns up.”

The same terror would grip them if no-one turned up for the ritual that grants consent to illegitimate authority – elections. Just think – a general election is announced, and nobody turns up. We simply boycott the elections. The only way to repudiate the contract is to walk away from it. If we can say The System did not achieve an acceptable quorum of voters, then ‘They’ truly don’t have the consent of the population to rule. We won’t comply with any legislation passed by a government that doesn’t have the support of the electorate. Turnout was 60% at the last election, so a drop to around 10-20% would send a powerful enough signal to kick things off.

Once we’ve achieved that, we move on to telling them, not asking them, how things are going to work from here on in.

So, the very first step is to start a campaign for a total nationwide boycott of the next general election. The marketing outline for this campaign is in Part I. I think it’s possible that we’ve reached critical mass in understanding that the state has been captured. That’s not even a controversial statement to make any longer. Mainstream Lefties like Matt Kennard are saying the entire political system is hijacked by corporations. They’ve always known that, but now ordinary people know it. I haven’t spoken to an uber driver who doesn’t know it! I think even the Professional Managerial Class idiocracy have now got the memo. After all, it was Harvard University that first went public with the findings of an irrefutable Ivy League study that confirmed state capture.

What irks me is people like Matt Kennard insisting that the only major political party that hasn’t been corrupted is the Green Party. Garbage! Even if that were true, does that mean our only option is to institute a one-party Green state? He’s only saying that because he’s a Lefty and the Greens now appear to be the only viable alternative for a Left vote.

But if he were right that they haven’t been captured, you’d have to conclude that the Greens are next to go down, based on the corporatocracy’s track record and imperative for capturing political parties. And I’ve got news for Mr Kennard – the Greens have been hijacked by the UN Sustainable Development agenda which is a Corporate agenda! In one sense, they don’t need to be captured in the crude way that the other parties have been. They already are captured. The Greens would in fact be the preferred choice of the oligarchy because they will happily implement the fascist digital panopticon if it means tethering it to sustainability and climate change.

If mainstream Lefties like Kennard took the time to understand the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), they’d see in them the whole societal technocratic digitisation agenda about which he’s voicing suspicion in his interview with Myriam Francois. The UN’s SDGs represent the whole Fourth Industrial Revolution package by stealth, coated in Leftist treacle.

What’s Kennard’s solution? “Support leaders who are taking on corporate power.” In other words, find a hero. Continue to be infantilised. How has that worked out so far? A hero cannot take on global capital. No political party under a ‘good leader’ is going to change this dynamic, and in fact advocating for a ‘leader’ betrays a fundamental belief in centralised power, which is the whole problem. What mainstream Leftists or Rightists absolutely don’t believe in is a true people’s revolution!

And the reason why Leftists like Kennard don’t believe in a people’s revolution is that they are still stuck in the Left-Right divide. They don’t believe that the sensible ‘Left’ and the sensible ‘Right’, which collectively constitutes the majority of the population, could actually form a Voluntaryist coalition. And such a coalition frightens both sides of the divide because they won’t be able to bang on about how awful the other side is anymore.

What’s Kennard’s other solution? Getting out more information, because he asserts that once people understand, “they are galvanised to action”. So he agrees we need mass action, but what kind of mass action? Did screaming and shouting in the streets with placards stop the Gaza genocide?

The only mass action that the Establishment fears is action that results in trashing the political party system entirely in order to usurp the Zionist corporatocracy. But that is more complicated. It requires a real plan, not just placards and marching. That’s why no-one advocates for it. It seems too hard, and ‘They’ are banking on us chickening out at the mere thought of it.

The withdrawal of consent by mass boycott of elections is the most powerful and peaceful way to say “No” to the whole current system. While it is only the first step, it is vital for the removal of the corrupt political party system. This step represents formal contract repudiation.

To repurpose Orwell’s observation:

Until they become conscious they will never withdraw their consent to abuse, and until they have withdrawn their consent they cannot take power.

Who is going to lead the Voluntaryist revolution?

Obviously, the Voluntaryist gospel should be spread by genuine Voluntaryists who understand the ruling class’s endgame – technocratic totalitarianism. These individuals and groups would therefore have Camp 3 credentials, and an ability to appeal to well-meaning Normies from both sides of the political divide.

Alt-media is filled with grifters and oxymoronic pro-Establishment freedom advocates. After six years in the game, we have a good idea of who they are. For starters, if they’re Zionist, they’re pro-Establishment, because the Establishment is Zionist. People or groups who have stood with Zionism, or said nothing against it, are not qualified to strike a blow against state corporate capture because the corporatocracy is run by the Zionist Imperialist Mafia. In short, Zionism and Voluntaryism is oil and water.

This approach is not being divisive. It is a necessary safeguard to ensure that the movement is united under the principle of Voluntaryism as a way of organising society. Voluntaryism is the spiritual bedrock of this movement, and if we can’t sell it to the majority of people, then some form of authoritarianism will continue to prevail by default.

So, a Camp 3 coalition of Voluntaryists should flesh out, communicate and market the plan, including the statement of Voluntaryist principles. These are loosely sketched out below under the heading Guardrails to protect Voluntaryism, but we would need a formal statement to which a Voluntaryist Parliament would be legally bound. This coalition would communicate and negotiate at each stage, and admit new members as things progress. I believe that most people are Voluntaryists at heart; they just haven’t gone that step further to understand how a society could formally adopt it as a way of living. I maintain that anyone in a freedom movement who isn’t a Voluntaryist doesn’t understand freedom. After all, Voluntaryism is non-coercion, and non-coercion is freedom.

Changing the contract – new elections for truly independent MPs and criteria for qualification

Once we’ve repudiated the party political contract with a successful boycott, the government will probably decide to ignore us. At that point, we’ll already have a people’s mandate to move to mass non-compliance campaigns. If an electoral boycott is successful, those too will be successful. ‘They’ will not be able to ignore us forever.

Once the Establishment decides to engage with the movement, here are the outlines of a new contract:

Parliament is to be dissolved to pave the way for a general election that bans all political parties from participating. Banning political parties is not a contradiction of Voluntaryism. Remember, at this point a successful mass boycott would have been organised to achieve the clearly stated goal of bringing an end to the political party as a vehicle of people’s representation in Parliament. The people will have thus voluntarily rejected the political party system.

So at this point, only independent MPs are eligible; anyone who has previously served as an MP for a political party is not eligible to stand. Previous independent MPs are eligible. Jeremy Corbyn is an example of where debate might arise when someone has served as an MP in the past and then became and independent.

There will be a period of three months leading up to the dissolution of parliament in which candidates within each constituency will need to secure enough signatures to qualify for entry on the ballot.

The top, say, five candidates (or some other number to be agreed) with the most signatures will qualify for their constituency ballot.

Candidates, during a campaign to obtain signatures to get on the ballot and to be subsequently elected, may not accept donations from a corporate body or any institution that is not a person. All donations over a specified amount, say £1,000, individually or in the aggregate, from any single individual are not permitted. The Electoral Commission will audit donations, and sanction candidates according to the severity of the breach.

All candidates must disclose and make public the details of all their directorships, both current and those held within the last 18 months, including directorships of closely associated persons (to be defined).

Candidates must also disclose and make public their tax returns for the last 3 years, and their net wealth. Voluntaryism cannot seek to prevent wealthy individuals from standing but, in recognition of the fact that money has corrupted politics and that the rich are unlikely to depose the rich, voters have a right to know this important detail about their candidates. The very act of standing for public office reduces the degree of privacy to which a candidate is entitled since candidate transparency and disclosure are necessary to elect truly independent candidates. If a multi-millionaire or billionaire is able to convince their constituents that they are sincere Voluntaryists, then so be it.

Candidates must also agree to a criminal records check and must make the results publicly available.

Candidates will be required to agree in writing to campaign and legislate on Voluntaryist principles. If this whole idea gets any traction, we can move to crafting the principles to which all candidates must agree.

We may need to add one or two other qualification / disqualification criteria, but one final and vitally important one to throw in for now is a ban on freemasons or members of secret societies, and membership of global oligarchic think tanks like the Bilderberg group or the Council on Foreign Relations, which formulate global policies that have subverted democracy. Read my three-part series on Operation Gladio and then tell me that secret societies aren’t a threat to democracy and freedom. Some people proudly declare their membership of these cloistered clubs, but the word ‘secret’ implies that we will not simply be able to do a google search to expose them. If they are required to confirm that they aren’t, we must rely on them being ratted out in due course.

The only principle we are going to impose is Voluntaryism. After all, how else are we to have any chance of achieving Voluntaryism as a societal and political goal? Imposing Voluntaryism sounds like a contradiction, but it is no more of a contradiction than declaring that the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself. The only cure for authoritarianism is Voluntaryism , and unless we make a real commitment to it, both politically and spiritually, we will simply end up replacing one type of tyranny with another.

Constituents should have the right to recall an MP at any stage in the term of office for failure to abide by the Voluntaryist principles that they must pledge to abide by.

The pledge of allegiance to a King or Queen goes. Candidates will pledge allegiance to their constituents, because that’s who they’re supposed to serve. As a Voluntaryist, I don’t care what the people decide to do with the monarchy, as long as the monarchy does not impede a Voluntaryist parliament in any way. It wouldn’t be Voluntaryist if they could! Voluntaryism returns power to its rightful place – the people.

How to form a cabinet

The idea that We The People could not run the machinery of government to make it more moral is a sad reflection of the apathy, low self-esteem, and ignorance in the general population about how the machine actually works (or doesn’t work in too many cases). Above all, we endow those clowns called ministers with intelligence and know-how that they do not deserve.

In the case of parliamentarians, the truth is that a truly democratic process of electing representatives, chosen not by a party but by the people, would yield a calibre of person far superior, and far more fit for the job than the current lot of order-followers.

Do you really think that in a fair competition among 73,000 voters (the average size of a UK constituency), we could get a worse result than Keir Starmer, David Lammy, or any other politician of any stripe who has climbed the greasy pole? Every corner of the country has talented, and above all decent, people who want to serve their community and not Satan or Mammon, as most of the current lot are.

There are 24 ministerial departments that comprise the machinery of UK government. If you allocated all 650 independent MPs to a department, each department would be run by a committee of 27 MPs. Instead of top-down dictatorship of one minister, advocating anti-democratic outrages like abolition of the jury system, you’d have bottom-up policy and law-making by 27. Those 27, in turn, must canvass their constituents to determine whether a policy has public support. If an issue doesn’t pass a constituents’ plebiscite based on open debate, it can’t get the vote from that MP.

You wouldn’t allocate all MPs to a departmental committee. You would want to keep a number of MPs free to perform other functions, making the membership of each departmental committee smaller than 27. From that small but sizeable minority of floating MPs, a Speaker would be elected to schedule departmental work agendas for debate in the House, set the agenda in collaboration with departmental committees, and preside over debates. The remainder would continue to oversee existing accountability committees, generally troubleshoot, and independently review the work of the departmental committees.

Currently, the Executive branch of government (the Cabinet, or government) is fused with the Legislature (House of Parliament) because the Cabinet is drawn from the majority in the House. So Parliament effectively does what the Cabinet instructs, and the Judiciary then enforces the orders of the Executive and the House. It’s a perfect dictatorship of the triumvirate, and the political party taking control of both government and Parliament is the glue that holds it together. We are under an eternal dictatorship of the political party, which, in turn, is under the dictatorship of the oligarchy.

I am suggesting that a way out of this dictatorship is to insert a symbolic grenade into all political parties and pull the pin, thereby dispersing the power into 650 independent people’s MPs who answer to their consciences and their constituents, instead of a party whip. The Executive and the legislature are still fused but they are now genuinely representing the people and not a controlled political party.

Another way to further dissipate the power of the Legislature would be to fortify the House of Lords’ function as the body that reviews and blocks legislation that is not Voluntaryist, but that House would have to become an elected House, with perhaps a name change to something with less feudal overtones.

“Government by committee!”, I hear people screaming in protest. But the alternative is what we have now – government by dictatorship. Either you want a people’s democracy, which will be messier at first, but far less lethal than dictatorship, or you can have the two-party dictatorship that we’ve got now.

Now! Here’s the thing about the fear we have about driving the car. Recall the analogy I used in Part I, referring to my disturbing childhood dream. The car, which represents the machinery of government, to a great extent runs itself. A Cabinet merely gives the driver the destination. The driver is the civil service, whose job it is to drive the car in the direction the Cabinet tells it to.

The UK public sector employs 6.19 million people, or 18% of the total UK workforce of 34.3 million. Those 6 million government employees, for the most part, know how to do their jobs. They are the drivers of the car. If they appear to be incompetent, it is because they are led by ministerial donkeys who are giving them anti-human policy directives. I don’t deny, and neither would most of them, that the self-perpetuating bureaucracy is a Kafkaesque nightmare that will take another revolution to change. But the fact remains that we simply need to know where we want to go and inform them of the destination. That’s what that bunch of skilful dissemblers called a Cabinet does. They aren’t any cleverer than us; they’re just more devious than us.

So, you can appoint a Chair for each departmental committee, and then call them the Minister of Department X, but that person would only be the representative spokesperson of the 27 members. They would issue agreed policy statements and liaise with other departments to coordinate policy. They would have no more or less power than the other 26 committee members, who in turn are empowered by their constituents.

You could appoint a PM either from the Cabinet Office department or from the Chairs of the 24 departments. That could happen by a voting process within the Chairs of each department or within the membership of the Cabinet Office department. But again, that PM would merely be a spokesperson for the departments as a collective. That vote doesn’t have to happen on the first day that Parliament sits. Coalition governments in Europe often take weeks, sometimes months to form, so waiting 4-8 weeks to announce a titular PM is nothing to lose sleep over.

The job of each member of the departmental committee would be to filter bottom-up policy ideas, assess what is desirable in accordance with Voluntaryist principles, and doable. They then vote on it and liaise with the civil servants to implement policy or draft legislation. The key factors driving each member’s vote on an issue are its appeal to constituents and its conformity with voluntaryist principles. The bank of knowledge of what has been done in the past, and how government works, is the civil service. The departmental committee’s job is to decide what to do in the interests of society – that’s determining the car’s destination. The civil service determines how to get there – that’s driving the car.

Sceptics might say, “Well, nothing would get done.” Wrong. Only things that have overwhelming popular support, and which are not coercive, would get done. Which would mean that far fewer things would get done, but that is precisely the result we want, because it means less government interference in our lives. It would mean government acting only to restrain evil, as opposed to purportedly ‘doing good’. There would be less legislation, but that should not be mistaken for getting nothing done.

This would be a good result. In fact, the first five years of a new Voluntaryist parliament would be spent undoing the nonsense done in the last 25 years, which would mean opening up honest debates about the top-down diktat that has become the order of the day, and then burning rafts of oppressive non-voluntaryist legislation.

I’m quite sure that there would be people in the so-called freedom movement who would be horrified by this method of government. My blunt response is that the more horrified you are by this, the more authoritarian you are. This is what a real democracy in a complex, large society would actually look like. It would be messy at first, but it would work. The alternative is the centralised top-down control currently strangling us.

The next big question is: what are the guardrails to prevent a tyranny of the majority? Let’s tackle that, together with what would be the first items of business on the agenda of a new Voluntaryist government.

Guardrails to protect Voluntaryism and the first order of business for a Voluntaryist parliament

People, especially anarchists, will be quick to point out that the term “Voluntaryist government” is an oxymoron. And I’d have to agree, if you define government as the body to which we have hitherto foolishly granted authority to dictate our lives. However, I’m trying to redefine it as a body that is truly representative of citizens, and elected to administer services that we collectively need to draw on as a society. The former concept of government can’t be Voluntaryist, but the latter can.

A Voluntaryist must pledge to uphold, without exception, the following:

• Freedom of speech

• Individual privacy, including my home is my castle

• Bodily autonomy

• Freedom of movement

• Freedom of assembly and association

• Non-coercion in all legislation and policy

If we examine each of these briefly, we can see how these principles put into practice could halt much, if not all, of the tyranny currently in train.

Speech that explicitly encourages or incites violence, should remain unlawful. All other speech, including so-called hate speech, no matter how offensive, should be lawful as it does not cause harm, harm being defined purely as physical injury, and damage to, or loss of, property. The only answer to offensive speech is better speech. The Online Safety Act is nothing less than a Trojan Horse for suppressing legitimate speech. If parents are concerned about their children accessing ‘harmful’ material, they should re-assess their parenting responsibilities rather than outsourcing parenting to the state.

Privacy entails the right to protect one’s personal information, and to secure that information from exploitation by another party without our explicit consent. That means I should not have to identify myself in order to access all manner of services, including the most basic ones. After 12 years of owning a smartphone, Apple is now telling me to “set up Face ID” and verify that I am over 18 years of age. Take a running jump, Apple.

The only reason for another party to require my identity details before engaging with me is to prevent fraud as a consequence of that specific interaction. As such, I expect a bank to prove that I am the owner of my account before I withdraw my money from it. The combination of passwords, security codes, and physical card security measures have proven more than adequate for my entire adult life, but now ID is being demanded for the most innocuous online interactions. This is the coercive digitisation agenda at work.

When individual privacy rights are properly enforced, the whole Digital ID agenda, along with the surveillance panopticon that it serves, goes out the window. Programmable digital currencies fail the privacy test because they will use private data that a bank has no right to hold in order to determine how the currency is used.

My home is my castle. If you want a smart meter installed in your home, knock yourself out, but I don’t. If you think the planet is about to boil and evaporate into the stratosphere, then take whatever measures you deem fit to prevent this calamity, and I’ll take whatever measures I deem fit, which will be just about nil.

Bodily autonomy is an obvious voluntaryist pillar, the importance of which has been explained in a recent piece I did, and many others besides. Want to have a ‘pandemic’? Knock yourself out, but don’t think you’re going to inject me with your bag of tricks, which is the whole point of ‘pandemics’. Once people understand that they have an inalienable right to refuse any medical treatment, we will mysteriously see the end of ‘pandemics’.

Spraying particulate matter into the atmosphere in order to dim the sun? Putting aside the howling-at-the-moon madness of such lunacy, the government has, without our consent, enforced exposure of the entire population to chemicals via stratospheric aerosol injection. This disregard by the ruling class for what they call ‘the herd’ is actually worse now than it was in the Dark Ages. But that is probably because we are less intelligent now than we were back then. Smokers were banned many years ago from forcing others to inhale secondary smoke in enclosed spaces. I welcomed that move, but now, in direct contradiction of that logic, the government subjects us to indiscriminate chemical exposure from stratospheric aerosol injection without our individual consent on the patently false pretext of ‘saving the planet’ from the ravages of sunlight. For how much longer are we going to tolerate this?

Freedom of movement in public spaces is essential to voluntaryism, because it restrains arbitrary government attempts to control populations by controlling our movement. Again, you want to have a pandemic? Knock yourself out, and stay indoors for two years. But if I want to walk down the street and visit my friend’s house, that’s between me and my friend, and no-one else. My risk, my choice.

The point about coercion is that it doesn’t engender belief in the stated objectives of the coercion. It engenders resentment, and resistance – active or passive. Of course, tyrants don’t actually care whether you believe in their purported pretexts for coercion; they just want compliance, because compliance confirms their power over you. There’s a word for this – bullying. So why is the Western professional managerial class, which has built up a formidable industry around discouraging and punishing bullying in the workplace, cultivating a culture of bullying entire societies into complying with everything from climate alarmism to Digital ID and policing speech on social media, to name just a few of their agendas?

The government knows full well that it does not have the artifice to convince people of the merits of an oligarchic-driven agenda, so it has resorted to the tactic the ruling class has used for millennia – force and violence. We must now resist.

The principles of voluntaryism require transparent debate on policies. The so-called science that underpins one of the government’s most destructive policies – Net Zero – was never openly debated. An edict from the UN’s IPCC was passed down and we were told that the science is settled. The lie is that we need to furiously reduce carbon emissions to avoid an existential planetary disaster. A voluntaryist approach would be to simply line up the ten most credible climate sceptics against the IPCC’s ten most ardent climate alarmists and see where that debate leads. At best, the climate alarmist case will be thrown out. At worst, a sufficient level of doubt will be introduced to bring into question the insane Net Zero juggernaut. The mere introduction of doubt or scepticism means that you can’t bet the house on the IPCC agenda with Net Zero madness. At that point we should be able to turn our attention to tackling actual environmental destruction once the obsessive focus on ‘carbon’ recedes.

If the Bank of England’s digital currency agenda, aptly dubbed a solution in search of a problem, were subjected to the same open and transparent debate, it too would collapse. When we admit a wider array of knowledgeable voices into that debate, we will find there is a nefarious ruling class agenda, and the program will be halted. That’s what the government fears – open debate on all the policies it is coercing us into.

Ultimately, Voluntaryism aims to constitutionally guarantee that all services supplied by government cannot breach Natural Law. Coercion is a breach of Natural Law. Policing must be restricted to the prevention of, or intervention in, assaults or theft, but not speech or free expression. It must be constitutionally enshrined that any activity that promotes a violation of Natural Law is by definition unlawful. On those grounds, citizens taxes could not fund any war that was not purely in self-defence, the only determinant of self-defence being a proven attack on UK soil by another party.

The whole question of what the government could legally tax us for would be up for grabs, but we can tackle that once we’ve got the Voluntaryist ball rolling.

In the final analysis, a truly Voluntaryist parliament would not proceed with any policy when open and honest debate raises doubts about the policy. This would greatly restrict government activity to preventing evil as opposed to claiming to do ‘good’. If the government wants to create a fund to do good, then there has to be an opt-out for those who don’t believe in that particular good.

Pre-empting anarchist purist arguments

To the anarchist purists in the room who want the end of government, I ask them: in whose lifetime do they expect this to happen? What plan do they have to get us there in an orderly way that preserves the dignity and livelihoods of the 6 million people employed in the public sector, to whom I have referred above? I have found that ranting at government is actually quite easy to do. The mere premise that a self-respecting person would subject themselves to the authority of a venal bunch of controllers and drama-addicted order-followers is enough to end the argument. But actually solving the problem of government is where the rant ends and paralysis begins.

Anarchism is a spiritual and intellectual journey that not many are prepared to make, and for that reason, practical solutions are going to have to offer a value system and a roadmap that makes Voluntaryism credible and doable.

In positing a Voluntaryist parliament, I am obviously not advocating unequivocal support for government. It is the beginning of an overhaul of government. I am separating the spiritual purism of wanting the abolition of government authority from my life, from the political reality of 6.19 million lives who depend on this institution for a living, and who are driving a complex machine, which, if it collapsed overnight, would lead to catastrophic consequences. The purists might retort that they are not naïve and therefore not seeking an overnight collapse of government. The purists, as far as I can tell, are admirably spreading their gospel, in the hopes of encouraging increasing withdrawal from government, thus causing it to wither on the vine.

However, this institution called government has evolved over millennia, and its peaceful, gradual decay might take just as long. And as long as government is controlled by the ruling class, which it always has been, that unravelling may never happen because the ruling class uses the very thing we are up against – government – to control the message. In the meantime, the ruling elite is planning on putting us in a digital gulag, again using government, within a few years.

Faced with that political reality, the trade-off is simple – reclaim government and make it truly work for us. Voluntaryist government is the only way to turn this Titanic around and make government moral.

The barrier to success

I’m pretty certain that everything I’ve just written here is a complete fantasy! Whether it can be made into a reality depends on how much work we’re prepared to do to convince people that Party Politics is the primary tool that the oligarchy uses to keep us voting for the interests of the oligarchy.

Here in the UK, if the people get fed up of the existing two-party ding-dong, all ‘They’ have to do is introduce two new parties. It’s now Reform versus the Greens, with Labour and Conservatives welcome to pick up the scraps and form a compliant ‘opposition’. And just like Homer Simpson repeatedly burning his hand on the hot plate, the Normies are vowing to go to the polls and vote harder in a new two-party ding-dong. It’s not Red and Blue anymore. It’s Green and Turquoise. What an amazing difference!

We need to convince people that The Party’s Over!

This is a BIG plan. It’s outrageously ambitious and cannot be achieved without a community and disciplined organisation. But in the face of a massive threat from The System, perhaps it’s time to think big rather than thinking of where to run and hide. For the first time in history, the totalitarians are implementing a technocratic system that leaves no room for escape. And they are not asking for our permission. They have hijacked the government and the law-making process, and they’re going full steam ahead. Ducking and diving is one way to deal with it but, if we are to dream big, then perhaps symbolically storming the parliamentary Bastille and taking it back might be another.

The main barrier will be getting enough people to boycott the next general election. But a boycott must be seen as the first part of a comprehensive yet easy to understand plan – people will not boycott unless they can put some faith in what comes after it, and a boycott is the only way to comprehensively and peacefully delegitimise the current abusive party system.

What happens if not enough people answer the call to boycott? Well, we’d have to look at the numbers that boycotted and tap into that group to build a new movement. Its core mission would be to run non-compliance campaigns, and to keep working on the next boycott. As the government inevitably disappoints those who did vote, you’d hope that our numbers would swell, and maybe we’ll succeed on a second or third attempt.

In the final analysis, it’s not the mechanics and administrative issues involved at each stage that would prevent this from working. There is only one true barrier to our success, and that is the willingness of enough people to embrace their own ability to take back control of parliament by not delegating control to a political party. And that, in turn, hinges on the level of consciousness. It’s as simple as that.

Until people know in the core of their bones that the politicians are not better or smarter than us, we will always be beaten. No politician and no party is going to save us. This plan will not fail on a technical or process hitch. It would fail on a spiritual deficit alone. And that is why ‘They’ are confident of winning. That’s why ‘They’ are revealing the method. ‘They’ think we are spiritually beaten. Are we?

[i] Mandatory form issued by a UK employer on termination of a worker’s employment.

If enough people in the West know that The System is owned and run by a criminal gang of oligarchs and their lackeys – referred to henceforth as ‘They’, or ‘the Establishment’ – and that it’s only going to get worse unless we do something about it, then what exactly is stopping us from doing something about it?

Some might say that I’ve answered the question by asking it – there aren’t enough people in the know. That might be true, but I don’t believe it’s as simple as that. That answer gives us the excuse to keep talking about Establishment crimes in the hopes that enough people will eventually see the light. But, come the day that enough people see the light … then what? Do we have a plan?

The real answer to the question I posed at the start of this piece is that we don’t have a plan. Regardless of whether we have enough people, we need a plan, because the plan in itself can significantly contribute to getting enough people to ‘see the light’.

We need a plausible strategy for taking back control of our political systems. Not the Farage way of taking back control where you win a referendum and then go down the pub. I mean a proper way of taking back control that entails having a strategy, convincing people that it’s doable, and then executing with courage.

In these next two essays, I will explore this problem from beginning to end: why every successful revolution needs a plan, why we know we need a revolution but don’t have a plan, what the plan hinges on and, crucially, what is the plan – namely, the plan for a Voluntaryist Revolution.

This sounds tremendously grandiose, but it’s not. We already have political systems that could work if only ‘We the People’ were truly running them. The only problem is that ‘We the People’ don’t believe we can run them. There are many ways in which evil manifests, but one sure way is apathy. Specifically an apathy born of a lack of self-belief. If we do not believe in ourselves, then we do not act. And if we do not act, then we must bow to the will of those who do act – the evil ones. Our apathy therefore begets evil, and so our apathy is evil. This is what humanity has been doing for roughly 6,000 years, give or take a couple of thousand.

I’m not denying that numerous confrontations over the ages with the ruling class have not yielded any victories. Of course they have, and sometimes quite stunning ones. But after those victories, we invariably succumb to the counter-revolution. As I said when I reflected on the trap that Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle leaders fell into after winning the war, fighting against something is not enough unless you have a clear vision of what society should look like after you have won the battle. You need a credible plan, and the determination to see it through.

In the battle we are currently fighting, the ‘then what’ problem takes on an even greater significance than, say, a classic liberation struggle against colonialism. This is because the ‘then what’ is not just about how to live well after victory; it is the actual battle strategy. It is how you win the war.

In this first part, I will discuss the following problems:

1. Why we need a plan.

2. The psychological barrier to believing we can get out of this mess.

3. Other plans out there, and why I don’t believe they’re going to cut the mustard.

4. The first hurdle we face – the quantitative and qualitative aspects of “enough people” referred to in the very first paragraph of this piece. This is the sine qua non of the Voluntaryist Revolution.

5. What are the signs that we have, or are at least close to having, “enough people”?

6. The significance of The Revelation of the Method. It is now up to us to categorically reject Their method or bow to it.

7. Why a Voluntaryist Revolution?

8. A hint about the actual plan.

For the avoidance of doubt, when I use the word “battle” or “war” in these essays, they are synonyms for peaceful resistance using non-violent, democratic means.

Why we need a plan

If we don’t already have enough people, then having a credible plan is in itself a way to getting closer to enough people seeing the light. What’s the evidence for this claim? Well, this is how ‘They’ work, and I don’t need to tell you how successful their business model has been.

Let’s take climate change as an example. The Establishment decided on this label as a convenient smokescreen for the damage being wreaked on the planet by the machinery of capitalism. Their next step was to label climate change as an existential threat — and crucially, to give the plebs a narrative and a plan to avert ‘disaster’. This narrative largely involves blaming environmental destruction on the daily actions of other plebs, not on the Establishment.

Up to the point that ‘They’ decided global warming was an existential threat (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), most people didn’t have a clue that climate change was anything to be concerned about. But, when it comes to revolutionary plans, that’s beside the point. People don’t buy into the climate narrative because they’ve pored over the IPCC papers, which, as we know, represent bought science. They buy into it because they need drama in their lives, and crucially, Mummy and Daddy at Establishment HQ have said loud and clear, “Don’t worry, we’ve got a plan.”

The plan is the fun part. The drama-addicted plebs get to hate people for the most absurd things, like driving a car, or eating meat. There are two elements to executing any strategy. You need a pretext and a plan. The pretext to place the planet under house arrest was the ‘pandemic’. It gees the troops up, and helps them to rationalise their absurd behaviour. But the pretext itself is not the reason why the Establishment always get their way. They get their way because they have a plan and, crucially, they execute it. Without the plan, the pretext is just an interesting claim.

The Establishment has a plan for their Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) to usher in technocratic totalitarianism, and they have an array of sugar-coated pretexts all packaged up in their Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. It’s about time that We the People had a counter-revolution for their ceaseless top-down revolutions. If we want a Voluntaryist Revolution to counter the 4IR, we’re going to need a plan.

The problem we face in crafting a plan is not our inability to create a truthful marketing brochure to convince people how bad things are, and that voting for another political party won’t solve anything. The problem is that people feel powerless to change it. They don’t believe that anything can be done. And that’s because no-one has presented a credible plan.

The psychological barrier to believing there is a way out of this mess

To illustrate the psychological barrier to getting out of this mess, I will share a recurring dream I had as a child, aged eight-ish. In the dream, I and my siblings are sitting in the back of my father’s car as we tootle along the road. All is well with my father behind the wheel, until suddenly, he’s no longer behind the wheel. He just disappears; there’s no-one driving the car. I had a capacity to lucid dream when I was a kid, so I could get out of dreams when they got too disturbing. This was a semi-lucid dream in that I didn’t create it, but I bailed out when the car became driverless. I suddenly knew I was dreaming and I told myself I needed to wake up to end the disturbing experience.

The recurrence of this dream spoke to a deep-seated fear of the loss of safety provided by those we rely on.

For the purposes of this essay, the car represents the machinery of government. Despite the fact that democratic government is meant to be by the people and for the people, we know damn well that it’s by the oligarchy and for the oligarchy. Western societies have become collectively infantilised by convincing themselves that the people (the children) couldn’t possibly drive the car, and so we rely on our ‘betters’ (parental authority figures) to do it. And then, to deal with the cognitive dissonance of this adult infantilisation, most people tell themselves that mere voting actually means that they are driving the car, despite the fact that the car keeps veering further and further towards a ditch.

But we can actually drive this huge and complicated machine called government, and this plan will attempt to set out in enough detail why and how. At this juncture I want to address the anarchists in the room, of whom I am actually one. Yes, despite saying that we can drive the machine called government, I too have come to abhor the concept of governmental authority.

The end of government, as an external illegitimate authority, is an ideal we aspire to. It is an idealistic aspiration, but it isn’t realistic in the time that we have left. Supposing you get as far as convincing enough people that the entire concept of government is abhorrent in principle. First off, good luck with achieving that before 2030! But let’s say your audience has grown exponentially, and vast numbers are more receptive to your anarchist message. The resistance we will always face is: okay, so we abolish government … and then what? The answer of: “We govern ourselves by mutual consent” demands a how. The Voluntaryist Revolution is the how. The absence of a how amounts to asking people to jump without a parachute.

The machine of government is a beast that’s not going away anytime soon. In theory, it’s our machine. We just have to make it more moral. Given where the collective level of consciousness is, I believe it is asking too much of people to abandon the machine and believe that everything will be fine without it.

Accelerationism seems to be working very well for the pathocracy right now, and we need to respond with a counter-revolution that is just as fast as the one ‘They’ are formulating. We need to put the brakes on the 4IR with a plan to hijack the machine they are using – government. The solution is staring us in the face, and yet we’re advocating running away from it. The only viable option in the time we have left is to use government against them. That option will be fleshed out in Part II.

Other plans out there

There is much good resistance literature doing the rounds, and this piece is by no means intended to dismiss it. Everything must be thrown into the pot, and the whole complicated stew will provide nourishment for the battle against the New World Order.

Much, if not most, of the current thinking on resistance, falls under the heading of building parallel systems, be it food independence, financial independence, escaping the digital grid, and so on. These strategies for surviving the coming fallout are not plans for resistance. Rather, they amount to every man for himself, and God for us all.

Take, for example, growing your own food. In England, 279,000 people make a living off the land. This might provide a rough estimate for the population of people who have the ability right now to be self-sufficient in food. We could bump the number up a bit for people not classified as part of the agricultural workforce by virtue of having sufficient land to grow their own food, but I doubt you could boost this number by much more.

Thus, the percentage of people in England currently dependent on the land is 0.48% (based on the latest population estimate of 58.6 million). Double it if you want but, let’s face it, the vast majority of people reading this piece are statistically likely to be city dwellers who wouldn’t know a tractor from a wheelbarrow, and crucially, couldn’t get access to a piece of land large enough to make them and their dependents self-sufficient.

And if we arrived at the dire point where a minuscule percentage of the population has to grow their own food to survive, how does that tiny minority propose to defend its spud patches from hungry, marauding immigrants from London, like me?

The technocratic totalitarian nightmare is going to be like no other in history. It is a contradiction for us, on the one hand, to warn about how the technology they are building is so comprehensive that it will be impossible to escape the net, and yet, on the other hand, insist that we will somehow have the ability to escape this foolproof net that we are warning about.

This leads to a paradox of building parallel societies to survive the technocratic totalitarian nightmare. If these parallel societies aren’t large enough to pose an ungovernable threat to the Establishment, the idea is an escapist fantasy. Someone will need to explain to me how ‘They’ won’t succeed in hunting you down if they succeed in instituting a cashless society and programmable digital money. I believe that what will make a parallel society robust enough to survive is its scale. Perhaps I’m wrong, but on that basis, if you believe that parallel societies will be large enough to survive on their own amid a totalitarian nightmare, it means we might already have the numbers needed to foil the totalitarian nightmare before it really takes off. So we might as well confront them head-on, now, with the Voluntaryist Revolution.

In short, I desperately want to believe that “the only solution is to build for yourself a parallel means of existence that does not involve the internet as we know it”, but I am also too cynical to believe that ‘They’ will just let us live our quiet little lives in our cosy parallel universe.

I’ll wrap up this section with a resistance solution offered by Simon Dixon, a Bitcoin millionaire, who tells us:

“The best resistance is you have to become wealthy. I’m sorry to say that if you haven’t become wealthy yet. But the only people that change the system are the people that can buy the politicians, that can engage in lobbies, and that can create their own companies, that can invest in decentralised technology… those are the next elites, and you need to become one of those.” [emphasis added]

No-one can deny that in the money-corrupted world we have created, the more money you have, the more effective is your cushion against life’s vicissitudes. But The System is designed to ensure that only a very few have that comfort. If a significant proportion of us had it, it would signify that power was more dispersed, and opportunities for exploitation by The Establishment would be greatly diminished. In a system designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few at the top of the pyramid, screaming “Get rich or die!” must surely be music to the ears of our overlords.

Is it realistic to urge those not yet anywhere near the top of the pyramid to just get rich? And is it also fair to say that the further up the wealth pyramid you are, the less likely you are to care about a solution to the current mess because you’ve already found your solution? Expecting the rich to depose the rich from power is a sad contradiction.

I find it tragically ironic that the West is staring into the precipice because its societies have collectively worshipped Mammon. And the solution put forward by ‘enlightened’ financial commentators in alt-media is to…keep worshipping Mammon. A ‘spiritually enlightened’ Bitcoin millionaire, who knows how corrupt the system is, is advocating that we hoard the currency of corruption in order to corrupt the already maximally corrupted System in a ‘better’ direction? Proof, if proof were needed, that to a man with a hammer, everything is a nail. Or, more precisely, to a man with money, the world is one giant market, and everything is a product, including integrity and freedom.

In 2020, the sensible advice was to completely detox from mainstream media. Six short years later, I’m starting to wonder if I need to detox from alt-media.

What does enough people mean?

From a qualitative perspective, we need to get over the idea that we need people to be as knowledgeable as we think we are on all the State Crimes Against Democracy that we’ve learnt about. I’d like to posit that we simply need enough people to realise that things are bad enough, and that voting for a political party is not a solution. In other words, we can’t be purists when applying criteria for assessing whether the people are ready for a revolution.

There are signs that this is possible, more on which later. The concern about abandoning a purist attitude to assessing whether the temperature is warm enough for a revolution is that lovers of the climate narrative may jump on board the train and then drag us into the Sustainability Goals under Agenda 2030, which would leave the Establishment laughing all the way to the bank. The Voluntaryist Revolution will have to have checks to prevent any form of imposed tyranny, climate or otherwise, or it wouldn’t be a Voluntaryist Revolution. I will elaborate on those checks in Part II.

From a quantitative perspective, the first step in the Voluntaryist revolution – a campaign to encourage withdrawal of consent, to be outlined in Part II – must begin even if we don’t think we have a majority. The hope is that starting it will cause the number to grow on the basis that there are always people who are indifferent but will jump on board if… wait for it… they see a credible plan.

We are all aware of the phenomenon of people working themselves up into a lather over ‘the latest thing’ simply because it’s the latest thing. Well, we need to make the Voluntaryist Revolution ‘the latest thing’. So, to all the Freedom marketing gurus out there twiddling their thumbs, I say to you: Ask not what the revolution can do for you, but what you can do for the revolution!

What are the signs that we have enough people?

Although it might be true to say that most people don’t know just how evil ‘They’ are, most of us know that we are governed by a plutocracy. Harvard University, that bastion of the Establishment order, has publicised what it called “one of the most important studies you’ve probably never heard of.” The study was done circa 2015, and here’s the topline from the horse’s mouth:

“Ten years ago, political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University took an extraordinary data set and a small army of researchers and set out to determine whether America could still credibly call itself a democracy. As case studies, they used 1,800 policy proposals over 30 years, tracking how they made their way through the political system and whose interests were served by the outcomes. For small-d democrats, the results were devastating. Political outcomes overwhelmingly favored very wealthy people, corporations, and business groups. The influence of ordinary citizens, meanwhile, was at a “non-significant, near-zero level.” America, they concluded, was not a democracy at all, but a functional oligarchy.” [emphasis added]

Of course, it’s the same throughout the West. There probably isn’t a single country in the world that isn’t run by its oligarchy. We know that we could add an encyclopaedia to the evidence file, but for the purposes of making the case to a group we would consider not all the way there yet, this is the starting point.

More examples of widespread knowledge of rule by pathocracy:

• The majority of Americans know that JFK was assassinated by the Deep State, however you like to define that term. The semblance of democracy, not democracy itself, died in the US in 1963. I would suggest that real democracy has never existed, but that’s for another essay.

• The fact that 9/11 was some sort of put-up job has gained immense currency since the covid scam. Like the JFK assassination, this too is set to become accepted wisdom in the not-too-distant future.

• The depravity of the ruling class in the West, as revealed by only a small fraction of the Epstein files, has been laid bare.

• Most sane people in the West are currently trying to process the grotesque contradiction between a ruling class that criminalises denial of the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, while fully supporting the televised Palestinian Holocaust of today.

The title of the Harvard University exposé I referenced above is: “Oligarchy in the open: What happens now as the U.S. is forced to confront its plutocracy problem?” Substitute “the world” for “U.S.”, and you’ve got a more accurate question. This is effectively Harvard University saying: we now know we’re screwed…but then what?

The method has been revealed. Is there going to be action in response to the revelations? If not now, when? If not us, who?

The significance of what has been openly revealed to us all

If Establishment gatekeepers at Harvard University are blowing the whistle on the plutocracy, it’s a fair bet that enough of us know enough about the peril we’re in. So, are ‘They’ shaking in their boots? No! All is being revealed, and that is part of the Faustian bargain they are trying to forge.

Michael A Hoffman II posits that the Revelation of the Method is an integral part of the cryptocracy’s game of Truth or Consequences – the cryptocracy being the high priests of the Establishment’s anti-human religion. Running a global ruling-class paedophile ring and flaunting a televised genocide in our faces ought to be enough for Western civilisation to take a hard look at itself in the mirror, but these abominations are only the tip of the iceberg of crimes committed by the vampires in suits. The question ‘They’ are asking us is: do we consent? If not, what do we intend to do? If the answer is nothing, that apathy amounts to consent.

Consent through apathy is rooted in the degradation of our spiritual acuity, and our collective moral decay. The perverse logic of the Revelation of the Method is explained by Hoffman as follows[i]:

“Exposure without action against the perpetrators of the crimes revealed devolves into a kind of perverse advertisement for the prowess of the cryptocrats, who are seen as having performed fantastic feats of criminal enterprise with a genius that renders them immune from the consequences.

[…] If the truth of what the cryptocracy has perpetrated is grasped and acted upon, the consequences for the conspirators will be annihilation, but if the people fail to see the truth or fail to act on their perception, thus rendering unto the Process a kind of tacit consent born of apathy, amnesia and abulia, the consequences for the conspirators will be a giant step in the advancement in their system of control, that is to say, ever tighter bonds of enslavement for humanity. Why does the cryptocracy bother to gamble so much by going public with what it is doing to us? Because consent fuels their control like no other form of energy.” [emphasis added]

When weighing up the consequences, failing to act on our perception is not that different to failing to see the truth. We therefore have to stop pretending that all we have to do is keep revealing “The Truth” about every single political event, as it unfolds, because each unfolding carries with it the question: What are we going to do? This is not to say that we should stop doing investigative work that exposes the tsunami of lies spewed by the mainstream media. We need truth and action… says A Plague on Both Houses … sitting on his arse, and bashing away furiously at the keyboard!

We face two interlinked hurdles that prevent action. The first hurdle in plain terms is our “laziness and disconnection from reality”[ii]. It is our inability to perceive the threat for what it is. Perhaps the greatest success of the so-called Enlightenment was the brainwashing of Western society at large to believe that Satan – the dark force of entropy by deceit – does not exist. For without Satan, what use do we have for God? Without Satan, what use is there for moral absolutes? After all, moral absolutes feed action. If there is no question that something is wrong, it must be put right. But moral relativism introduces intellectual equivocation, and the granting of permission to all acts, since evil is attenuated into error, and error is both tolerable and forgivable. Thus, in a morally degraded society, Revelation of the Method provides fertile soil for inaction as consent.

But that is not the only reason for the ripening of conditions that work against us.

I am positing that another important reason is that the systems of governance – systems that we perceive give our lives order – seem so complicated, and so thoroughly rigged, that we can’t possibly wrest control of them. We therefore surrender, in the hope that more and more exposure of the lies will somehow defeat the cryptocracy. Or we make plans to take flight and build parallel systems in the hope that we can outrun and outsmart the dark forces tightening their grip on the world.

Perhaps we can run away. I am not averse to fleeing when all else has failed! Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. But I don’t think we should pin our hopes solely on taking flight.

We have to remove this second hurdle (disbelief in our ability to organise and seize the levers of control) in order to find out if the first hurdle (apathy) is indeed insurmountable. To the extent that the two are connected, all the more reason to act. The machinery of government – that inscrutable machine which orders and disorders our lives – is not beyond the control of a moral and courageous people. The reason we think that we can’t drive the car is that we have been infantilised.

You cannot reform something so rotten. Nothing short of unseating the tyrannical bastille of parliament with a permanent voluntaryist parliament will suffice.

Why a Voluntaryist Revolution?

Compulsion or coercion is an abrogation of the right under Natural Law to exercise free will and conscience. The spiritual essence of the problems we face today can be distilled to a battle between compulsion and voluntaryism. A small clique of power-crazed oligarchs have amassed enormous power and wealth, and fear losing it. That wealth was amassed by exploitation, and exploitation is the unfair manipulation and use of people to gain advantage for yourself.

The oligarchy has systematically prioritised its needs over those of the rest of humanity, and this has been achieved by coercion and lies. Lies and deliberate omissions create the psychological conditions for accepting policies that would not otherwise be tolerated, and so the lie is a form of compulsion. If more people knew that huge numbers of scientists do not subscribe to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, the resistance to destructive Net Zero policies would be unstoppable.

A system that enforces its will by violence and compulsion cannot be defeated by violence and compulsion. The only way to confront coercion is with its antithesis – Voluntaryism. Voluntaryism aims to exclude both compulsion and lies from individual, societal, and political interactions. And the only way to exclude lies is to admit as many voices as possible into the debate on any given issue. That means the debate takes longer, but that is far less harmful than taking expedient action based on debate that does not admit all the evidence and relevant ideas. Governments have perfected the art of excluding voices and information that do not serve their control agendas, and the cost we will pay is the loss of our freedom and natural resources, and the destruction of life on a grand scale.

A system that seeks only to restrain evil, while eschewing compulsion of ‘good’, is a system that fosters cooperation based on the exercise of free will and conscience. The communal good is not a fiction, but it cannot be achieved by compulsion. It can only be achieved by consent of individuals participating in what they genuinely perceive to be the good. Those who do not share the perception of the ‘good’ must be allowed to opt out in order to avoid compulsion.

This will result in cooperative joint ventures in which all the participants are willing contributors and not resentful coerced prisoners. Ventures fail when a critical mass of participants, realising their mistake, voluntarily withdraw, thus depriving the venture of voluntary participatory momentum.

A venture succeeds when sceptical onlookers become convinced of its merits and subsequently join, thus giving the project more voluntary participatory momentum.

Voluntary participation in a venture is not in itself a guarantee of success, but forced participation certainly helps to mask failure when the canaries in the mine are not allowed an escape route.

All government structures and legislation should be stripped of their coercive elements and reorganised on voluntary and Natural Law principles. I will say more on Voluntaryist guardrails in Part II, but applying these principles would enable the demolition of swathes of oppressive government machinery overnight. That does not imply putting huge numbers of government employees out on the streets since there would be a re-allocation of people from coercive machinery and into services that the Establishment has deliberately strangled precisely because they are pro-human and life-affirming. A data-driven, AI-powered, digitisation agenda is by its very nature anti-human, since it prioritises machines and data over humans. From a Voluntaryist perspective, it is choice-denying in its assumption that the algorithm knows best.

I do not subscribe to a Hobbesian, survival-of-the-fittest anarchism. If we are pro-human, then Voluntaryism cannot entail creating human redundancy. Such a revolution would fail on its own anti-human terms.

A hint about the actual plan

Back in October 2023, I got excited about a project called the Independent Alliance (IA). It was launched by David Fleming, and its central premise was to platform as many independent MPs as possible for election to Parliament. As far as I can tell, he seems to have abandoned it, but he certainly gets the credit for floating the idea of large-scale, systematic balloting of independent candidates.

David Fleming’s IA independents would have had to have signed up to a manifesto that broadly pledged to curb the slings and arrows of the World Economic Forum’s outrageous New World Order agenda.

In Part II, I will build on that idea with a proposal to make it maximalist – that is to say, to overthrow the political party system entirely in one general election. Wildly ambitious! For that to happen, it would need to be preceded by a popular vote of no-confidence in the form of the withdrawal of our consent to the current order. I will explain what that means in Part II, and why it is the starting point for the Voluntaryist Revolution.

In this iteration, independent candidates would sign up to a Voluntaryist manifesto, regardless of their political agenda. This greatly broadens the appeal of independents by essentially opening up independent candidature to the whole spectrum of political beliefs on condition that they formally pledge to be held accountable to Voluntaryist principles. This is the safeguard that guarantees maximum participation while theoretically providing an insurance policy against a new form of tyranny of the majority.

Thus, the electorate might vote in 330 independent climate alarmists, but those climate alarmists would have to commit to open and honest debate about climate alarmism, admitting the full spectrum of expert dissenters and supporters. That would inevitably cast doubt on the maximalist Net Zero policy to which successive governments have committed the country, and admitting due scientific scepticism would, of necessity, render current policies untenable. Crucially, whatever aspects of current climate legislation that were retained could not result in coercive measures against any section of the population. An entirely different result should be obtained by eliminating compulsion through coercion and lies.

The strategy is not simply to pack the whole House with genuine people’s representatives; those representatives must also form a ‘Cabinet’ and actually administer the machinery of government openly, and by consensus. Part II will be a starter for ten on how to overthrow the party political system with a people’s government that cannot coerce the people either collectively or individually. At the moment, we claim to have a democracy that routinely, and by design, coerces the majority! This is no exaggeration. A party voted in by less than half the electorate can obtain a majority of seats and then override not only the entire opposition, but also its own dissenting MPs through the party whip. It’s absurd. It’s the most effective tyranny humans have ever had because an ignorant electorate has been made to think this is democracy.

This audience needs no convincing that the party political system is an integral component of the oligarchs’ criminal syndicate, but the reference to the Harvard University exposé I referenced above (“Oligarchy in the open: What happens now as the U.S. is forced to confront its plutocracy problem?”) should suffice for newcomers to the discussion on why the West is screwed. The oligarchy rules because the oligarchy has perfected an industrial-scale system of coercion and lying, not to mention outright violence.

Here in the UK, people disillusioned with the Labour-Conservative ding-dong are beginning to pin their hopes on the Greens and Reform. Nothing would please the criminocracy more than a Reform-Greens ding-dong to replace the current Red and Blue Punch and Judy show. Reform is a Zionist party, and the global oligarchy is Zionist, so that tells you everything you need to know about the Farage farrago.

In case you need to know more about Farage, two thirds of his funding comes from a…wait for it… digital currency tycoon, Christopher Harborne. Harborne is one of the owners of Tether, the biggest cryptocurrency in the US. So my money’s on Reform doing a fine job of delivering us into the digital gulag, lock stock and barrel. In answer to whether Harborne wants anything from Farage for the more than £22 million he has donated to Reform so far, Farage replied: “No. Absolutely nothing in return at all.” Yeah, right.

As for the Greens, it’s great that the rank-and-file are right-on about Palestine, but at the levels where it matters most in the Party machinery – the top – the Zionist Imperialist Mafia pulled out all the stops to prevent them from becoming the first political party in the UK to officially declare that Zionism is racism. They can’t do what’s right because they’re a political party, and political parties don’t have a conscience. And that’s because they answer to a higher authority – the Establishment.

When you join a political party, you leave your conscience at the door. This is why The System loves political parties. Key decision-making is concentrated at the top, so The Man only has to control a few key figures at the top of three or four political parties. You cannot get to the top of a political party unless you are compromised, and therefore pliable in the hands of the oligarchy. Ever wondered why no leader of a major political party has expressed moral outrage at the Epstein files or the Palestinian genocide? Those leaders set the policy and the tone, and whip their MPs into line.

So, you might think that the Green Party looks and feels very different to Farage’s Reformers, but both would work equally well for Global Capital’s Sustainability scam, a central pillar of the Great Reset / 4IR scam. It’s encouraging to see the Greens at the grassroots level trying to take a firm, non-negotiable, and principled stance against Zionism. But if you asked these same principled anti-Zionists to hold an open and honest debate on climate alarmism by admitting credible expert dissenters who would collapse the Net Zero house of cards in less than ten minutes, their principles would go out the window. The raison d’être of the Greens is to promote climate alarmism. Without that card, they fold.

The political party, as an extension of centralised power in the hierarchy, is instrumental to oligarchic power. Civilisations collapse gradually at first, and then suddenly, and we’re in the suddenly stage. It’s past time to get people to stop believing in the political party as an entity. Throwing 650 independent MPs at Parliament would represent a fast and furious downward distribution of power. ‘They’ have bought three or four political parties, but could ‘They’ buy 650 truly independent MPs? If ‘They’ could, then ‘They’ probably deserve to win.

[i] Michael A Hoffman II, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, Independent History and Research, Idaho, 2001, Pg. 53-56

[ii] Ibid., Pg. 56

The next economic downturn will not just be managed with more money printing. It will be programmed directly into the money itself. Major geopolitical crises rarely operate only at the level of military strategy. They also reshape the economic and institutional frameworks through which societies are governed. Public attention focuses on the visible drama of conflict, while deeper financial and monetary transformations unfold largely outside the field of political debate.

The focus on geopolitics alone hides a systemic shift that is unfolding away from public scrutiny. An escalated conflict with Iran creates a massive risk of a sustained oil price spike. Roughly one fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz. A major conflict that disrupts this chokepoint would rapidly translate into a global energy shock.

In a highly indebted economy, a sustained oil shock behaves less like traditional inflation and more like a tax on consumption. As rising energy costs absorb a larger share of household income, discretionary spending collapses. Corporate revenues fall while input costs rise, leaving heavily leveraged firms and households struggling to service debt. The result is not necessarily sustained inflation but the risk of a debt-deflation spiral — a dynamic visible in the months preceding the 2008 financial crisis. This economic crisis scenario makes the existing mountain of US public and private debt much harder to manage, creating a powerful incentive for radical financial solutions.

Historically, major shifts in monetary systems have often occurred during periods of crisis. Wars, financial collapses, and geopolitical shocks create the conditions under which previously unthinkable policies suddenly become possible. Moments of emergency suspend normal constraints, allowing governments and central banks to reorganise financial structures in ways that would be politically impossible during stable periods. The collapse of the Bretton Woods gold-dollar system in the early 1970s is a clear example: a monetary regime that had defined the post-war world was quietly replaced in the midst of geopolitical and financial turbulence. In other words, the escalation of the Middle East conflict could allow the US to legitimise tools for:

1. Digital Debt Monetisation: a government-aligned digital dollar infrastructure could allow for the direct distribution of stimulus and the purchasing of government debt, bypassing traditional banking system constraints and political gridlock.

2. Direct Economic Control: a programmable, centrally managed digital currency platform gives authorities unprecedented levers to influence spending, saving, and capital allocation during a crisis. Money is no longer just a store of value; it can become “money with an expiry date,” programmed to devalue or vanish if not spent in a certain way.

3. Maintaining Dollar Hegemony: integrating private stablecoins into the official system can be a way to co-opt and regulate the crypto space, ensuring the next generation of digital money remains dollar-denominated and under US oversight, rather than shifting to a decentralised alternative.

The significance of the above resides not simply in digitising money but in embedding rules directly into the monetary unit itself. Traditional monetary policy operates through interest rates, bank lending, and financial markets. Programmable digital money, by contrast, allows policy to be transmitted directly to households and firms through the design of the currency itself, determining when it can be spent, where it can circulate, and under what conditions it retains value.

In this respect, the recent US moves on crypto look like a strategic pivot toward enhanced monetary control. What am I referring to?

• On March 4, Kraken Financial became the first crypto-native institution to obtain a Federal Reserve master account, allowing direct access to core payment rails such as Fedwire. This can be regarded as a “crossing of the Rubicon” in the integration of cryptos into the core financial system.

• On February 19, the SEC (the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) issued new guidelines on stablecoin use, slashing the capital penalty (“haircut”) from 100% to 2%. This move legitimises stablecoins as equivalents to money market funds in corporate accounting, effectively bringing privately issued digital dollars into the regulated financial system rather than leaving them in the crypto periphery.

The above coincided with Trump attacking traditional banks (on March 3) for blocking crypto-friendly laws (his administration’s ‘powerful Crypto Agenda’). It also coincided with a technical failure of the Fed’s ACH payment system, which delayed payroll deposits, vendor payments, and bank transfers across the United States. The timing of that failure conveniently highlights the fragility of existing payment infrastructure. Such events provide a direct channel for policy implementation, potentially allowing for more surgical interventions than traditional interest rate or quantitative easing tools. In other words, the US is building the digital pipeline through which economic crisis management would flow.

These instances also illustrate a broader principle: political power in modern societies is increasingly exercised through infrastructure rather than through overt legislation. Payment systems, settlement networks, and financial protocols determine what kinds of economic actions are possible and which are not. Because these systems are technical and largely invisible to the public, changes to them rarely provoke the kind of political scrutiny that accompanies formal policy decisions. Yet once such infrastructure is in place, it effectively sets the parameters within which future policy must operate. In that sense, the construction of digital monetary rails is not merely a technological upgrade; it is the creation of a new field of economic governance.

Let’s not forget that the COVID “pandemic” provided the ultimate political and economic cover for unprecedented intervention (massive money creation, direct payments, and bailouts). So what we are witnessing today could be framed as the “COVID Playbook Revisited”: the Iran-induced downturn would serve the exact same monetary function as the “pandemic.”

The key difference lies in the delivery mechanism. During COVID, the Federal Reserve printed trillions of dollars and sent them via the “going direct” strategy devised by BlackRock in the summer of 2019. Today’s newly regulated crypto/stablecoin infrastructure (Kraken on Fedwire, stablecoins in money market funds) resembles a digital “going direct”: the Fed could credit digital dollar wallets directly. They could impose time limits on spending, restrict usage to certain sectors, or even implement negative interest rates on excess digital cash to force spending. In this respect, BlackRock’s recent (March 6) restriction on withdrawals is highly symptomatic.

There is a further dimension to this transformation that receives far less attention: the elevation of Bitcoin from speculative and decentralised asset to recognized collateral. In late 2025, the Federal Reserve signalled that crypto assets could be used in secured lending, with JP Morgan simultaneously preparing to allow institutional clients to borrow cash against Bitcoin holdings. The logic is straightforward: Bitcoin shifts from a deadweight bet into a liquidity-generating instrument, folded into the same supervisory frameworks that govern Treasuries. More critically, crypto assets may begin to back the very stablecoins that sit inside money market funds. Tether already holds around 5% of its reserves in Bitcoin. As stablecoin issuance expands, the one asset that began as the system’s explicit alternative becomes part of its foundation — dollar-pegged money partially collateralised by the cryptocurrency designed to escape the dollar.

So, the strategic cycle I am proposing can be summarised in the following five stages:

1. The Catalyst: the Iran crisis is escalated, spiking oil prices.

2. The Economic Consequence: this external shock lands on a fragile, debt-heavy US economy. It crushes consumption and accelerates a deflationary debt crisis.

3. The Political Cover: this crisis, framed as an external attack on American prosperity, creates the same political “blank check” for intervention that COVID did.

4. The New Tool: the previously prepared and stealthily integrated crypto/stablecoin infrastructure is now unveiled and deployed as the solution.

5. The Outcome: the Fed intervenes massively, but this time the money flows through a programmable, centrally overseen digital dollar system, granting unprecedented monetary control.

Crucially, the emerging system is unlikely to be a purely state-run digital currency. Instead, it appears to be evolving as a hybrid architecture in which private stablecoin issuers, exchanges, and fintech platforms operate on top of central bank settlement infrastructure. In this model, the state controls the monetary base and regulatory perimeter, while private actors control the interfaces through which money is used. The architecture achieves what politics alone could not: participation becomes structurally unavoidable. The result is a panopticon-like digital “private-public partnership” to manage the accelerated impoverishment of entire populations.

Stablecoins introduce another strategic dimension. Because most are backed primarily by short-term US Treasuries, their expansion automatically generates demand for government debt. In effect, the global circulation of digital dollars would create a new class of structural buyers for U.S. Treasury bills, linking the growth of the crypto ecosystem directly to the financing of the American state. Therefore, the growth of private digital dollars could become a structural mechanism for financing US deficits while attempting to reinforce the dollar’s role in global finance.

All of the above turns a likely long war in the Middle East from a purely geopolitical struggle — regime change in Iran — into the catalyst for a historic financial regime change. While the bombs fall on foreign soil, the transformation lands in the code of money itself. A geopolitical conflict, an energy shock, and a financial transition could converge into a single systemic event. The crisis would not merely justify extraordinary intervention; it would determine the form that intervention takes. The digital infrastructure now being assembled may therefore prove to be the monetary architecture through which the next phase of crisis management is conducted.

(Featured Image: “ETC Wallpaper – Captain America” by EthereumClassic is marked with CC0 1.0.)

It is now a truism that the so-called Left is dead.

Our contemporary history books remember essentially two periods during which a visible movement of dissent within Western society rose against the established order: the aftermath of World War 1 and the Sixties. Both pangs of revolt in their beginning appear genuine; how they came to be derailed or perverted, neutralized and suppressed by the authorities is another (important) story. But something like the original spirit of protest that animated both events appears to many, on this day, irrecoverable.

The significant difference between “then” (especially the late nineteen-tens which saw the campaigning of socialist leader Eugene Debs in America) and “now” seems to have been the Left’s appeal to the universal value of cooperation, whose virtue is that of engendering union across divides. This is an essential binding factor, which today seems virtually dissolved. A quarter of a century of postmodern habituation – in academia, at schools, and in the workplace – has so managed to corrode and break the sentiments of togetherness that such a bond appears, with every passing day, ever more beyond repair. This phenomenon is conspicuous in the United States, less so in Europe, in which nonetheless similar forces are at work – given, indeed, that postmodernism is through and through a European construct.

-Guido Giacomo Peparata, The Ideology of Tyranny

If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist.

-Karl Marx

Conservatives are attacking capitalism

Four new books show how the reactionary right and left have converged

The angriest critiques of global capitalism come increasingly from the populist right. Their critiques target two villains: corporations and liberalism.

-The Economist

https://econ.trib.al/R7LN7kd

My political awakening came with 9/11 and the questions raised by that event. These questions led on to a realization that the incident was thoroughly manufactured from the inside. This led on to a discovery of Marx which built up a historical background. And that led on to the perplexing discovery that what now passed for Marxism didn’t have a clue what happened on 9/11. Worse still, this “Marxism” worked very hard indeed to bury the truth about that attack.

This never changed. And with the covid turn of 2020, it was déjà vu but on a much larger scale. And with something new. Indeed, that something new was epochal – as I have said before. Covid marked a fundamental propagandist transformation. We had suffered through four decades of excoriation of “The Loony Left” and an unceasing neoliberal pep talk encouraging everyone to become an entrepreneur. All of that was suddenly ditched for “people before profits” and “we’re all in it together”.

The grinding of transitional tectonic plates is signified in The Economist article linked to above. The article continues with the most candid confession of Overton Window shift I’ve ever seen:

Two decades ago Johan Norberg, a Swedish liberal, wrote a bracing polemic called “In Defence of Global Capitalism”. Leftists hated it and sniffed that he was “on the ‘crazy right’”. Now, when he makes exactly the same arguments, people on the right accuse him of being “woke left”. “I’m not the one who’s changed,” he writes.

You can practically hear the ground screech below you as “Right” becomes “Left”. Norberg’s defence of global capitalism (GloboCap) once considered Right by Leftists is now considered Left by Rightists! Implication: We are now all Right Leftists!

And the continuation of that pushes us further into Wonderland:

The angriest critiques of global capitalism come increasingly from the populist right. This is true in several Western countries, but especially so in America. Republicans used to extol the benefits of free trade and free markets. Now, following Donald Trump’s lead, Republican candidates demand higher barriers, especially to goods from China, and berate corporations for their “wokeness” in supporting greenery and diversity. Four new books illuminate this shift, which fans of economic liberty find alarming.

In other words, Trump and the Republicans are making Leftist noises in opposing this “free trade” lingo. But don’t worry because opposing free trade is now “Right”. Free trade is now “Left”. And to emphasise this, free trade is now linked with “wokeness” which is, of course, always “Left”.

And The Left jumped on it. No hesitation. They snapped into place as the new agents of the system.

And so there it was. A transformation which suggested the rhetorical reversal in 1984 when Oceania was at war with Eurasia … and then …

On the sixth day of Hate Week …and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium …at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy.

… The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different.

… The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.

-George Orwell, 1984

Admittedly, the covid show was far more dramatic. But the sudden elevation of “Left” to the centre of the mainstream and the subsequent banishment of “The Right” to the loony outer fringe was comparable to the instantaneous reversal of the Orwell tale.

I spent six years trying to find one voice on the Left that showed any awareness of this bizarre turnaround. I found some hopeful signs and then realised that such signs were entirely the product of hope. None had a clue.

And so, what I had previously suspected after 9/11 was now sadly confirmed i.e. that the closer anyone adhered to the classic Marxist theories, the more awry they went as they came up to date. And this peculiar aspect also suggested the answer to another question i.e. Why had the aforementioned reversal been so slickly facilitated?

Right beneath our goddamn feet!

The system’s new “progressivist” makeover was only possible because it could rely on a Leftist formation that was already there. At some point in the past – and over a considerable period – there had been a process of absorption similar to the assimilation that produced one of those pod people in Invasion of The Body Snatchers. The new organism looked the part and made the right noises. But the function of the interloper was deflection, redirection and, in short, the initiation of dupery.

Thus, whatever liberatory potential there was in the classic Marxist texts had been neutered through their jealously guarded appropriation by an academic elite functioning as a fossilized clergy of gatekeepers.

There is nothing organic about this. It is part of a longtime intelligence moulding by an order who, on realising that all that Marxist stuff wasn’t going to go away, drilled Marxism into their services. The result of this alchemy was Western Marxism. And the whole purpose of this novel chimera was to protect capitalism. Indeed, it now seems to me to be incontrovertible that Western Marxism is the most powerful prop holding up the entire capitalist order.

The ossification of the Marxist texts was supplemented by a logical “updating” manoeuvre whereby the old active mode directed outwards was replaced by a passive mode directed inwards. Which goes a long way towards explaining why the cluelessness of The Left was disguised behind a droning nomenclature about fetishes and reification and fascist tendencies and shockingly reactionary this and that.

This rich brand of defensive rhetoric owes much to that synthetic replacement whereby the very much active revolutionary political movements of the pre-World War 2 world were switched for a sedentary cultural and psycho analytical “Leftism” in the post-war period.

It is significant that the focus turned from Marx to Freud as we are now concerned with

…the preoccupations of psychological man, who in our time has succeeded economic man as the dominant moral type of Western culture. Once again, history has produced a type specially adapted to endure his own period: the trained egoist, the private man, who turns away from the arenas of public failure to re-examine himself and his own emotions. A new discipline was needed to fit this introversion of interest, and Freudian psychology, with its ingenious interpretations of politics, religion, and culture in terms of the inner life of the individual and his immediate family experiences, exactly filled the bill.

-Philip Rieff, Freud: The Mind of The Moralist

In the Golden Age of the boom period of The West, “economic man” could take a back seat. The affluent individual could afford an “introversion of interest” and turn “away from the arenas of public failure to re-examine himself and his own emotions”. Note those “arenas of public failure”.

GloboCap now had its very own “Red Guard” to corral the dissidents into a suitable pen of navel gazing introspection and eject those who insisted on being troublesomely outgoing in their critique. The designation “Red Guard” for this capitalist protecting Left was used in this connection by Simon Elmer who had supplied some good analysis of the covid scam before he turned into Enoch Powell. Indeed, perhaps The Red Guard was partially responsible for that odd transformation. Preparata’s hostility to Marx may also be down to the shabby treatment dished out to him by the academic wing of The Red Guard. But many others have failed to demonstrate acceptable credentials for access to this Western Left.

And many of the genuine Leftists down the line have been aware of the grim illusory game. One litmus test is to survey publishing accessibility. Michael Parenti was one worthy figure. Parenti wasn’t at all taken in by the demonisation of the term “conspiracy” and ceaselessly claimed (rightly) that there was nothing mutually exclusive about a Marxist analysis and conspiracy theory. Consequently, to date I have never found a Parenti book in any bookshop other than the second-hand ones – and even then, only on remote shelves. Meanwhile Noam Chomsky practically has a section to himself.

The Demon Gabriel

One of the first writers to have “gone large” in accusing the Western Left of fraudulence is the Italian Domenico Losurdo whose book Western Marxism is an excellent introduction to the matter. This was followed by Gabriel Rockhill’s more specific Who Paid The Pipers of Western Marxism. Rockhill is particularly valuable in outlining one of the central devices of the system i.e. the encouragement of an individualistic “pop star” culture in which various figures are elevated into a pantheon of “Big Names”, each operating as a brand label in delivering their own style of verbiage for a small partisan audience who spend their time slapping each other on the back for being “hip”.

Gabriel Rockhill. Don’t let his charming smile fool you! And always wear a crucifix when reading his book!

Needless to say, the “star names” of e.g. Marcuse, Adorno, Foucault etc. are easily accessible in the book stores, each one of those conjuring up a delicious aura of the forbidden even as they radiate from a high profile gladly provided for them. Adorno apparently offers such a threat to Western interests that the publishers are even happy to deliver his lecture notes.

Ironically, one such awestruck follower of these gurus unwittingly confirmed the pop-star thesis by complaining that Rockhill “hasn’t produced a single original idea”. Clearly uncovering the truth is irrelevant. Rockhill should have been cultivating a snazzy hairstyle, a zippy dance routine, and a catchy pop jingle to inaugurate and promote a new line of lucrative merchandise.

Now, as Rockhill himself pointed out, this doesn’t mean that “The Big Names” in question have nothing to say. It’s just that the glamourous prestige around them is invariably accompanied by a ferocious denunciation of any other approach as the followers truculently eject any perceived slight of their hero. Should you resist the allure of the worshipped name, you will break their toys and they’re not coming out to play anymore.

Summary and Conclusion

Preparata’s baleful pronouncement has been unmistakeably confirmed. This Doppelgänger Left has been operational for a long time now and was an indispensable accompaniment to the development of Western capitalism. Furthermore – and most ominously – this Cuckoo Left went instantaneously from protectors to main agents of the system with the covid turn of 2020. The system pirouetted onto its Left foot and this Western Marxism deftly and unhesitatingly obliged with the show.

And so the old show that was so reassuring pre-covid is now undergoing a more “collectivist” organisation as a variant of state-run capitalism beckons and has already embarked on its grand depopulation scheme along with a new eugenics programme based on a sly voluntary basis via the transgender theology that invites its adherents to neuter themselves. All of this is merely the beginning. But it will be several decades before a sizable portion of this Red Guard start to experience odd twitchings in their skulls as the eerie fact that they have been duped starts to register. And you can bet that such awakening will be furiously resisted by those now permanently welded to the comfortable Freudian couches in the corridors of academia.

And this latter contingent will continue the petty bickering over the permissible methods that were lovingly sculpted on stone tablets handed down through that halcyon Golden Age.

As for what is to be done, all we can currently hope for is the continuation of something so “twee” as basic civility over internet exchanges. To try and keep the channels as open as possible is the only human endeavour I can contemplate at the moment.

Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses substack.

Two seemingly unconnected events occurred in the past several weeks in UK law-making. However, seen in the context of increasing authoritarian disregard for human rights, and the ruling class’s insatiable appetite for behavioural control of the population, these events are very connected.

Body fascism in the 21st century

The first event heralded the return of the body fascists, re-energised after their stellar performance in smashing Overton windows during the covid psychological operation. Place the entire planet under house arrest and make their release conditional on agreeing to medical experimentation? The stuff of science fiction before 2020, but New Normal after 2021.

After successfully forcing the population to surrender their bodies to the medical establishment, how do the control freaks get their fix when they and the population have pandemic fatigue? They pass a law to stop people from putting things into their bodies. You must take the mRNA, but you mustn’t take the nicotine. Your body is not yours, and if you thought it was, the State has just sent you a memo to remind you that it belongs to the King, for he is about to press his Royal seal upon the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which bans tobacco sales to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.

The ban is sinister for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who understands the inalienable right of every human to bodily autonomy. To understand the seriousness of what has been done from 2021 to now, we must look to the most extreme form of body fascism that has existed in history – slavery. The slave’s body was literally the property of his or her master, to be used as the master saw fit, and then discarded or sold at the master’s discretion. On a scale of 0 – 10, the degree of bodily autonomy that the slave had was zero.

Either you and you alone own your body, or you don’t. If you don’t, then someone else does, or at least has shares in it. And that makes you a slave.

Those who deny that mandated ‘vaccines’ or restrictions on tobacco usage, or any other drug for that matter, by adults are a form of slavery would probably base their denial on the severity of the bondage. To this I would say: you haven’t been forcibly carted off to work against your will on a plantation, but the fundamental right of bodily autonomy has been breached. The principle of a breach is not in question, but rather where that breach lies on the spectrum. And if you accept this breach on the grounds that it doesn’t affect you, then prepare for breaches that will cumulatively take us further and further up that slavery spectrum until we’re on a plantation of some kind. I think they’re calling it a ‘smart city’.

Make no mistake, if you are 17 years old (and four months) today, Westminster has just decreed that you are no longer free to decide what you can do with your body, even if your decision affects no-one except you. I will deal in a minute with the flawed argument that one’s decision to smoke might affect the NHS, since fascists always have an alibi, and the NHS has been invoked for this law. And they’re invoking the usual pretence to care about the health of Britain.

The breach of bodily autonomy is more than sufficient grounds to object to this law, and I could stop there. But let’s examine the arbitrary nature of the law. The law is so arbitrary that it is based on the date of your birth. If you were born before 2009, you can buy tobacco. If you were born after 2008, you can’t. There’s a name for laws that apply to some in the land but not others, and that name is discriminatory. So, aside from this being a violation of bodily autonomy, this is a discriminatory law based purely on age.

Discriminatory laws are both cowardly and divisive, and this one is no different. Recognising the fundamental evil inherent in this law, they knew it could never be enforceable if they imposed it on the entire population, so they decided to implement body fascism by stealth. Those not affected are in the majority. They have targeted a minority, not just in purely demographic terms, but also by the number of smokers within that demographic. But we should all protest because, well, first they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out because I was not a smoker…

It’s divisive for obvious reasons. The curtain twitchers will be delighting in a new snitching opportunity, and PC Plod, the intrepid crime buster who revels in arresting blind people for protesting genocide, can now approach smokers to ask for ID.

The Bill is also cowardly, because the legal age at which you can buy tobacco is 18, and this Bill has been directed at an entire cohort who will only be affected next year when they turn 18. They can’t object now, because they’re minors not legally allowed to smoke, and by the time they might wish to object, it’ll be too late – the law has passed. So, the cowards in Westminster have picked a fight, but only with a minority who aren’t yet at the age where they can defend themselves and revolt. Divide and rule.

It is also arbitrary because of what they have chosen to proscribe, and not to proscribe. If “eas[ing] long-term pressure on the National Health Service, and build[ing] a healthier Britain” are the alibis for this fascism, then what do they intend to do about junk food, alcohol, seed oils, glyphosate, microplastics, fluoride in the water, or any of the hundreds of other dietary intakes, voluntary and involuntary, that are causing “pressure on the National Health Service”, and generally making us unhealthier. Indeed what do they plan to do about iatrogenic harm caused by the healthcare service itself? While there don’t appear to be any definitive studies of iatrogenic harm in the UK, it is estimated to be the third leading cause of death in the US. The answer to these questions is of course – absolutely nothing.

More evidence of the arbitrary nature of this ban comes from an analysis done by Dr Philip McMillan of no fewer than 186 million NHS hospital admissions from 2016 to 2025. All age cohorts showed dramatic increases in liver disease ranging from a 94.7% increase for the 0 – 17 year-old age group, to 171.1% for the 60 – 64 year-old age group. Meanwhile, The Guardian reported in December 2025 that alcohol consumption in the UK is at its lowest since data collection began in 1990. One guess and no prizes as to where I’m going with this…

Children reporting a 94.7% increase in liver disease? Covid of course turned the entire Western world into the largest crime scene in history, and even Inspector Clouseau, had he been alive, would have felt obliged to add the ‘vaccines’ to the list of suspects when considering these horrific statistics. Based on a scientific analysis, and citing an 84% increase in the incidence of cardiac-related death in males 18 – 39 years old within 28 days of a covid jab, Florida’s Surgeon General actually did recommend against young males receiving covid ‘vaccines’.

Don’t hold your breath if you’re waiting for the control freaks in Westminster to instigate a study into whether ‘vaccines’ might be contributing to a 94% increase in NHS liver disease admissions for children.

The idea that these people care about your health is risible and insulting to our intelligence. How stupid would you have to be to accept being told how to live by people so lacking in imagination that they chose a career in which all they have to do is walk into a building to vote on legislation they haven’t read, because they are told which way to vote by their headmaster/mistress – the party leader. These are people whose jobs entail aggressively not thinking for themselves. These are people who never wanted to leave school, and are proverbially living in adult diapers at our expense. Not only do they get a thrill from being told what to do and think, but they derive equal pleasure from handing down the instructions they receive to the rest of us.

I think it’s fair to say that most people end up in hospital because they could have made a better choice about some aspect of their lifestyle or health. Hospitals are supposed to be a compassionate net for human error and frailty. They were not intended to cater primarily to the wise and healthy, who are now, and perhaps always have been, a minority of the population. This decision has not been made to “ease long-term pressure on the National Health Service”. The best way to ease pressure on the NHS while preserving human rights and dignity is more and better staff, more hospitals, and less bureaucracy.

Yet another sinister twist to this disgusting law is the extension of the ban to all nicotine products, which are defined as “any substance containing nicotine, which is intended to be delivered into the human body”. This would include nicotine gum, pouches, and patches.

Any substance taken in excess is likely to have negative effects, but nicotine per se is by no means a toxic or harmful substance. On the contrary, research now shows that it has cognitive healing, and anti-inflammatory effects. Next to tobacco, eggplant, or aubergine, contains the highest levels of nicotine. Nature has provided a cure for just about everything except death, and the covidian madness that decreed the only solution to a cold virus was a manmade synthetic ‘spike protein’ has rightly given the alternative health movement a shot in the arm. So just what the hell are they up to with this latest ban on nicotine for the commoners?

At any rate, if they succeed in enforcing this law, they will add numerous other arbitrary proscriptions in service of oligarchic control agendas, and inimical to our health. In a decade or so from now, you will not be permitted to put meat or dairy in your body, but you will have to put a certain number of bugs in your body, because… climate change, sustainability, the latest virus mania, saving the Blue Whale… you get the picture.

This deadly arrow is aimed at all of us. It just hasn’t hit yet. But it will, if we don’t stop it.

Live facial recognition

The second event was the announcement by the Metropolitan Police that facial recognition cameras will be rolled out across the country after a failed human rights challenge to its widespread use.

Online age verification has already begun and is ramping up. The scenario I mentioned above in which PC Plod delights in stopping smokers for ID is unlikely to happen. At least not in the short term. This is because the Bill appears to criminalise only the sale of tobacco and vaping products to those born after 2008. So it’s not clear to me whether someone banned from buying tobacco and nicotine products, but who is caught with them, can face charges. However, the Bill makes provision for a broad scope of enforcement action that includes “the taking of other measures intended to reduce the incidence of such offences.” It is also an offence under the Bill to buy tobacco on behalf of someone born after 2008.

Could such measures include the widespread use of facial recognition cameras? If so, and if you are one of those who can’t legally buy tobacco products anymore, what can the police do if they catch you smoking on their public spying cameras? I guess we’ll find out next year.

What is clear is that they’re thinking of new ways to condition us into accepting that our bodies belong to the State, and the digital panopticon just got much more invasive. They are watching us. Everywhere. The further we move on from 1984, the closer we get to it.

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!

Introduction to the National Democratic Party

The National Democratic Party (NDP) is a socialist political organisation, committed to advancing political and economic change, openness and democracy, wherein our economy works in the public’s interests and not in the interests of private capital.

The NDP calls for social ownership of key sectors such as infrastructure, finance and strategic industries, providing a stable environment for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which play an important role in our economic development. The NDP opposes past and future lockdowns on the basis that they were undemocratically implemented and negatively impacted the (real-world) economy.

The UK electricity disaster

Every single country on Earth depends on electricity to survive. It is a key factor determining our homes, industry and commerce. The price of electricity helps determine our competitiveness, efficiency and the comfort of our homes. But the UK, since privatisation, has among the highest prices of electricity in the World. Only the EU has higher prices. Here, we in the National Democratic Party examine why.

Privatisation

Before nationalisation in 1947 the system was a fragmented mess of over 600 private and municipal companies. Nationalisation merged them into the British Electricity Authority (later becoming the Central Electricity Generating Board, or CEGB) and 12 regional area boards. The Goal: To create a unified national grid that could provide reliable power to the entire country, including rural areas that private companies had previously ignored. Prices, under public ownership were low, especially for industry.

The shift back to private ownership happened in stages during the late 1980s and early 1990s under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. The Stated Goal: To encourage competition, drive down costs through efficiency, and reduce the state’s financial burden. The Real Goal, of course, was to boost the profits of the finance sector which would end up owning the shares. And the results:

Our UK electricity shambles

UK electricity is amongst the most expensive in the World. It is privatised. The major companies that control it are themselves controlled by the US finance giants: Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. In 2024 and 2025, the total profits across the entire UK energy sector reached an estimated £30 billion annually. For the average consumer, this means roughly £500 of your annual bill is going toward corporate profit.

Electricity prices are usually lowest among those countries with nationalised electricity production and distribution. Thus our high electricity prices are the result of political decisions, not economic or technical. The only major countries with higher prices than the UK appear to be Ireland, Italy, Germany and Belgium. All, note, within the European Union.

The cheapest electricity in the World is in Iran followed by a number of African countries with hydro-electric power sources.

UK insanities resulting from privatisation

1. Marginal Pricing. Under a formula agreed with the Corporate Electricity Generators, energy prices in the UK are linked to those energies commanding the highest market price. This is absurd. In the UK, the price of electricity is linked to gas, which is the most expensive form of generation.

2. Fragmentation of electricity supply has meant we have three separate sectors: Generators, Distributors and Retailers. Each sector and each company demands profit for shareholders, vast salaries for its CEOs and other major administrative jobs.

3. Huge costs were incurred when dozens of small private retailers went bust in 2021 to 2022. Needless to say, these costs were passed on to the consumer via standing charges.

4. Private companies have prioritised shareholder dividends over investment in modern technology and maintenance. They expect and will probably get tax-payers money to subsidise the shortfall.

5. There is now a huge backlog of investment. This will need £60 billion in emergency investment which will be added on to household bills.

The big shareholders of our electricity companies care nothing for the effects on UK consumers and the effects on UK industry and high costs. This is partly due to them being foreign shareholders, especially the US financial giants such as Blackrock, Vanguard etc. Not that UK companies are patriotic – they also follow the money.

To understand the profits of the “Big Six,” it is important to distinguish between the Retail side (the companies that send you the bill) and the Generation/Parent side (the companies that own the power plants and wind farms). The below table shows the UK’s main retailers, some which are also involved in Generation.

Electricity generators

Most of the electricity profits go to the generators. Notably RWE: £5.l billion, EDF: £1.9 billion and Scottish Power: £3.15 billion. Over one billion pounds are paid to RWE straight from your taxes as a subsidy.

RWE is a German company whose second biggest shareholder is Blackrock. Scottish Power’s largest shareholders are Blackrock and Vanguard.

EDF is wholly owned by the French government. Our electricity customers are subsidising the French tax-payers!

Ofgem: While this toothless body claims it limits retail profits to 2% the reality is that these companies just transfer their profits to the Generating and Distribution sectors.

The UK’s unique burden: Standing Charges

While the unit rate (kWh) in the UK is high, the Standing Charge (the daily fee just to be connected) is increasingly a global outlier.

By April 2026, UK standing charges are forecast to rise to cover £24 billion in grid upgrades.

In many G20 countries (like China or parts of the US), fixed fees are minimal or non-existent, meaning if you don’t use electricity, you don’t pay. In the UK, you can pay over £200 a year before turning on a single lightbulb.

Where the money actually goes

While retail companies like Octopus or Ovo often report modest profits or even losses, the upstream parts of the system are where the real money is made.

The Grid Operators (The Hidden Profit): Companies like National Grid and regional distribution networks (often owned by overseas investment funds) have profit margins as high as 38%. These are effectively “natural monopolies” where you have no choice but to pay their fees via your standing charge.

The Parent Groups: Even if British Gas (the retailer) shows a small margin, its parent company Centrica makes billions by selling the gas that the retailer buys. This “vertical integration” is a common criticism of the privatised model.

Shareholder Returns: In 2025, Centrica increased its dividend to shareholders by 22% and continued a £2 billion share buyback program. For many, this is the “smoking gun” of privatisation: billions being returned to investors while millions of households remain in fuel poverty.

A note on smart metres

Money is being wasted on the roll out of smart meters for both electricity and gas. NDP co-founder Alex Jackman has personal experience as a gas engineer employed by a Gas Distribution Network, which also works on gas meters for suppliers (basically as a sub contractor to them). ‘Dumb’ meters, particularly the diaphragm meters, will outlast any digital Dumb or Smart meter, and are actually better for the environment as they contain less plastic and no Lithium battery. Lithium batteries are supposed to last 10 years, which they are more likely to if the meter is internal. But Lithium batteries are negatively affected by the cold and constant change in temperature so only last a couple years if external. Once these fail the whole meter needs to be changed, whereas in the past with the old style card meters, it was possible to solely replace the battery pack, which contained 5D batteries, and these lasted longer.

In addition to issues with the Lithium batteries, there are frequent software faults: they are always going wrong. On the plus side, Jackman and colleagues are now noticing that people are increasingly fed up with smart meters, and would prefer to go back to the diaphragm ‘Dumb’ meters.

Solutions

The National Democratic Party propose the following solutions.

• Nationalise and integrate the whole electricity supply industry. We should nationalise all energy and reduce prices to cost price (plus maintenance). This would reduce costs for business and households alike; reducing inflation and making the UK more competitive.

• Cease share payouts and cut expensive layers of duplicate management.

• Follow up with a massive investment programme. We propose that the UK invest heavily in nuclear energy, support Rolls Royce’s Small Modular Reactor programme, install solar panels on all commercial properties, and on as many residential properties as possible, and increase the generation/use of hydro-electricity where possible.

A cut in electricity costs would re-invigorate British Industry and cut costs for homes. Whilst privatisation was sold to the public as rationalisation and efficiency, in reality it produces the opposite: duplication and inefficiency.

Originally published on Goblins Under the Apple Tree substack.

California has Disneyland

And Blackpool has Funland

And Flanders had no man’s land

This place idiot show bands

-The Fall, Idiot Joy Showland

We got comedy, tragedy

Everything from A to B

-Randy Newman, My Country

The importance of celebrities to the propaganda system cannot be overstated.

We live in an age that is atomised. As Mark Steyn once noted, we live in not so much a global village as a global tower block in which no-one really knows what anyone else is watching or listening to. But TV is ubiquitous and so the programmed content is of vital importance.

Furthermore, propaganda is most effective when it comes across surreptitiously i.e. when people are relaxed and off guard. Light entertainment programmes are best.

And this is where the celebs come in. In the cold echoing expanse of this atomised realm these celebs are your friends, the ones you have loved, the ones you warm to, the ones whose opinions you want to hear.

In terms of “getting the message across”, celebs are far more effective than politicians. It is no exaggeration to say that celebs are the main focus of the propaganda system.

This by no means implies that celebs are explicitly forced to submit to the current requirements of the programme. They don’t need to be. In this labyrinthine techno world of ours, the media is what celebs move through. Celebs can be talented, determined, brave, hard-working and thoroughly deserving of fame. But they all know that expressing the “wrong” opinion can see their entire career instantaneously vanish like a mirage. They can veer from “The Peoples’ Favourite” and “National Treasure” to “Most Hated” in a second. And, in a short space of time they can have their entire careers memory-holed as effectively as was rumoured to be the case in Stalinist Russia.

The Script

As Mr Newman sang above, The Script is “Everything from A to B”. That is, the theatre presented is a tiny little space in which Mickey Mouse alternatives are presented. The subject matter is a totally misrepresented view of the world and – increasingly since covid – a totally manufactured construct. I am going to present, as examples, two from the latter category.

First Example: Trans Formation

I don’t want to get bogged down yet again in all the mad labyrinthine folds of the bizarre phantasmagorical nonsense that is “transgenderism”. (If you’re interested, see here:)

What I want to focus on here is the way this pseudo-topic is presented in Celeb Land. The terms are phrased in such a way that those opposing it all are forced into a tight little corner in which they have already shot themselves in the foot.

And so instead of saying “What a load of shit!” they have to declare themselves “gender critical”. Now if anyone is “gender critical” you would think it was the trans ideologists. But that would mean taking the concept of gender in its traditional sense i.e. denoting physical sexuality. But there has been an Orwellian process at work here by which “gender” no longer means physical gender but gender identity. Thus, we focus not on what you are but what you feel yourself to be.

And you can already feel the ground dissolve under you.

This is why those like J K Rowling and Graham Linehan can only object to this nonsense in the feeblest way … and yet still get treated like the spawn of Satan!

Second example: Covid. What else?

Covid was the reductio ad absurdum of the Celeb Land Theatre: an invented issue that was applied via a totally monomaniacal squeeze – in Newman’s terms, from A to A. The deadly plague was all and there was only one permissible opinion: to “pull together”. And the celebs behaved themselves splendidly for the most part, merging together in an uplifting moral army.

For this show, there was only covid. Admittedly, since the media cannot operate with any conviction without some kind of controversy and dispute, there was movement towards depicting disagreement: the lockdowns and vax programmes were being hindered by irresponsible Tory bastards etc.

But covid was all. And it will be forever an embarrassment to recall all those celebs “doing their bit” to “save us”. Dolly Parton recast her song “Jolene” as “Vaccine”. Neil Diamond turned on “Sweet Caroline” with the line “Hands/ Touching hands” transformed into “Hands/ Not touching hands”. Vomiting yet?

The whole episode has to be the single most ferocious demonstration of The Celeb Moral Army at work. There were some honourable exceptions – most prominently Van Morrison whose treatment by the media was most interesting in a deadly dull predictable kind of way i.e. he was branded “Evil selfish reactionary Right Wing” yackety schmackety. But such a treatment only served to highlight the nature of this Rock ‘n Roll Rebel Industry with its phony low down funky thumb-it-to-the-man ‘tude.

I aim here to give a specific single example of a celeb phenomenon. But first a little catch up on the changing face of The Theatre.

The Good Old Days

Back in the 60s and 70s, The West, seemed “happier” – due to more security and affluence for the masses. We had Morecambe and Wise in the UK and Rowan and Martin in the US. The connection is that both comedy duos managed to secure an impressive roster of current celeb favourites eager to appear and send themselves up as “good sports”. Your TV was a comforting little window onto a world where you were reassured that we were indeed “all in it together” and “one big happy family”.

This is a model that the two nations – and probably every other – strive hard to perpetuate.

Golden Days! Left: Morecambe and Wise, Right: Rowan and Martin. Both heading one big happy family!

Winter Approaches

But in the coming decades the oozing assault of neoliberalism presented increasing problems in maintaining this avuncular vision. Never mind. The TV programmes attempted to heal the widening divide by adopting a trendy “cutting edge”. It was the birth of “alternative comedy” which, in hindsight, looks like a cynical move to “keep up with the kids” – though, to be sure, this keeping up is what the propaganda system tries to do generally. Co-optation is the name of the game.

This is a fascinating topic in itself i.e. the constant drive for the rulers to try and capture the “spirit of the times”. Whereas those aforementioned 60s and 70s seemed to be decked out in a kind of family fun time vibe, the 80s announced this new “sassy” division.

This knowing mode was perfectly encapsulated by UK topical comedy quiz show Have I Got News For You (HIGNFY). This was (and as far as I know, still is) a piece of liberal fluff posing as “controversial” on BBC2 and featuring an impressive rota of celebs: comedians, script writers, musicians, politicians, and so forth. It was hosted by one Angus Deaton whose catch phrase was, “So no change there then”. Until one day Angus did something naughty that was not congruent with that upstanding BBC morality and got fired. So no change there then.

After that, the host changed every week. Once it was Boris Johnson. No kidding. But Tory ministers would frequently show up trying to score point with “the kids”. The best laugh from the Tory contestants was MP Teddy Taylor who tried to “get down with the young ‘uns” by declaring that Bob Marley chap to be frightfully splendid!

But, like so many other “beloved institutions” during covid, it all collapsed when an appearance of furious containment of “the deadly plague” had to be maintained and this news show was forced to abandon its studio filming before a live audience. It reduced itself to a zoom meeting featuring only the host and contestants, all separate and speaking from home. Deprived of audience laughter and social setting, the effect was utterly gruesome. Driving themselves to laugh at their own jokes with a flat echoless sound, the participants seemed to disappear behind tumbleweeds hallucinated by the viewer in the painful embarrassment of it all. And that brought about the realisation that the studio setting was a major part of the illusion.

Some HIGNFY guests including (top right) future UK prime minister Boris Johnson, (bottom right) former BBC news presenter Angela Rippon (who previously showed off her legs in a dance number on Morecambe and Wise) …and (bottom left) team leader Ian Hislop with the UK’s very own Epstein, Jimmy Savile. And yes, (top left) that really is Captain Kirk!

All of which introductory nonsense brings me to the central figure of this article: one whose remarkable career demonstrates, as no other, the true role of The Celeb.

The Rogue Celeb

The one we are concerned with is Graham Linehan, the creator of massively successful comedy series such as Father Ted, Black Books and the The IT Crowd. In any sane world, Linehan would now be settling into a well-deserved role of national treasure. He had appeared on HIGNFY no less than four times and was therefore one of the favourites of what we might call the smart set.

But he stumbled into one of the most frankly preposterous strains of societal management i.e. the transgender phenomenon. After which, he was cast into a tale of two halves, a fall and rise.

First Half – The Fall: Banishment from Happy Celeb Land

Before his first appearance on HIGNFY, Linehan created a transgender character in an IT Crowd episode called “The Speech”. He treated the character with a surreal irreverence that was considered harmless enough to offend no-one back in 2008.

But by 2013, the great tectonic plates of public moral instruction had shifted and the IT Crowd episode “was publicly reexamined and widely criticised as transphobic and sexist” – this from Wikipedia and demonstrating that magisterial passive voice which turns out to issue from something called Transgender Studies Quarterly, “a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering transgender studies” and therefore part of the new trans theological order.

And when Linehan entered the fray of this ludicrous theatre, he was naturally – and with supreme irony – already immersed in the cramped “A to B” mentioned above. As he says in his memoir, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy, “I had not quite nailed my colours to the gender-critical mast.”.

And so Linehan was already steeped in the self-defeating position of someone who critiques transgenderism and yet accepts the new Orwellian reversal of language. Which acceptance at least permitted him a position in the media drama about to unfold. (Without that acceptance, i.e. if Linehan had rejected the permitted lingo, he would have been immediately consigned to Spooky Mulder’s basement.)

And in this media drama, his protest against the trans necromancy – feeble though it was – turned out to be “too much” for the trans acolytes who got to play the expected dying-swan routine. And the massively funded pseudo-gender waffle generators nailed him. The new Holy See which granted psychotic males access into female spaces and encouraged children to deviate onto a path towards “life affirming” genital mutilation scented blasphemy and went for Graham.

He was in deep shit. Cancelled to the max. Cast as the absolute demonic Other, the Great Satan. Finished! Toast! All this pronounced by a majestically sanctimonious self-appointed jury with endless reserves of moral outrage. And they’re still at it.

And so, midway through plans to produce a musical version of Father Ted (with co-writer Neil Hannon of The Divine Comedy – more on whom shortly), Linehan may as well have been assassinated JFK style. (More on that too!) His career gone, his marriage ruined whilst the misogynist hordes of fanatical genital amputators denounced him endlessly.

This was when Graham realised The Truth of The Celeb Class. Let’s hear his words on the mandatory behaviour of The Celebs (emphasis added):

… they’re pandering to a student audience. They’re terrified of losing the student audience. And at the moment the student audience they perceive to be trans goofy. So … they will happily just throw others under the bus just to maintain what they think is a relationship that they have with these kids.

And in fact, you know, it’s a terrible thing to say, but they’re right. If they say something like, well, maybe women deserve fair sports or … maybe my wife and child should have a place they can go where they can be without any men. No, the instant they say that they’ve lost that audience. … Stewart Lee is desperate to be cool. I mean he always was that way: the anti-mainstream comedian who’s on the BBC all the time.

“You know when you’re a big hit on the BBC, you’re probably not as alternative as you might think you are”, is what I would say to leftwing Stewart Lee.… I call them regime comedians … like there’s a regime in power. If you cross them …they’ll do to you what they did to me. …They will harass you and your family (and) try and get you fired from jobs and so on and so forth.

Linehan was now irretrievably sundered from his former colleagues such as “lovable” non-committal Bill Bailey (“Oh Graham, why couldn’t you have left it alone?”), the colossally smug and equally non-committal Stewart Lee (who, as Linehan pointed out above, likes to air his “bold comic deconstructions” from within the very centre of the UK media i.e. the BBC) and the aforementioned Neil Hannon whose magisterial non-commitment is boldly stated on his website: he “is NOT on social media and never will be”. Though Neil may have partly emerged from his serene eyrie with the following lyric:

Mr. Bitter slowly slipped away

We lost a little more of him each day

First his feet then his legs

Then his heart, then his head

Until just one hand survived

To wave his friends and family, bye bye

Bye bye

-Neil Hannon, Down the Rabbit Hole (gosh, wonder what that’s about?)

(Note the casual viciousness.)

Linehan, Bailey, Hannon, and Lee. Not a beat combo!

And I fully admit that when looking over this part of Linehan’s odyssey, I am mostly sympathetic. So far so good for him. But then…

Second Half – The Rise: Grateful Return to Happy Celeb Land

The pathway to redemption was signalled by an unlikely but shrewd manoeuvre by the Trans Rights Activists. In the murky wake of the October 7 attack on Israel, the TRAs announced their support for the Palestinians.

And there it was! The Escape from Celeb Purgatory appeared! Within the media’s severely constrained channels, objecting to the trans operation assigned you the role of irredeemable “hate filled transphobic” …unless that position could be “sweetened” by assignment to another media approved position such as … Zionism!

To be sure, Linehan was still a “hate filled transphobe” but shilling for Israel at least granted permission back to a “genuine media position”. The media had already supplied the venue: Israel coming under attack from demonic hate-filled terrorists!

And when the TRAs went all pro-Palestine, I daresay Graham experienced the same epiphany as Christopher Hitchens felt in the wake of 9/11 when he realised that he no longer had to accept the strain of being the “bad boy” Leftie since those Islamofascists “allowed us to unite against our common enemy”. Chris could become a “good boy” Leftie now!

But, to return to the Linehan prostration before the Zionists, this is where a certain pattern emerges. The sly linking of transgender rights with pro-Palestinianism created a non-sequitur which implied that the fight against transgenderism was linked to support for Israel. The (very) loose linkage here is that trans is misogynistic and so is Islam. And with suspicious uniformity the entire anti-trans movement somersaulted into the “War on Terror” rhetoric thus fitting in seamlessly with that old pseudo-dissident identity politics verbiage that moves to “liberate” women in the East by annihilating their countries.

Indeed, this lockstep switch was so prevalent that it was hard to avoid the suspicion that one reason for the entire absurd trans farrago was to drum up support for Israel.

Thus, anti-trans warriors J K Rowling, Sharron Davies, and Kellie Jay Keen AKA “The Posie Parker” all transferred their objection to the trans scam to the embrace of a dreary contrived Islamophobia along with the customary hypocritical bleating about women’s rights in Muslim countries which “regrettably necessitated” bombing them.

JK, Sharron and KJK. Won’t someone think of the women?

That Linehan fails to see that the very pro-trans racket supported by the likes of Lee and Hannon is now being mirrored, as it were in reverse, on the other side by Zionist stooges like himself is grimly humorous. Such stooges - the “Zidiots” - are now legion and take up their positions in the permitted theatre that is Celeb Land.

Linehan gladly took the bait knowing that this was a weapon he could use very openly against the trans movement with the full blessing of the media. He seems to be presently based in Arizona and is fair flexing his Zionist muscles with rehearsing all that nomenclature about “Jew hate”. I wouldn’t be surprised if he practices the requisite invective before his bathroom mirror every morning. Meanwhile he reposts every species of Zionist hackery he can find with a ceaseless fury that suggests repressed awareness of his ironic trajectory: defiance of one lunacy only to fall into another.

And his latest development is curious. He has just reposted a tweet from Gerald Posner, shiller for the JFK/Oswald lone gunman show, who was performing his little side show for Zionist glove puppet Ben Shapiro.

Conclusion

And there you have it. A sad tale of a ruthless mafia clamp down on a celeb who unwisely departed from the script at one point, had his life and career wrecked, and could only manage to claw his way back to some slight measure of “respectability” by desperately stating his allegiance to another page of the script.

But just imagine if, say, J K Rowling who seems to be in the most enviable position i.e. perched atop what must be a staggering fortune, were to turn around and say “Well fuck this Zionist shit too!” Can you imagine it? To fall foul of both mafias: the Trans and the Zionist goon squads!

But let’s face it. In truth there are no separate mafias. All heads converge into the foul central trunk of that Lovecraftian entity briefly revealed by the covid extravaganza. The actual rulers are not “Jews” or “Christians” or any of the other Pavlovian titles. They don’t give a shit about “The Big Issues” constantly being raked up by the media: antisemitism, the left/right political divide, gay rights, pronouns or whatever. They are happy to stir us all up over this drivel and, whilst doing so, they can wear any mask they want and, more to the point, juggle the masks to divide and rule.

To return to our thought experiment, Rowling knows she has a limited number of perches that she can occupy and still retain that media sanctioned respectability. Should she denounce the Zionist swill, she would indeed find herself ejected from all the “proper” posts and ensconced in the tin foil basement. Everyone who “is anyone” in the media would mercilessly denounce her and the entire Harry Potter franchise would be sunk. Cancel culture with a vengeance.

Perhaps. But perhaps some things really are too big? Perhaps public support could actually achieve something?

But to those who think Miss Rowling is about to engage in the experiment, I say it would be more likely to find Platform 9 ¾ to Hogwarts.

Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses substack.

In Part II, using Iain Davis’s latest work – The Technocratic Dark State – we discussed the macro and micro dynamics underpinning technocracy. In this third and final part, I will discuss my thoughts, sparked by reading Iain’s work, on digital money matters generally, and Bitcoin specifically.

There is no such thing as a digital currency – it’s a digital payment system

The distinction I’ve made in the above heading, which is not made in Iain’s book, is an important one. I believe it helps to cut through a lot of the confusion surrounding digital money. To emphasise this, I will add single quote marks around the word “currency” if it’s preceded by the word “digital”.

The distinction separates a complex economic issue – currency issuance – from a simpler issue – a payment system, as encapsulated by the term digital money. This helps to articulate the real threat in simple terms. Currency, in the true sense of the word, is not the real threat we face from the technocrats. It’s the digital payment system, and its capacity for programmability. Technically, you could argue that a one-world currency might not be a threat to freedom provided that the underlying payment system was not digitally programmed to surveil transactions.

‘Currency’ is an obfuscator, as I will argue in due course. If the vast majority of people were absolutely clear that digital money is actually just a new payment system, they would respond by saying: “But we don’t need one.” To which our smug reply would be: “Exactly.”

Iain certainly conveyed the threat of digital ‘currencies’ by articulating the lock-and-key relationship between digital ID and digital money. However, as the discussion crept into the wider topic of the central bank money-printing scam, and the arcane ins and outs of digital ‘currencies’, I started to get a sense of rabbit holes within rabbit holes. I then found myself asking why a particular hole was being explored, and what its implications were for the main threat – that of programmable money.

Sadly, the space we write in is still very niche. To put that more bluntly, I sometimes feel we’re in an echo chamber. The danger of this is that we can become insular, and prone to writing in a way that looks as if we are talking to ourselves. As a rule, we should constantly be trying to make complex issues easy to grasp.

The discussion about stablecoins might serve to illustrate this, while also highlighting the necessity of making the distinction between a currency and a payment system.

And in the interests of following my own advice about making things understandable for everyone, a stablecoin is simply a type of online or electronic money that you can use to make payments. But because it operates on a digitally programmable platform, its threat from a privacy perspective is far greater than the current methods we are accustomed to using for paying our bills.

Will stablecoins prevail over central bank digital ‘currencies’? A red-herring question since both will be slightly different types of programmable digital money. I don’t think Iain disputes this, but it’s worth clearing up right off the bat, before we get into the more complex aspects.

I think Iain and I are in agreement that stablecoins are simply CBDC via the ‘privatised’ backdoor, as opposed to the central bank front door. But I think he goes further by suggesting that the current stablecoin issuance amounts to money-printing, so this debate exemplifies the conflation of money-printing, which is a currency issue, with a digital payment system.

In the chapter about the New World Currency, Iain argues that stablecoin issuers in the US, under the GENIUS Act, have successfully bypassed US Federal government oversight, resulting in a situation in which “stablecoin issuers have been ushered into the oligarchs’ [banking oligarchs] money creation grift by the Act.”[i] Furthermore, he identifies the Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC) as the “fully independent” body that will “approv[e] and then regulate their [i.e. the ‘NEONERDS’] own privately issued money.”[ii] [emphasis added]

I don’t think it’s that easy to conclude that this move represents the NRx gang muscling in on central bank, or commercial bank, money creation. I’m aware that non-bank entities are permitted to issue stablecoins but, with large technology firms strictly prohibited from issuing stablecoins, with the apparent aim being to ensure that financial services remain separate from major technology platforms, it’s not clear to me that the NEONERDS are even in the running at the moment.

Nevertheless, my contention is that stablecoin issuers, NEONERD or not, are competing for deposits in a system in which currency issuance (or money printing) remains in the hands of the central and commercial banks. Stablecoin issuers are part of the money ecosystem, but not the money creation scheme. For now, anyway.

We could start by speculating on the likelihood of the central bank mafia relinquishing control over the one thing that has put them at the pinnacle of the power pyramid – the money supply. It’s an interesting point to ponder, but I wouldn’t put money on it. More importantly, I don’t think it matters when articulating the threat of technocracy. Arguing over what uniform the jailor will be wearing is not going to change the prison cell. I’m not saying that humanity shouldn’t try to wrest control of the money supply from the banking mafia, but that’s a different debate, and a different problem to the one of a programmable digital payment system.

The Bank of England certainly doesn’t think it needs to give up control of the money supply just because CBDCs are coming. Fielding questions from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee in 2022, Sir John Cunliffe, the then deputy governor responsible for financial stability, said in relation to CBDC issuance:

“The central assumption that we are working with is a so-called platform model, which would be partnership between the Bank of England and the private sector. In the same way that we do not issue cash directly to the public—we issue it to the banks, which then issue it to the public—the interface with the customer would be private sector […] The aim would be for us to provide the settlement asset but for the private sector to deal with the distribution, the storage of the settlement asset and the technological innovation around the settlement asset.” [emphasis added]

While the above quote applies to CBDCs, which haven’t yet come to life in the UK, I believe the principle is not that different with stablecoins, as I will argue.

When digital money is issued, be it a stablecoin or CBDC, new money is not created. This is quite simply because digital ‘currencies’ are not currencies! They are a digital payment system, or platform, on which a recognised national currency is converted to digital tokens, which are then spent as if they were the recognised national currency. The token represents the original currency, which is implied in the meaning of the word ‘token’ – a representation of something else.

Calling digital money a ‘currency’, rather than what it actually is – a digital payment system – is its greatest PR success. If they’d called it a payment system instead of a ‘currency’, perhaps the take-up of stablecoins wouldn’t be growing at the rate it currently is. People understand that we don’t need a new payment system, and the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee was bang on the money when it labelled digital ‘currency’ a “solution in search of a problem”. That argument still holds.

Sir Jon Cunliffe agrees that digital ‘currencies’ are not currencies. When challenged by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on the ‘currency’ canard he replied:

“I agree with you entirely on currency [i.e. the use of the word as a misnomer], but the term is out there now and it is difficult to change it. I would probably refer to it as central bank digital money, because money is a means of payment, rather than central bank digital currency. The horse has bolted. Once an acronym becomes established, it is really difficult to change it.” [emphasis added]

This principle also applies to stablecoins now in issue. To the extent that a stablecoin is issued by an entity other than an existing commercial bank, the new digital money issuer simply becomes a competitor with existing banks for deposits within the existing supply of money. The stablecoin issuer does not issue new money. The main reason for this is that existing currency deposits of customers are exchanged for a new type of deposit that enables payment to be made on a digital platform. The digital platform is called stablecoin.

Emphasis is also placed on the requirement for the stablecoin issuer to “back their [stablecoin] liabilities 100 percent with safe, liquid assets”. Assuming that the issuers stick to this, it’s actually a banking liquidity safeguard. As noted by Forbes, there remains a liquidity risk in that not all liquid assets are created equal. Liquidating stablecoins requires liquidating the related asset backing it, and if liquidation of that asset could not keep pace with the customers’ demand for liquidation of stablecoins, that could spark a stablecoin liquidity problem. But that’s a separate issue.

Thus, unlike money creation via credit granting, a stablecoin liability can only be created off the back of an existing liquid asset. This in itself is not the measure that precludes money creation. It guarantees sufficient liquidity to redeem the tokens. The main reason why the stablecoin liability created and then issued to the customer does not represent an increase in either base money or commercial bank money is that the customer must liquidate an existing commercial money deposit to acquire the stablecoin. The customer is effectively swapping out an existing commercial money deposit, and putting it on a digital money payment system.

Credit creation by commercial banks is money creation, and I’ve explained how that happens. But stablecoin issuance is not money creation, primarily because it is not credit creation.

There’s no denying that the failure of a stablecoin issuer to back the liability 1:1 with a liquid asset is not just a possibility, but something that has probably already happened. As this Corbett Report podcast alleges, Tether was issued, without equivalent asset backing, to pump up the demand for Bitcoin in 2017. Corbett’s guest described this as “printing Tether out of thin air” but, as I’ve argued, this is not a money creation issue. It poses a potential liquidity issue since the issuer may not be able to redeem the coins if there was sudden demand by customers to swap out of stablecoins and back into traditional cash deposits.

The OCC regulator is also described by Iain as “uniquely independent of the government”[iii], and “fully independent” of it. However, this is not proof that the OCC has the ability or authority to aid the NRx or non-bank stablecoin issuers in circumventing the existing commercial and central bank mafia’s monopoly on money creation. Notwithstanding the OCC’s supposed unique independence from government oversight, I contend that it is still an extension of the commercial banking and central banking money creation cartel, and appears to be playing a role, alongside the Fed, as one of the three Federal-level supervising agencies in the outsourcing of CBDCs to the private sector.

All of the above is not in any way a defence of stablecoins! They seem to be very much resembling what the BoE described when it discussed deploying CBDCs in a “platform model” in which “the private sector … deal[s] with the distribution, [and] the storage of the settlement asset.” The process of converting traditional bank deposits to digital money appears to be underway. I’m merely arguing against the assertion that the NRx Neonerds, or other non-bank actors, have, in Iain’s words, “been ushered into the [banking] oligarchs’ money creation grift”. And the only reason I regard that argument as important is because it recognises the distinction between true currency, which is related to the money creation grift, and digital payment systems, which are not.

Maybe the NRx will succeed in becoming the New World Order bankers. Who knows? As I’ve said, I don’t mind being wrong about who the jailor will be. But let’s not conflate money creation with a digital payment system.

Here is the BoE explainer on stablecoins. The word stablecoin, like currency, is misleading, and deliberately so. They talk about issuing the coin, which makes you think that money is being created. Again, all they’re doing is inviting you to swap your traditional bank deposit for, in their words, a new “type of online or electronic money”. In this, they are transparent in their goal: they want people to “start using them more to pay for a wider range of things.” In other words, they’re trying to move people onto a new programmable digital payment system. That’s it. That’s all we really need to know, because that’s all we really need to resist.

People are like the proverbial magpie – if you make something shiny and inviting enough, they’ll grab it, however useless it may be. Given the uptake of stablecoins, it looks as though huge swathes of Normieland are saying, “Ooh I’d like to get me some stablecoin!” They may as well say, “Ooh, I’d like to get me a rainbow-coloured debit card!” What they don’t know is that soon that new digital trinket is going to be a Big Brother monetary social credit system.

This explainer serves to emphasise that a key driver of the stablecoin industry is to create dollar-based cross-regional ‘currencies’. In other words, they want people to convert their local currencies to dollars, and they’re giving them an easy and fast payment system to do it. That creates demand for dollars in countries outside the US. Think here – the 10 regional kingdoms referred to in Part II. If the US banking system can create sufficient demand for the US dollar in countries on the US periphery, that might accelerate the conditions for a regional currency merger à la EU. But we should not confuse a digital payment system, which might enhance the conditions for a regional currency merger, with the actual currency merger itself.

So, I thought Iain’s discussion of a “new world currency” (including chapters about the “synthetic hegemonic currency”) conflated these two distinct concepts. A move towards a new world currency or even a regional one, would comprise two events: a global (or more likely regional first) currency amalgamation, and then the placement of that currency on a programmable digital platform. The first – a global currency – is an aspiration of the New World Order cult. The second is now being experimented with at the national level.

The debate about Tech companies possibly usurping the central bank cartel in currency issuance and money creation is an interesting one. But it is a secondary economic issue to the much more concrete and technocratic reality of the digital payment system that is already being rolled out.

Bottom line: Programmable digital money (not currency) is a new digital payment system that introduces behavioural control as a new function of money, and it’s coming at us like a freight train. The only way to avoid it is to not stand on that track in the first place. This is the key message we need to hammer home.

Bitcoin

In Iain’s second chapter on the Synthetic Hegemonic Currency, the premises of an argument involving Bitcoin didn’t click into place for me. I couldn’t see a clear statement as to why Bitcoin per se matters in the progression towards the fulfilment of the Technocratic Dark State. I may have simply failed to grasp the point being made because it was beyond my limited knowledge base but, because I have a bee in my bonnet about Bitcoin, I’ll use it as a launch pad to ask questions about Bitcoin that I think should be asked.

I’ll outline the chain of Iain’s argument as I’ve understood it but, because I can’t clearly decipher the conclusion, please don’t assume that my summation is where Iain actually wanted to go! I can only present the premises, and tell you what I think the conclusion was insofar as it affects Bitcoin. I’ll then take that Bitcoin discussion in a different direction. The points below are a distillation of pages 343-345 in the book.

1. Iain starts by stating that: “Because Bitcoin is inherently deflationary, it’s a tempting store of value for oligarchs who have run the current IMFS [International Monetary and Financial System] into the ground.” [emphasis added] The cap of 21 million issuable BTC embedded in its code is cited as the reason for its deflationary characteristic.[iv]

2. Some evidence is cited to support the idea that stablecoins could provide the necessary bridge to convert BTC into a reserve asset.[v] (I don’t know why this is important.)

3. Iain then reports a patently overblown sales pitch from within the BTC ecosystem. The founder of an organisation called MicroStrategy is quoted as saying that BTC is: “the most valuable asset in the world” and “the endgame for anybody that wants to own the greatest property in the 21^st century.”[vi] The hyperbole would make a 19^th century snake oil salesman blush.

4. Iain states that “Blackrock apparently agrees [with the hyperbole in point 3 above] and now considers BTC in particular to be a digital asset.”

5. The US government also agrees as it is one of many governments “rushing to set bitcoin as a digital reserve asset.”

6. And here is where we perhaps get to the conclusion of the Bitcoin discussion at the end of the quoted chapter: “The trajectory to setting bitcoin as the ‘new gold alternative’ is well underway.” Elaborating more on this statement, Iain observes that the US government was proposing (in 2025) to issue “Bitbonds” as a way of effectively rolling over $3 trillion of short-term Treasury bills that were set to mature in 2025.

7. I don’t know if the Bitbond issue took place, but Iain speculates that large financial institutions “will grab the Bitbond tokenised assets, leaving the average American out in the cold. The beneficiaries of Bitbond asset appreciation will be, as usual, the oligarchs.”[vii] [emphasis added]

I was left scratching my head on two counts:

• the implication that the average American would be missing out on a US government Bitbond issue, as opposed to potentially dodging a bullet,

and

• why this is central to the main threats of technocracy that were already very well-articulated in earlier parts of the book.

The road I will now go down is not a critique of Iain’s take on Bitcoin. In fact, unless I missed something, I don’t think Iain outlined a clear position, one way or the other, on Bitcoin. And I don’t think he has to.

Pulling at the thread of Americans potentially missing out on a Bitbond issue, I’ll now attempt to understand the fundamental premises of Bitcoin itself, and whether it could in fact be another scam.

I have yet to hear a conversation about Bitcoin that anchors it in sound economic principles, questions the fundamental premises underlying Bitcoin as money, or even as an asset, which it is now touted to be. I have yet to hear a conversation in the Bitcoin ecosystem that asks what ‘good’ money would look like, whether Bitcoin really is good money, or if it ever could have been. And I think the main reason why those in the Bitcoin ecosystem don’t ask these fundamental questions is because they are invested in it – both emotionally and financially.

Perhaps a good starting point is to understand the difference between Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and indeed whether Bitcoin is a currency at all.

For reasons stated in the previous section, I am convinced that forms of digital money like CBDCs and stablecoins are not currencies. And neither is Bitcoin, although for different reasons. Bitcoin is a very mysterious, and dubious, digital ‘asset’.

Why am I so sure that Bitcoin is not a currency? Because Bitcoin proves the maxim for the test of a currency: anyone can issue a currency, but getting it accepted is another matter altogether. It is widespread acceptance, or trust, that makes a currency a currency. The key to acceptance is its performance both as a widely accepted medium of exchange (meaning it can be exchanged for pretty much anything), and a trusted and stable store of value or wealth. Bitcoin is a failure on both fronts.

You can’t transact in Bitcoin for your everyday needs, and so it doesn’t pass the test of being widely accepted. That’s not saying anything we don’t know, and most people now accept that. This 2023 analysis in The Conversation reported that only 2% of the adult US population had used cryptocurrency to make a payment. Of that 2%, we don’t know how much was Bitcoin, and even then, we don’t know the frequency of usage.

Even in El Salvador, the only country to have made Bitcoin legal tender, retail adoption did not significantly grow, and only a fraction of citizens used it for regular transactions. Most businesses that accepted BTC reported very low volumes. Why? Because it’s just too volatile. Crucially, it is a speculative instrument, like gold. So people hang on to it, and only liquidate it to crystallise gains. Even when the El Salvador government gave ‘incentives’ to use it, people quickly converted their incentives to cash.

Regarding its function as a store of value, the fact that there are many happy Bitcoin millionaires out there does not disprove its failure as a reliable store of value. It actually proves it. You may have got rich holding and then selling bitcoin, but that only proves two things: you traded an asset (not a currency), and you traded at the right time. But the simple truth is that Bitcoin has not reliably and faithfully tracked the value of goods and services, and I don’t believe it was designed to. Whether it was intended to is another matter, but I believe its design as a currency is fundamentally flawed.

However, it has obviously appreciated wildly in relation to the currency you might have used to purchase it, if you bought at the right time. And the further back in time you bought it, the more right the time was. In May 2010, the first real-world Bitcoin purchase was made. Two pizzas were bought for 10,000 BTC, worth around $25. Today 10,000 BTC is worth around $1 billion. Well may you “Wow!”. Interestingly, a BIS study found that “the majority of Bitcoin buyers globally between August 2015 and December 2022 have made losses.”

All in all, Bitcoin is now held for speculative reasons, aka gambling. The primary feature of Bitcoin has so far been its attraction as an online roulette table. That’s why it’s an asset, not a currency. The seven points I’ve summarised in Iain’s discussion of Bitcoin (pages 343-345) seem to reference statements that concur with that. If there was a conclusive point being made, it was that the average American won’t enjoy the inevitable benefits of a potential Bitbond issue.

Given all of these facts, I am slightly puzzled by people earnestly expressing the hope that Bitcoin might one day miraculously overcome its current failures and become an accepted and stable currency. Based on its performance so far, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Now, I’m aware of evidence that points to Bitcoin having been highjacked by Bastards Inc., which explains why it started out its life with earnest intentions, and some success, of being a medium of exchange, and then went awry in around 2017 to become a tulip bubble. However, I would ask those who hold up the hijacking of Bitcoin as the reason for its failure as a currency to think about whether there were fundamental design flaws in the first place.

There are at least two factors that have contributed to Bitcoin’s astronomical appreciation against fiat currencies:

• its built-in scarcity relative to other currencies whose supply is not artificially depressed.

and

• crowd madness. (This does not preclude profit-making amid the madness of the crowd. Profit-making is the reason for the madness.)

Notwithstanding that it’s hard to know which factor is the more significant one, its innate scarcity is not something to be vaunted if it is to ever serve as a functioning currency. That’s because, in order to serve as a stable store of value, the supply of a currency must ebb and flow with the value of goods and services in an economy. If an economy becomes more productive, then the currency supply must increase along with that productivity, or there will be an imbalance between the supply of money and the actual economic activity. And that imbalance tends to cause instability in the value of the currency.

Thus, Iain’s observation that Bitcoin is “inherently deflationary” points to the precise characteristic that actually disqualifies it as a currency. The hard cap on the number of Bitcoin renders the value of the fixed units of the currency subject to the vagaries of economic activity. The supply of Bitcoin, by design, precludes a correlation with the level of economic activity. As such, it has been hopeless as a currency so far, and I can only see it getting more hopeless as time goes on.

There is a reflexive antagonism towards today’s fiat currencies, and rightly so given the never-ending abuses that were initiated by the central bank powers beginning with the BoE swindle in 1694. But money was around long before 1694. It wasn’t always perfect, but we just need to take it back from the abusers and use it properly.

Bitcoin cannot ever function as a reliable currency. It can only ever be an ‘asset’. That being the case, what can we say about the quality of this asset?

Well, a guy in a basement – and we can’t rule out the possibility that the basement was in a CIA building – wrote a programme on his computer, launched the .exe file, et voila! And the guy’s name has to be put in ‘ ’ because no-one is certain who really created it.

The same people who rightly decry central bank money-printing seem to be fine with money-printing provided it’s done anonymously at first, and then via ‘mining’, which can only be undertaken if you have enough money to fund the heavy investment in data computing resources required to crack the code to add new blocks to the chain.

If we are totally honest with ourselves, the idea that an anonymous geek can wake up one morning and issue his own currency, for anyone in the world who wants it, completely untethered to economic realities and principles (such as the relationship of the new money supply to existing and future levels of economic activity), is mad. It’s just as mad as the central bank money printing scam. Possibly slightly madder.

With the whole idea of it being a reliable medium of exchange now out the window, you have to question whether Bitcoin even qualifies as an asset. What makes an asset an asset? Before the financialization of the economy, an asset was an easy thing to define and recognise. It was something from which you derived tangible benefit – either in the form of an income stream in a recognised and reliable currency, or beneficial usage. Today, however, an asset seems to be anything you can make a profit on, even if that asset is simply a string of computer code stored in a virtual ‘wallet’.

As with Bitcoin, this new type of asset doesn’t have to have any use whatsoever. The only requirement is that someone else is willing to buy it for more than you bought it. You might try to counter by asking, “Well, what’s the use of postage stamps for people who are stamp collectors?” For starters, postage stamps are physical things that remind us of another era. They have nostalgic value at the very least. They also have value as some sort of historical record. But what value does a string of computer code on a blockchain have if it’s not doing anything other than waiting for people to buy and sell it in the hope that they’ll make a profit?

Is the Bitcoin dream coming to an end?

So I don’t think Bitcoin is an asset; it’s an idea. Of course ideas can have value, provided the idea yields something serviceable. Intellectual property and digital assets are valued, but they are assigned a value based on the income or potential income they can generate, or some other tangible value they can provide.

When I speculate now about the origins of Bitcoin, I can’t help thinking that one possibility is that it was launched as a joke – a computer game created by IT geeks to explore human irrationality about money. If so, it has certainly proved its point. From there, Bastards Inc, might have seized on it, and turned it into something more business-like, while taking people for a ride. It seems to have been an important experiment in blockchain technology – the very technology on which digital money and the tokenised economy is to be built.

Given that technocracy has been long in the making, and that a system of energy allocation has been on the cards for nearly as long as the ideology of technocracy has existed, isn’t it possible that bitcoin was/is the test run for the kind of programmable money you would need to make such a system work? Could it be a beta test for a global digital payment system run on a blockchain ledger, aka a global digital ‘currency’?

Bitcoin is an idea alright, but not a rational one. For the people promoting it in good faith, it’s a digital avatar for their financial hopes and dreams. But it’s a mad idea, born in a very mad world. A world so obsessed with profit that it has finally hit on something that has no intrinsic value at all other than the possibility of making a profit purely by exiting a virtual bubble before it bursts. Bitcoin as an ‘idea’ is currently valued at $1.5 trillion. Of course that’s not the value of Bitcoin because if everyone today holding Bitcoin tried to cash it in tomorrow, they’d get nothing.

The tulip mania analogy that is commonly used to describe irrational asset bubbles at least had an actual tangible product underlying the madness. People believed, mistakenly, that tulips were worth a lot more than they actually were. With 93% of the total potential Bitcoin supply now in circulation, and with Bitcoin not serving any other purpose than that of holding to wait and see, the Bitcoin endgame is surely now coming into view.

We can’t be certain about Bitcoin’s future, but we do know that the psychopaths at the top of the pyramid care very deeply about control over the money supply, because it’s the primary tool at their disposal for controlling societies and economies. So we can be sure they’re keeping a close eye on Bitcoin, which means that Bitcoin is very susceptible to monetary authority control in some form, if not total obliteration.

Maybe finding silver linings on money matters is just not my forte, but if Bitcoin is a scam, then as far as scams go, it’s actually quite hard to beat this one for sheer madness. That doesn’t change the fact that I do wish I had been mad enough to buy it 15 years ago.

If the human species ever evolves into something better, then the most comprehensive manifestation of our evolution as a species will be the casting off of money altogether. But for now, it seems obvious to me that if we do need money, and if a currency is to work for a community of people, its workings must be fully understood by enough trusted and knowledgeable people within that community, and it must be brought under the control of the community relying on it. That was perhaps the power of the Bitcoin dream. Someone offered us the prospect of money that would free us from the chains of the Dark Lord Sauron, headquartered at the Bank for International Settlements.

I will round off by reminding you that, all in all, The Technocratic Dark State is a very important read! Get the book, support Iain’s valuable and hard work, and do share your thoughts when you’re done.

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!

Buy Me A Coffee

[i] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 301.

[ii] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 302.

[iii] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 301.

[iv] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 343.

[v] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 344.

[vi] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 344.

[vii] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 345.

In Part I, using Iain Davis’s latest work – The Technocratic Dark State – I discussed what Technocracy is, delving into some of the ideology behind the movement. In this second part, again reviewing Iain’s work, I will examine the macro- and micro-level dynamics underpinning technocracy. At the end of Part I, I said I would ask some basic questions about Bitcoin in Part II. However, in order to keep this second part more digestible, I have decided to address specific money matters in Part III.

How is technocracy being pushed at the macro level?

“…For within these rings was bound the strength and will to govern each race. But they were all of them deceived, for another ring was made. In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, The Dark Lord Sauron forged in secret, a master ring to control all others. And into this ring he poured his cruelty, his malice, and his will to dominate all life. One ring to rule them all.” – J. R. R. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings [Emphasis added]

Infrastructure for implementing technocratic policy has been cemented at the global level for some time. The UN fully embraced the public-private partnership model of international governance in 1998 when the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, addressed the World Economic Forum (WEF). Disingenuously invoking peace and prosperity, he asserted that these two goals could no longer be guaranteed by engaging only with governments, and that the business community would now be included in the UN’s formal partnerships.[1] Stripped of the customary PR spin, he was in fact formalising transnational capital’s paramount role in forging the New World Order.

The WEF formally consummated its partnership with the UN in 2019 to, in the WEF’s words, “jointly accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. Included in the usual suite of policy pabulum is “digital cooperation” to “meet the needs of the Fourth Industrial Revolution” (4IR). Isn’t it comforting to know that not only is humanity at the sharp end of, yet again, another top-down ruling class revolution, but the WEF and UN have assured us that they are dedicating all their waking hours to keeping it on track?

This is crucial to understand: the WEF and the UN share a joint passion for digitalisation in all spheres of life.

In the same year that the WEF and the UN were consummating their unholy alliance, the UK Government was doing the same thing with its own formal WEF partnership agreement. Again, the 4IR, technological innovation, and AI and machine learning were the buzzwords plastered all over the press release.

One of Trump’s first acts on taking office was to announce a $500-billion public-private infrastructure project in Texas called ‘Stargate’, whose goal is to accelerate (that word again!) the development of AI systems.

However, the pièce de résistance, and the Trojan Horse, of the global public-private partnership heist is the UN’s Agenda 2030, spelt out in its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Filled with platitudes about saving the planet and safeguarding human rights, Agenda 2030 is a blueprint for a global fascist takeover of the entire planet by the global oligarchy. Human enslavement is masquerading as human rights, and monetising the world’s natural resources is masquerading as stewardship of those resources.

The SDGs are undergirded by an imperative to advance digital technologies, which is why the public-private partnership is so crucial to achieving the global digital dystopia of the mouthbreathing Machiavellis. They are terrified by an increasingly restive global population posing a threat to the concentration of evermore wealth in the bloodstained paws of the ruling corporatocracy.

While rightly highlighting vast wealth inequalities, the UN disingenuously bemoans the fact that “4 billion people still do not have access to the Internet”. Advocating FaceBook accounts for all while doing absolutely nothing to halt a war that will cause global starvation due to fertiliser supply chain shocks is insulting and evil drivel. The UN is a vital ally of the global mafia hellbent on binding the world in digital chains. It is run by the UN Security Council, which in turn comprises the most powerful nations on earth. Those nations are, in turn, beholden to the corporate interests that run them. The logic of these relationships is inescapable – the UN is no different to captured political parties issuing edicts in the West on behalf of the plutocracy. The UN is part of the same racket.

The UN has in fact proved itself to be an invaluable vehicle for issuing global policies that are implemented by captured national governments, using International Law as cover. If a policy is passed down from the UN machinery of SDGs, it doesn’t even have to be debated in Western parliaments. It often doesn’t even require legislation, by virtue of UN Treaties which have more authority than local law. As long as it’s got the word ‘sustainable’ attached to it, it’s a done deal.

The cause of wealth inequality is uncomplicated, and as old as time itself – the exploitation of the many by the few. Far from rectifying that, internet access desired under SDGs will only reinforce inequality through digital ID, and tokenisation of the economy and natural resources, more on which shortly. Why on earth should we trust an organisation that wants everyone to have internet access, but has done absolutely nothing to halt genocides and illegal wars of aggression? Worse still, this organisation, posing as the champion of the poor, partners with the very global corporatocracy that is responsible for the wealth inequalities it alleges to decry. We have learnt nothing from decades of decay if we continue to expect solutions to global poverty to emanate from institutions which now embody the same consciousness that caused the problem in the first place.

15-minute smart cities are also part of the SDG framework. These involve geofencing human populations using a combination of the Internet of Things (devices whose usage is governed by AI tech), and real-time digital surveillance of each individual’s energy and consumption.

If you really believe that ‘decarbonisation’ is going to save the planet, you’ll need to explain to me why investors are licking their chops at the prospect of a $22 trillion carbon market by 2050.[2] Even if you thought that reducing carbon emissions per se was a worthwhile pursuit – and it’s not – why would you endorse the ‘markets’ trading pieces of paper with a value of $22 trillion? Do you imagine that poor kids in the Global South walking 5 miles a day to collect fetid water from a broken well are going to see even one penny of that ‘decarbonising financial innovation’?

Trump’s Stargate initiative aims to spend $500 billion, while Apple alone plans to spend $500 billion on data centres in the next four years. There are numerous other projects one could cite, but these two alone represent $1 trillion of investment in digital data processing. Not food, or other concrete investments that would actually uplift the lives of poor people, but data processing. This represents a level of madness that defies description, and the UN, which claims to care about global poverty alleviation, has hitched its wagon to this.

In 2023, data centre energy consumption in the state of Virginia alone accounted for 21% of the total power consumption, which exceeded domestic consumption at 18%. On this measure alone, our overlords have told us that data is now more important than people. In Pennsylvania in 2025, the sharp rise in electricity demand from data centres caused energy prices to increase by about 15%, roughly double the national average. U.S. data centre electricity consumption tripled between 2014 and 2023, and is set to triple again by 2028 from the 2023 base.

All of this provides a key insight into why you should be highly sceptical of the official climate change narrative. Those pushing the scam don’t believe it themselves. If the real aim of the ruling class, their subservient governments, and the UN was to throttle carbon emissions, then how do we reconcile this with the planned exponential expansion of carbon emitting AI data centres. And how does trading $22 trillion of ‘carbon credits’ actually reduce carbon emissions?

As if all of that was not insane enough, there’s the Natural Asset Company (NAC) tokenisation scam, which is the truly jaw-dropping coup de grâce of the digital-Sustainable Development fraud. Fraud is in fact a pathetically inadequate word to describe the literal planned theft of the world’s entire natural resource base by the global oligarchy. There are no words to describe such a crime because nothing comparable in history has occurred. But this is not only imminent; Grand Theft World has begun. How will the heist work?

Let’s start in the US, where Trump has signed a Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) Executive Order whose stated objective is to “leverage returns [on the nation’s assets] to promote fiscal sustainability”. Included in the assets to be leveraged are “natural resource reserves”.[3] Iain posits that this is the next big financial scam that could simultaneously resolve the West’s debt burden, while handing over natural resources to the oligarchs.[4]

NACs were launched in 2021 on the New York Stock Exchange. They seek to generate financial returns by valuing a natural asset based on the “ecosystem services” it produces. Once valued, the related services are then monetised.[5] What are “ecosystem services”? Well, food, fresh water, the air we breathe, good soil, plant and wildlife habitat…you name it. If it’s natural, it’s monetisable! What could go wrong?

Valuing and monetising nature is in fact a way of creating a rationing and allocation system that will be out of our hands, and firmly in the hands of the Sovereign Wealth Funds doing the valuing and monetising. Bathed in the language of sustainability, this is nothing short of an audacious plan by the global oligarchy to steal the planet’s entire natural resource base. Is the SDG mafia at the UN in on it? Iain points out that “numerous SDG targets demand that natural ecosystems have a corresponding financial asset value ascribed to them. Forests, for example, are transformed…into ecosystem carbon sequestration services (ECSSs).”[6] Again, just ask yourself whether putting a forest on an asset portfolio on the New York Stock Exchange has anything to do with protecting that forest, or exploiting it for profit?

What is the projected value of tokenised natural assets in the world? $4,000,000,000,000,000 – that’s four quadrillion US dollars[7], or four thousand trillion. To repeat – monetising mother nature is the sort of thing the UN is happy to promote while doing absolutely nothing about war, genocide, and looming famine caused by war. It has partnered with the WEF, whose members include active participants in the military industrial complex. Palantir is part of that complex and will also help the UN to further its Digitalisation agenda.

In summary, the data digitalisation push that is so integral to global technocracy is being imposed from the uppermost structures of global governance and policy-making, including the UN and the WEF. This is one important aspect of the macro machinery driving technocracy.

Another key facet of the macro stratagem underpinning global technocracy is the multipolarity fraud that I’ve been banging on about for some time now. This is one of the most important points Iain makes in his thesis.

Iain’s research reveals that in 1956, the Rockefeller Fund instructed Henry Kissinger to commission a report on how to enhance the authority of the UN, which itself was the brainchild of the Rockefellers. The Report concluded that strengthening UN global governance was best achieved by dividing the world into smaller manageable regions under an international body of growing authority, this being the UN.[8]

This was followed in 1973 by the Club of Rome’s report titled “Regionalised and Adaptive Model of the Global World System”, which proposed a division of the world into ten “Kingdoms”, synonymous with blocs or poles.[9] Multipolarity was midwifed in globalist institutions many eons ago. This seems contradictory to the aim of centralised global power unless you grasp the counterintuitive paradigm of first decentralising in order to re-centralise. The 200 or so countries in the world will be far easier to tame once they have been divided into ten regions, with each country subordinate to the policy and financial systems of its regional head.[10]

It’s straightforward hierarchical delegation. Management 101 really. Provided all 10 monetary and financial systems are interoperable – that word is one of the most commonly used in BIS and other global technical circles – then each region’s currency can be integrated on a global unified ledger. It’s the central and transnational bankers’ dream come true – one ring to rule them all.

The European Union, a single currency and trading bloc now 32 years old, provides a tried and tested template to be rolled out globally. The Chatham House website states that the institutions and structures of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), comprising Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan “are modelled on EU structures and Russia has billed the EEU as a partner for the EU in a proposed free-trade zone ‘stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok’.”

And nor are the panjandrums in the corridors of unipolar power resisting multipolarity. On the contrary, in 2011, the then French Finance minister, and now head of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, said[11]:

“Our starting point is to achieve an orderly transition to a world that is multipolar in economic and monetary terms…the G20 reached agreement [to] promote the orderly transition to a multipolar world.”

The World Economic Forum is also enamoured of multipolarism. Emphasising the decentralise-to-recentralise paradigm, it refers to the regional approach to globalisation as “targeted re-globalisation”.[12]

Pepe Escobar will almost certainly be awarded a Russian and Chinese Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in a Political Docudrama, but don’t confuse the theatre of the multipolaristas[13] with real life. Sorry folks, but multipolarity is not an organic reaction by the BRICS bloc to throw off the yolk of Western oppression. BRICS vs the West is a scripted Punch and Judy show, written and directed by Transnational Capital. The sooner we all come to terms with the implications of this, the better, and the implications have been clearly spelt out in Iain’s book, and summarised in this article!

How is technocracy being pushed at the micro level?

While all of the above global financial scams have been designed to transfer unimaginable wealth and control of resources to our inglorious global Luciferian oligarchy, all the while masquerading as resource stewardship, there are two easy-to-understand components of digital control that are being constructed to shackle every single person on the planet, apart from the handful of oligarchs and their entourage of bougiecrats who lick their boots for money and status.

The first is Digital ID. This is actually a UN/WEF sine qua non, which tells you how vital it is to the ruling class. UN SDG goal 16.9 aims to “provide legal identity for all” by 2030.[14] Calling it “legal identity” is of course an infuriatingly disingenuous obfuscation, because even a San bushman hunting and gathering in the Kalahari desert has “legal ID” in today’s world. It’s a ridiculous proposition on its face. Why has ‘legal’ identification suddenly become a problem for the human race after hundreds of thousands of years? Of course, “legal ID” is code for Digital ID.

They need a way to ensure that all critical services that humans rely on, whether accessed online, or in the real world, can only be accessed on presentation of a digital identifier unique to each individual. This means using biometric data – typically facial recognition. At first gradually, and then suddenly, we will reach a point where society will be closed to you unless you have a digital ID. You will be unpersoned. As the SDG goal implies, without this ID, you will not be ‘legal’ in basic social and economic interactions. If public transport cannot be accessed without Digital ID, movement is greatly restricted. The possibilities for exclusion are endless.

The second component of digital control has the potential to work with Digital ID to produce the Biblical nightmare of the mark of the beast. This involves the rollout of some form of digital currency, which has already begun. Digital currencies will be programmable, meaning that usage can be restricted in specified ways. Programmability will depend on interaction with Digital ID. Thus the combination of digital ID and programmable money will grant the public-private partnership hitherto unimaginable ways to control the behaviour and movement of entire populations in real time. In short, a Social Credit System. Think back to the definition of technocracy in Part I – law by algorithm.

Speaking at a roundtable on Central Bank Digital Currency, Bo Li, former deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China, and current deputy managing director of the IMF, said[15]:

“By programming CBDC, […] money can be precisely targeted [to] what kinds of [things] people can own, and [the way] this money can be utilised.”

This is a clear statement of intent from the highest levels of the International Monetary and Financial System to transform the function of money from a medium of exchange into a medium of control.

Neither Digital ID nor digital currencies on their own are difficult concepts to grasp in terms of the threat they pose to privacy and freedom. When combined, it is even easier to understand the diabolical nature of the threat to us, and the incentives for a psychopathic ruling class to deploy a monetary Social Credit System as the ultimate population control tool. When we add into the mix the appetite for the Internet of Things – ‘smart’ devices whose operation is in the hands of a centralised authority, as opposed to the individual who owns or operates the device – and ‘smart’ cities which are designed to saturate the population with these digitally controlled devices, we will have then entered the digital gulag. This will be a life mediated entirely by digital devices, and ruled by algorithm.

If we walk blindly into this cage, the key to its door will not be willingly handed back to us.

[1] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 93.

[2] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 139.

[3] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 329.

[4] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 338.

[5] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 330.

[6] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 331.

[7] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 337.

[8] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 363.

[9] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 364.

[10] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 354.

[11] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 355.

[12] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 365.

[13] Patented by Hrvoje Morić at Geopolitics & Empire.

[14] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 204.

[15] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 238.

Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses substack.

While I, and most readers of this blog, have probably been fortunate enough so far to have been relatively unscathed by the political class’s relentless servings of fear, pain, and humiliation, there is no denying it. Sadly, everything that is happening is, in one way or another, preparing the ground for the global ruling class’s planned main course – a neo-feudal dystopic totalitarian technocracy. This is the end game – the War for Technocracy on humanity.

The word “technocracy” is now a much bandied-about word in alt-media circles, but are we all crystal clear on what it means? If not, Iain Davis’s latest offering – The Technocratic Dark State – will get you fully up to speed, and then some.

https://thepapercutmagazine.com/products/the-technocratic-dark-state-second-edition

It will also confirm one of John Lennon’s most incisive observations about humanity’s current condition: “our society is run by insane people for insane objectives...by maniacs for maniacal ends.” Those maniacal ends are now coming more clearly into view for those who have eyes to see.

I strongly encourage you to pick up a copy of his book – this article is no substitute for Iain’s in-depth investigation. This is a book review of sorts, highlighting what I see as the essentials to grasp, along with my own musings. I thought the book could have been tighter in its argumentation in one or two places, and I’ll explain why in due course. But overall, it achieved its objective as a valuable resource for raising consciousness about the threat of Technocracy. Where I have not provided a note reference to Iain’s work, you can assume the musings are mine, not his.

Here’s the map for this two-part piece:

Part I:

• What is technocracy and why is it being imposed?

• Who is pushing it? In the spirit of know thy enemy, we’ll meet the power-crazy mad-hatters who want to dominate all life on earth, and elsewhere if they could get there. We’ll discuss the ‘philosophy’, such as it is, driving the Dark Technocracy movement, which is a cultish brand of technocracy espoused by the more extreme elements in the movement.

Part II:

• How are they pushing it at the macro level? This deals with the global macroeconomic conditions that are being pushed to implement technocracy.

• How are they pushing it at the micro level? The micro-level relates to the digital and other technocratic tools necessary to implement technocracy. Think of these as the mechanical core of the engine that drives technocracy.

What is technocracy and why is it being imposed?

My own definition, derived from my reading of Iain’s book, is that technocracy encompasses a system of total population control by technocratic means. There are two elements in that sentence – population control and technocratic means, so let’s break those two down a bit more.

Total population control entails control of movement, thought, and behaviour. It is the institution of total compliance, at the individual level, with the ruling class’s dictates. If it achieves its ambitious and diabolical goal, not only will compliance be forced on every individual, but it will be enforced in real time without the need for traditional means of intervention such as police, courts, hearings, and so on. Its fundamental aim is that no single person should be able to slip through the net of compliance, and the only way to achieve this totalising control is through pervasive and invasive digital technology.

It will be far more efficient to simply lock someone out of their bank account with an algorithm than to send out police, or court papers. What’s more, the list of state-decreed infractions is going to become so ridiculous that the concept of legality as being linked to any kind of morality will fall by the wayside. We have already seen this with the passing of the Online Safety Act, which recognises that speech can be legal, but if it is nebulously ‘harmful’, it can be curtailed. So, as we enter this new paradigm of the ‘harmful’ citizen, it will be far more efficient to pass an algorithm than to pass a law.

Think of Technocracy as law by algorithm – highly adaptive, constantly fluid. The ‘law’ on any given day is what the programmer wants it to be.

My definition above emphasises the actual effect of technocracy, not its purported goal. If you took the technocrats themselves at face value, you would think that it was the solution to all of humanity’s problems. But this is technocracy’s marketing brochure – it is sold as a response to all social, economic, and political problems.[1] However, we get a far better sense of its totalitarian nature from the definition provided by the founding fathers of technocracy themselves, who describe it as[2]:

“The science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.”

The entire “social mechanism” targeted for control is nothing short of vast continental geographical spaces defined as “technates”. The seemingly unrealistic scale of the ambition is disturbing, as is the means of achieving it by social engineering.

Technates are further sub-divided into regional divisions in which the role of the nation state will be made redundant. The significance of powerful regional blocs within the macro architecture of technocracy will be discussed when we tackle multipolarity under the heading: How are they pushing technocracy at the macro level?

Governance functions are split into appropriate industrial or service categories, with continental control overseen by a Continental Director who is appointed by members of a body called, funnily enough, the “Continental Control”. This Continental Control body is itself self-appointed and consists of “only some 100 or so members, all of whom know each other very well.” On this basis, the technocracy boffs conclude that “there is no one better fitted to make this choice [of Continental Director] than they.”[3] So, it’s a command-and-control system in the hands of a select few.

Well, for a minute, I was worried that the masses would be given a say in this neo-feudal leadership system but, thankfully, we the people will be comprehensively excluded. There’s no use complaining either – we brought it on ourselves with our foolish penchant for voting for different colours of the same team: Team Plutocracy. There is a price to pay for botching our freedom so badly, and technocracy might just be that price…unless we wake from our deep slumber and tell them to jog on.

The key takeaway so far is that if the modern-day technocrats have their way, it’s hard to argue against Iain’s assessment that “words like ‘communism’, ‘fascism’ or even ‘feudalism’ don’t come close to describing the extent of the radical tyranny intrinsic to Technocracy.” Technocrats can only succeed in imposing their will on a techno-receptive population, so we need to become more Techno-resistant.

Who is pushing technocracy?

Iain’s book is a compendium of who’s who in the technocracy zoo, as you would expect of any good in-depth investigation. I will mention in passing only a few of the bigger players by name, but what we should bear in mind is that any bureaucrat or politician who advocates digital-tech ‘solutions’ to problems that either don’t exist, have been manufactured, or could be solved by existing legislation and other sensible human practices, is a technocrat to be treated like a gatecrasher at a party – turf them out before they steal your valuables.

Come to think of it, even if you’re not in a position of power, but think that digital technology is the default solution to all of humanity’s problems, you too are a technocrat.

The Trump administration was paid for in the last puppet selection round (aka US elections) by Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Elon Musk is a technocrat tycoon who invested more than a quarter of a billion dollars[4] to install Trump in the White House, and is reaping the rewards for his investment through the establishment of a US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) whose Trojan-horse purpose is to make private digital data held by the government more malleable and accessible to Big Tech and digital surveillance contractors.

And as far back as 2022, the New York Times was already reporting that Thiel was “a key financier of the Make America Great Again movement”, and that Thiel saw Trump as “a vessel to push through his ideological goals”.[5]

While tech tycoons like Musk can be seen as technocrats, Iain has exposed another unsavoury group called Neo-reactionaries, the short-hand for which is NRx. Iain wishes to rebrand both technocrats and NRx lunatics as Neonerds, which is a moniker that isn’t going to catch on for me, since it makes a group of Luciferian psychopaths sound cutesy rather than baleful. To describe them as Lucifer’s IT Help Desk is also probably too kind, since it’s got the word ‘help’ in it, but Neonerds doesn’t cut the mustard for me. Sorry Iain.

That said, the technocrat and NRx belief systems overlap to such an extent that, for all intents and purposes, we can regard them as a single threat. They want essentially the same thing and, while they may worship slightly different false gods, they are broadly in agreement on how to achieve their objective.

While Musk is regarded as a technocrat, Peter Thiel, the Palantir tycoon, fits into the NRx mould. It is worth reminding readers how Palantir was conceived to appreciate the hand-in-glove relationship between Musk’s DOGE takeover of government digital data, and Palantir’s role as the US government’s outsourced private data surveillance arm.

US Navy Vice Admiral John Poindexter, who was at the centre of the Iran-Contra weapons scandal in the mid-to-late 1980s, is considered by researchers like Whitney Webb to be the father of the US surveillance state. After the Iran-Contra affair, he resurfaced in the wake of the diabolical 9/11 false flag attack in New York to advocate for the Pentagon’s Total Information Awareness (TIA) programme, which sought to leverage 9/11 as the pretext for instituting uninhibited digital data collection on all US citizens.

When the public learnt about the TIA project, the ensuing outcry led to its defunding. However, this proved to be a temporary setback, which was overcome by quietly outsourcing the project in 2003 to a private sector operator funded with seed capital from the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel. That operator was, and is, Palantir Technologies, headed up by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp. The CIA remained Palantir’s sole client until 2008, and it has remained the Pentagon’s primary contractor for digital surveillance technology programs.[6]

Palantir has branched out since 2003. It is now getting its claws into the UK healthcare system, helping the government here to exploit private health data for government and commercial gain. It has also actively participated in the Gaza genocide, contracting with the Israeli Occupation Forces to, in its words, “harness Palantir’s advanced technology in support of war-related missions.”[7] Thiel’s Orwellian ability to balance his company’s active participation in weapons technology with his professed Christian beliefs is one of many reasons why I don’t think we should settle for describing him as a mere “Neonerd”.

Thiel has attempted to rebrand Christianity to make Silicon Valley’s involvement with the Military Industrial Complex more amenable to the intersection of Christianity and politics. As Whitney Webb explains: “There’s an attempt to develop a new form of a more violent Christianity, which I think most Christians would be against”. [time stamp 45:00 – 50:00]. My immediate reaction to that was, yes, that can’t possibly work, until I remembered that Rome did not become Christian. The Christians became Roman. And Rome, after its conversion to Christianity, pioneered the violent Christianity that became the hallmark of Western civilisation. Thiel is merely doing what nearly every ‘Christian’ leader before him has done for centuries. Sadly, it might work. Again.

War is in fact instrumental in the pursuit of the technocrats’ and NRx goals of using wholesale destruction – which they call ‘deterritorialization’ – as a fertile testbed for constructing digital technocratic states – ‘reterritorialization’ in their jargon. As I have previously discussed, Gaza is set to become a controlled experiment in full-scale digital technocracy. In Ukraine, a Blackrock-led carve-up is explicit in the Ukrainian government’s announcement in May 2025 of a Reconstruction Investment Fund. In the Ukrainian government’s own words, “American companies will [have] access to vast new opportunities in the joint development of Ukraine’s natural resources”.[8] And the digital mafia have wasted no time in using the destruction of life in Ukraine to ‘reterritorialize’ it into a Digital govcorp.[9]

Iain gets into the weeds of the thinkers who have influenced the likes of Thiel, Karp, and their fellow NRx travellers. At the outset, I will say that I refuse to fall into the same trap that Iain fell into by labelling the most influential ideas peddlers within this movement as philosophers. As you will see from the ideas they peddle, rational thinking that bears the hallmarks of philosophy is antithetical to their ideas.

The two most prominent NRx mad-hatters are American Curtis Yarvin and Englishman Nick Land. Yarvin was described by Bloomberg technology writer Max Chafkin as the “house philosopher” of the “Thielverse”.[10] The NRX mad-hatters’ ire is directed at a nebulous embodiment of the existing sociopolitical system that they call the “Cathedral”. To be frank, and in my humble view, Iain has not succeeded in clearly defining the NRx’s conception of the Cathedral. But I rather suspect this is because the NRx themselves are incapable of articulating their own conception of the Cathedral. Thankfully, it’s not important. What is important is that they want to usurp the current order and replace it with their own. Don’t we all! The thing to focus on is their endgame, and not the current “Cathedral” they vilify.

In spite of all the inchoate NRx mud-throwing at the current dysfunctional Cathedral, it’s not the Cathedral per se that they really object to. What irks them is their lack of control over it. So their somewhat ambitious goal is to subsume the entire current state bureaucracy and socio-economic system into sovereign corporations, or sovcorps. These newly constituted sovcorps will operate in a “patchwork of realms”, which is a network of sovcorps. Needless to say, each sovcorp will be run with an iron fist by its CEO, aka “TechnoKing”.[11]

Are you starting to see what I mean about these NRx IT guys not quite displaying the intellectual credentials that one might associate with philosophy? If not, let me give you a few more examples of their ‘philosophical’ thinking’.

Now, I will admit, I didn’t always find Iain’s exposition of their ideas, such as they are, a smooth ride. I think there are one or two areas where he either gets slightly bogged down, or simply fails to make it clear that these bumptious data-processing salesmen are maddeningly incoherent. Accelerationism – a central NRx concept – is a good example of this, partly because it’s a ridiculous concept on its face (and that’s obviously not Iain’s fault), but partly because Iain doesn’t quite rip it to shreds in the way that it deserves.

Accelerationism begins with the premise that “creative destruction” is intrinsic to capitalism. This means that the social and political order is in constant flux as a result of rapid technological advancements and new market creation. So far so good.

The malign NRx, wishing to imbue themselves with philosophical credentials, have renamed the creative destruction of capitalism, and the changes it imposes on society, as deterritorialization and reterritorialization respectively. Just think of it as destroy and rebuild. Remember ‘Build Back Better’? Now you’re getting the picture! Not complicated actually. You accidentally-on-purpose screw things up, and then you profit from ‘fixing’ things, while re-engineering society in the ‘fixing’. Seen in that light, the jargon is bloody annoying, but I guess it goes with the territory (no pun intended) of being a self-styled philosopher who wants to convey the idea that they are wrestling with the universe’s most intractable problems. The reality is that a six-year old with a day’s experience of playing Lego could explain it more clearly, and certainly with much less fanfare.

Having got this far in the logical steps towards articulating accelerationism, Iain loses me by jumping into the concept of the…wait for it…“technological singularity” by simply stating that this is “the point at which technological growth becomes self-perpetuating and thus inevitable”. Thus, according to the NRx, deterritorialization (which is really just the creative destruction of capitalism) “would accelerate sharply, and outstrip humanity’s ability to intervene or adapt to it.” I think this is the singularity – the inevitable speed wobble of technological advancement that turns it into a wild and uncontrollable beast.

The question this then poses is: how should humanity adapt to this self-inflicted technological fury? Well, “adapting means we must embrace and intensify the creative destruction of capitalism”. This is accelerationism. The illogical insanity of accelerationism peaks at the point where the NRx conclude that “acceleration … would be the only way to keep pace with the inevitable deterritorialization that takes place as we speed towards the singularity”[12].

It’s riddled with false premises and logical errors. Why does technological growth become “self-perpetuating”, and what does that even mean? Can technological growth occur without external agency? I don’t doubt that it can occur rapidly, but technological growth is not some wild animal that’s escaped from a zoo, and multiplying in inaccessible forests beyond our reach. It’s a product of human ingenuity (and sometimes stupidity), so we can intervene, and we can adapt, if we choose to. Proof of our ability to intervene lies in our technocratic overlords’ constant intervention to suppress technology that they can’t control and monopolise for themselves.

And why does adaptation involve making it go faster? I wasn’t a physics whizzkid at school, but I think that most self-respecting physicists will probably tell you that making something go faster is not the best way to keep pace with it. In any case, admitting that you can make it go faster is also an admission that there is some element of human agency in this process. In fact, quite a lot of human agency. If you can put go-faster stripes on it, you could also make it go slower.

So! Here is accelerationism in a Plague-on-Both-Houses nutshell: technological shit is happening faster than we can control or adapt to (not true), so let’s speed up shit (which in itself negates the supposed lack of control over said shit), because speeding shit up is the only way to keep pace with the speed of shit (which defies a basic law of physics).

Now! That’s clearly not the thinking of clear-eyed philosophers. It looks like the work of teenagers who have spent the last three years locked up in their bedroom eating five Dominoes pizzas per day, and playing Minecraft[13] to the sound of heavy metal, interspersed with readings of Slavoj Zizek. And by the way, if Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher, then he is the philosopher of Confusionism. Again, no pun intended, since that would be disrespectful to Confucius, who actually was a philosopher.

I know that Iain thinks the NRx IT guys are more kooky than the average channeler plying their wares on YouTube, but I was ever so slightly frustrated that he presented this particular strand of their psychedelic thinking without pausing at appropriate stops to properly deconstruct it for the garbage it is. Never mind, I’ve done it for you.

To be fair to Iain, after grappling with this topic, he does understatedly conclude that: “It is not clear, however, whether neoreactionaries are trying to purposefully perplex us with their abstruse, impenetrable jargon.” I think that their purposeful lack of clarity is perfectly clear.[14]

At any rate, while Yarvin is an advocate of sovcorps ruling over us, Land advocates for gov-corps. This particular strand of NRx thinking proposes that entire nations would be converted to business enterprises run by gov-corps.[15]

It is essential to quote Land himself in order to understand how mad, bad and dangerous these miscreants are. Before we do so, and because the NRx IT guys use jargon to mask their inferiority complex, which I surmise stems from not being actual philosophers, we will need to explain the term ‘neo-cameralism’.

Cameralism, in its narrowest sense, is simply the science of public finance and administration. The NRx concept of neo-cameralism broadens cameralism to mean the cataloguing and mapping of all ruling class functions with a view to subsuming them (discarding where necessary) into their new vision of technocratic ruling systems and entities, such as gov-corps.

To quote Land[16]:

“[I]t is essential to squash the democratic myth that a state ‘belongs’ to the citizenry. The point of neo-cameralism is to buy out the real stakeholders in sovereign power, not to perpetuate sentimental lies about mass enfranchisement. Unless ownership of the state is formally transferred into the hands of its actual rulers, the neo-cameral transition will simply not take place, power will remain in the shadows, and the democratic farce will continue.”

This is actually a rare example of clear-eyed, albeit demonic, NRx thinking. I think most readers of this blog would agree that, although the state does not belong to us because it has been hijacked by the oligarchy, it ought to belong to us. The NRx crowd, on the other hand, believe that the best way to correct this ownership problem is to simply make the current fraud official. This amounts to wholesale Revelation of the Method – let’s dispense with the Punch and Judy show and publicly bow down to Baal.

What would a CEO-style dictatorship under a barking-mad gaggle of NRx IT guys look like? Well, Yarvin, the American NRx ‘philosopher’ king, has solved what he called “the problem of adults who are not productive members of society.” Exactly how he would define an unproductive member of society is not clear, but don’t be surprised if it involves a below-average score on Minecraft for the previous two quarters. In explicitly ruling out genocide, Yarvin demonstrated that genocide had seriously crossed his mind, and that the idea was canned probably on the basis of its low PR rating. So instead, Yarvin proposes to “virtualise them.”

Yarvin attempted to sooth the nerves of those who might baulk at “virtualising” their fellow human beings by suggesting that[17]:

“a virtualised human is in permanent solitary confinement, waxed like a bee larva into a cell which is sealed except for emergencies. This would drive him insane, except that the cell contains an immersive virtual-reality interface which allows him to experience a rich, fulfilling life in a completely imaginary world.”

Anything I said to describe this proposal would not adequately express the outrage that should well up on reading those words. Here I must confess that I lack the requisite extravagance of vocabulary to do justice to the scale of Yarvin’s depravity. Even when I try to switch from condemning to understanding, I find myself staring again into a pool of psychological knowledge that is too shallow to accommodate the volume of his madness. The best I can do is to reflect that it might be more realistic to ask a fish to grow legs and run the London marathon than to expect an NRx IT guy to solve any problems, human or otherwise, using a non-digital paradigm.

I don’t doubt that the Yarvins of the world have read more than just data processing manuals and computer processing theory. In fact, I’m quite sure they’ve had a better education and more time on their hands than me, so they have to be far better-read than me. But what is the point of all that time, education, and reading if, at the end of your philosophical search for knowledge, the best you can offer as a solution to “unproductive” humans is to “virtualise” them, or that the ‘solution’ to rapid technological advancement is to simply accelerate it? What have they been reading and why has it turned them into human malware?

It seems, therefore, that it is quite possible to read extensively, and yet still emerge as a human simulation of a synthetic computer program. Worse still, the starting point of viewing “unproductive” humans as a problem renders these supposed independent ‘thinkers’ as unwitting and witless automatons of a system which has programmed them to value “productivity” as a worthy end in itself. There is no evidence of any capacity for independent thought that would lead to questioning what it would mean for a human to be productive, and who should benefit from human productivity. Moreover, how can a human-made production system result in so many humans becoming mysteriously “unproductive”? What does that tell us about the minds behind the creation of the system? I’m no philosopher, but I’d expect one to at least pretend to grapple with these questions, before throwing their hands up in the air and saying, “Let’s virtualise the whole lot of them.”

Perhaps the best way to draw a line under the ‘thinking’ of the NRx movement is to highlight a description of them offered by a more astute tech writer. Corey Pein, writing for The Baffler in 2014, essentialised them in two words – “mouthbreathing Machiavellis”.[18]

In Part II of this review of Iain Davis’s work, we will examine the macro-level and micro-level dynamics that will make technocracy function. I will also put Bitcoin in the cross-hairs in a way that most alt-media writers don’t. Bitcoin is somewhat of a sacred cow, which to my mind it does not deserve to be.

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!

Buy Me A Coffee

[1] Iain Davis, The Technocratic Dark State, The Papercutmagazine.com, 2025, Pg. 23.

[2] Ibid., Pg. 29.

[3] Ibid., Pg. 33.

[4] Ibid., Pg. 19.

[5] Ibid., Pg. 196.

[6] Ibid., Pg. 175.

[7] Ibid., Pg. 178.

[8] Ibid., Pg. 190.

[9] Ibid., Pg. 193.

[10] Ibid., Pg. 194.

[11] Ibid., Pg. 43.

[12] Ibid., Pg. 44-45.

[13] A google search reveals that “Minecraft is a popular 3D sandbox video game often described as virtual Lego, where players explore an infinite, block-based world to mine resources, craft items, and build structures. It has no set goals, allowing players to choose between survival (fighting mobs/gathering resources) and creative modes (unlimited building).” [emphasis added]

[14] Davis, op. cit., Pg. 49.

[15] Davis, op. cit., Pg. 64.

[16] Davis, op. cit., Pg. 67.

[17] Davis, op. cit., Pg. 151.

[18] Davis, op. cit., Pg. 196.

Originally published on Goblins Under the Apple Tree substack.

One other thing to note is that the controllers have been working tirelessly since the Scamdemic, to reassert the geopolitical divide narrative that was taken for granted pre-Scamdemic.

Since the start of the Ukraine ‘war’ in February 2022 they have been trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle that escaped during the Plandemic which revealed how friend and foes alike all moved in lockstep against the interests of their citizens and lied about the existence of a ‘pandemic’.

Non-stop geopolitical tension has been the theme for four years; Ukraine/Russia, Gaza, China/Taiwan, Venezuela, Cuba, trade wars and tariffs and now once again Iran….and to an extent the narrative is working especially with alt-media consumers and those who saw through the Covid-1984 era.

Rolling Rock, comment on Off-Guardian, see: https://off-guardian.org/2026/03/06/a-history-in-4-psy-ops-has-iran-has-always-been-a-member-of-the-club/

This may be the mother of all understatements but there is something very odd going on. I mean on top of all the obvious stuff – the pandemic, climate change, transgenderism, Ukraine, Gaza, Iran … (Feel free to apply scare quotes to any of those terms both here and when they recur.)

There is an underlying duality or bifurcation at work here. And it’s not the kind of thing that slaps you in the face. Because there you are trundling along and scratching your head to this and that, kicking up an argument, squabbling over it, and then getting slapped with all manner of new developments, after which the whole process seems to repeat…

And it’s only after a few months or even a couple of years when you suddenly seem to wake up and think, “Hang on a moment! What happened back there? How did we get from there to here?” And more to the point, “How did all that get dropped?” Which may even lead to, “Did any of that even happen at all?”

And so, there was something nagging at my id when the above referenced Off-Guardian article brought it into focus. Or rather, that comment by Rolling Rock did.

Now in order to get our bearings on this, I shall give a preliminary statement of the fundamental schizophrenic situation.

There are two views concerned here.

The first – and most familiar – view is the “Leftist” angle in which the American Empire is in its death throes and is now making a desperate bid to control the oil resources of the Middle East via a (barely) proxy war using Israel. This conforms to the notion of individual nation states fighting over the spoils of the Earth. I shall label this view The Traditional View. Whilst ensconced in this paradigm, we can have all the old discussions about capitalism and socialism with the fundamental assumption that these can be clearly demarcated.

And so, Russia, for example, is ex-communist – though even when it was putatively communist, it was communism under siege. But I reckon it would be unwise to dwell on this angle too much since I can already feel the old hackles rising in everyone and an endless argument beckoning in which terms like “free market” and names like “Marx”, “Keynes” and “Hayek” will get thrown around.

(The very thought of such argumentation seems like a rosy old stroll down that misty nostalgic path now!)

The other interpretation is that there is now a global ruling faction that is making nefarious deals at the highest level in order to seal their power over the planet in the beginnings of a long-term arrangement – a “Great Reset” – that would usher in the actual arrival of that shadowy “New World Order”.

This by no means implies some kind of unified club. There will be disagreements and disputes but nothing along the lines of the bitter and indeed genocidal savagery so clearly displayed in those recent “wars”. Yes, the savagery is real. But the victims are of no concern to the global ruling faction. Not even those victims who are supposedly being supported by any arm of this ruling faction. Thus for example, the American face of this ruling order, patently and vocally disdainful towards the Palestinians (who they of course label as terrorists anyway) are actually equally disdainful towards the Israelis. I shall label this view The Radical View.

Now The Radical View – which was probably there a long time ago – first leapt to mass consciousness after the arrival of The Pandemic. Of course, we had Herr Klaus Schwab looking and sounding like a cross between Dr Strangelove and a Bond villain. But I jump ahead of myself. Because all this merits very close attention. For the moment, and by way of introduction, let us just note how distant all of this seems now. Doesn’t it all seem like a dream? The virus, the Reset, the swirling conspiracy talk, the echoing disdain of the conspiracy talk etc.

It’s as if, for a certain period, we had, as it were, found ourselves suddenly dumped in a different cinema theatre from the one we were all used to. The old familiar Left/Right construction – the very embodiment of The Traditional View – which still, even after all these decades, followed the template of the old Cold War, was suddenly switched for some chilly voyage on Alien’s Nostromo. We were all sleepily waking from a slumber to the eerie sound of slithering life from eggs hatching in the deep cargo deck.

This odd “waking nightmare” persisted for what seemed at the time to be an infinity. But the labyrinthine twilight branches of that intergalactic behemoth finally flickered out … and we were back home with the old antagonists shouting abuse at each other. And in no time at all that crepuscular doom show was consigned to the memory hole. The Radical interrupted The Traditional … only to subside again.

It was as if it never happened.

But it did happen and I continue to be grateful to the OffG site to refuse to let it fade.

And it was Rolling Rock’s comment above that brought it all back to me. RR reminded me of my own feelings “in real time” as it were. And so, I offer this retrospective in four phases.

Phase 1: Pandemic Shock and Awe

Spring 2020 and all change. Every media channel congealed into one big shuddering horror movie which played endlessly everywhere. It was as if all the Hollywood zombie flics had merged and now flooded forth from the silver screens for us to swim in the festering cadaverous spillage.

And – yes! – let’s pause to recall the steady drumbeat of plague movies that gradually accumulated over the previous couple of decades. Including the one that pretty much previews the entire covid script: Contagion.

The media message playing everywhere and at all times was:

Do not move! Do not touch! Do not approach! Mask up! Stay waaaay over there! No, you fool, this is not a joke!

I need to express my gratitude to the OffG site for giving advance warning for this. Ironically, they were the ones offering the only real vaccination i.e. they promoted a veneer of scepticism from the start and never let go. And somebody on that site made a wonderful comment which perfectly encapsulated the state of the fear saturated media. In one of those infuriating cases of “cybernesia” I cannot find the comment but it went something like this:

Under present circumstances, the sheer volume and ferocity of the panic inducement make it impossible to even try to start anything like a rational discussion. Any attempt to offer even the faintest counternarrative is blocked out by the bellowing fury of the fear mongering.

Now I can already hear one retort to my inoculation against the covid mantra i.e. that just as I maintain that others could be brainwashed into fearing a non-existent menace, it’s possible for me to be brainwashed into thinking there wasn’t a menace. Isn’t that what OffG did to me?

Well, I studied the incoming statistics from Italy and then from my own native Scotland and all they told me is that very old people with multiple illnesses were dying – a circumstance that wouldn’t have raised a single eyebrow at any previous time.

And in another case of cybernesia I recall another disappeared comment to the effect that the covid tale was a phenomenon in which the claims made did not at all fit the evidence given. Indeed, the entire matter was a magnificent example of a psychological test in which the manner of reporting trumped the content.

But the tsunami, i.e. of propaganda, swamped all. And – the most important point – this tsunami was everywhere! It even started in China i.e. that bastion of continuing “communism” for the Western Left. It was a lockstep media dance formation. It was a global goosestep.

And here is a deeply sobering visual reminder of one of the most sinister aspects of the covid operation – those clearly well-choregraphed high production dance videos which appeared very early in The Pandemic:

The tweet itself is worth repeating:

Spring 2020 – During peak COVID lockdown, high-production-value TikTok videos of nurses performing choreographed dance routines across the world began going viral. They appear to have been produced at significant cost, but the reason remains a mystery.

Phase 2: Left Exodus

Although OffG held fast to their “Viral Fuck Off” stance, they permitted an open response. And at that point, there was one hell of a tug-of-war on the Below The Line region. The old familiar Left vs Right and Marxist vs non-Marxist squabbling (in which I always took the Left/Marxist stance) suddenly changed its tone. To cut a depressing tale short, The Left bought the covid mantra. Every last cough and sneeze.

And to be sure there were some grim laughs along the way. Like the chap who thought he could pose as a mediator between the scoffers and the dupes as if there was the old level playing field holding up some kind of student union debate. As if we hadn’t sunk into a whole new realm of info circulation in which one side had all the megaphones and were bellowing 24/7 whilst the other were not even being acknowledged except in little corners such as that presented by OffG. And this chap came to the conclusion that the covid rejectors were a jolly rude lot!

But the usual angle from our Red Team was an overbearing condescension which with a sense of dramatic weariness at those tin foil conspiracists, delivered yet another lecture on how “capitalism doesn’t work that way!”

And yes, in this they were helped immensely by the aforementioned Mr Schwab und hiss eeffil German accent. Well played! Make it look like a tawdry sci-fi spy epic!

Anyway, our revolutionary hordes soon disappeared; their lips curled in disgust as if their lovely new shoes had just been swamped in faecal matter.

Phase 3: You Shall Have No Other Gods But Me!

And this was when The Covid Age really dawned. The hatches battened down, the shiverers shivering under their beds, the Left by now whipped into a peculiar ecstasy since clearly the end of capitalism had arrived.

And the overwhelming fact of this new landscape was …monomania! There was only one story. It was the End of All. And there was no opposition at all!

The Right were screaming about the pandemic. The Left were screaming about the pandemic. Was there dissidence? Why, yes! The Left complained that the vaxxes weren’t arriving fast enough, the masks weren’t tough enough, the distances observed were not being observed enough and were furthermore not far enough!

Hey and maybe the plague was man-made! But maybe those who said it originated form a lab in China were being sinophobic! Ooh let’s have a big fight over that!

This was all there was! Of course, there were plenty blowing raspberries at all this crap but they had no presence at all in the media! And that little phenomenon was one hell of a frightening demonstration as to the true nature of this media configuration.

Phase 4: Normal Service Has Been Resumed.

And so, it went on month after dreary month. No news. No controversy other than the aforementioned phony little spats.

Not good. Not good at all. The media – as was now revealed – fed off controversy i.e. the appearance of disagreement. But to have a convincing appearance you have to paradoxically offer some reality. You have to have a genuine confrontation. There has to be some substance.

Covid offered nothing but totalitarian acceptance. And the whole rotten façade was in severe danger of being rumbled – especially when some were starting to conceive the possibility that the opposition were not only not an opposition but never had been an opposition.

And so … Ukraine!

And here is where Rolling Rock’s comment above really rang with me. I remember it well. The moment the invasion of Ukraine happened you could virtually hear the collective sigh from The Left. They had been let off the leash again. They could actually voice sentiments discordant to the mainstream press i.e. they could resume the position of a mainstream opposition.

At which point you could also hear a massive click as the old structure snapped back into position. The Left and The Right were back – as traditionally defined. And bear in mind that it took the invasion of Ukraine to achieve this. Which is interesting.

Because the attack on Ukraine was followed by the October 7 “attack on Israel” i.e. the attack Israel knew about in advance, let happen, and then joined in with the killing of their own people to ensure a gratifying array of atrocity porn to be forever thrust into the faces of the entire planet to justify a genocide in Gaza.

The latter therefore satisfied Zionist objectives but also had the handy effect of stirring everyone else up and – the central point – of stirring them all up within the old parameters of The Traditional View. The most obvious indication of this was that Caitlin Johnstone practically went into an ecstatic overdrive in Leftist denunciation of Israel, knowing that she could be given free range over her wrath with no friction at all from the media other than that gratifyingly loud condemnation from The Right which would ensure a bigger crowd of viewers on The Left.

And so onto the attack on Iran and … well ditto the above.

Conclusion

Now despite all I’ve said above and possibly at the risk of sounding disingenuous, I will emphasise that I don’t know what’s going on and perhaps – just perhaps – there’s some truth in this end-of-Western-imperialism narrative.

BUT…

What about that odd covid intermission that everyone seems to have happily forgotten about? Was it all a dream?

Of course not. So, what was it? I’d say it was a bold attempt to give us “The Full Monty” all at once. The entirety of the world’s media latched into unison across all political designations creating a claustrophobic echo chamber where even the appearance of dissent disappeared. And this all amounted to an audacious acceleration of a long planned last resort or even “doomsday weapon” proclaiming the end of the old order i.e. the post World War Two configuration that is “no longer tenable, profitable, or sustainable” for the rulers, who are now forging links with each other over the entire globe.

That it ultimately failed is hardly cause for celebration. We can now see it as a chilling preview of “coming attractions”.

Because make no mistake: the vision opened up by The Covid Episode is the way it will go. Everything mooted in that grim two-year period – the vaxxes, the talk of radical food substitution, the trans humanist concept, and of course, the step up in surveillance and transformations of livelihood – all of that is still there and just waiting for the “right moment”.

And the Traditional Strangelovian vision of demented political military demagogues itching to press “that big red button” seems a fiction to me. Call the rulers what you want. Sick, evil, psychopathic etc. But they are not ever stupid.

Indeed, this may be the real distinction between the Traditional and the Radical views i.e. the former still basks in that sophomoric complacency, raised on Spitting Image and Viz that thinks “They’re all idiots!” The latter knows they’re not.

Addendum

One curious aspect that occurred to me is that Orwell’s 1984 was even more prescient than I thought. In that novel we have a unified ruling class that has ostensibly split the world into three regions. But these three regions are part of a planet spanning theatre. Three is the minimum number required to cause a confused political consciousness in which there is always an enemy but also a perennial threat of treachery in which a supposed friend may switch sides. Thus, we have constant “crisscrossing” between Orwell’s Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. And – well, what do you know? – we currently have a potential for such a tripartite division with The West, Russia and China!