Why Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) Matters…

Eric Arthur Blair

Most people think that George Orwell was writing about, and against, totalitarianism – especially when they encounter him through the prism of his great dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

This view of Orwell is not wrong, but it can miss something. For Orwell was concerned above all about the particular threat posed by totalitarianism to words and language. He was concerned about the threat it posed to our ability to think and speak freely and truthfully. About the threat it posed to our freedom.

He saw, clearly and vividly, that to lose control of words is to lose control of meaning. That is what frightened him about the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia – these regimes wanted to control the very linguistic substance of thought itself.

And that is why Orwell continues to speak to us so powerfully today. Because words, language and meaning are under threat once more.

Totalitarianism in Orwell’s time

The totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union represented something new and frightening for Orwell. Authoritarian dictatorships, in which power was wielded unaccountably and arbitrarily, had existed before, of course. But what made the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century different was the extent to which they demanded every individual’s complete subservience to the state. They sought to abolish the very basis of individual freedom and autonomy. They wanted to use dictatorial powers to socially engineer the human soul itself, changing and shaping how people think and behave.

Totalitarian regimes set about breaking up clubs, trade unions and other voluntary associations. They were effectively dismantling those areas of social and political life in which people were able to freely and spontaneously associate. The spaces, that is, in which local and national culture develops free of the state and officialdom. These cultural spaces were always tremendously important to Orwell. As he put it in his 1941 essay, ‘England Your England’: ‘All the culture that is most truly native centres round things which even when they are communal are not official – the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the “nice cup of tea”.’

Totalitarianism may have reached its horrifying zenith in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR. But Orwell was worried about its effect in the West, too. He was concerned about the Sovietisation of Europe through the increasingly prominent and powerful Stalinist Communist Parties. He was also worried about what he saw as Britain’s leftwing ‘Europeanised intelligentsia’, which, like the Communist Parties of Western Europe, seemed to worship state power, particularly in the supranational form of the USSR. And he was concerned above all about the emergence of the totalitarian mindset, and the attempt to re-engineer the deep structures of mind and feeling that lie at the heart of autonomy and liberty.

Orwell could see this mindset flourishing among Britain’s intellectual elite, from the eugenics and top-down socialism of Fabians, like Sidney and Beatrice Webb and HG Wells, to the broader technocratic impulses of the intelligentsia in general. They wanted to remake people ‘for their own good’, or for the benefit of the race or state power. They therefore saw it as desirable to force people to conform to certain prescribed behaviours and attitudes. This threatened the everyday freedom of people who wanted, as Orwell put it, ‘the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above’.

Edmond O’Brien as Winston Smith and Jan Sterling as Julia, in an adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four, 3 June 1955.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, this new intellectual elite started to gain ascendancy. It was effectively a clerisy – a cultural and ruling elite defined by its academic achievements. It had been forged through higher education and academia rather than through traditional forms of privilege and wealth, such as public schools.

Orwell was naturally predisposed against this emergent clerisy. He may have attended Eton, but that’s where Orwell’s education stopped. He was not part of the clerisy’s world. He was not an academic writer, nor did he position himself as such. On the contrary, he saw himself as a popular writer, addressing a broad, non-university-educated audience.

Moreover, Orwell’s antipathy towards this new elite type was long-standing. He had bristled against the rigidity and pomposity of imperial officialdom as a minor colonial police official in Burma between 1922 and 1927. And he had always battled against the top-down socialist great and good, and much of academia, too, who were often very much hand in glove with the Stalinised left.

The hostility was mutual. Indeed, it accounts for the disdain that many academics and their fellow travellers continue to display towards Orwell today.

The importance of words

Nowadays we are all too familiar with this university-educated ruling caste, and its desire to control words and meaning. Just think, for example, of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have turned ‘fascism’ from a historically specific phenomenon into a pejorative that has lost all meaning, to be used to describe anything from Brexit to Boris Johnson’s Tory government – a process Orwell saw beginning with the Stalinist practice of calling Spanish democratic revolutionaries ‘Trotsky-fascists’ (which he documented in Homage to Catalonia (1938)).

Or think of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have transformed the very meanings of the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’, divesting them of any connection to biological reality. Orwell would not have been surprised by this development. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, he shows how the totalitarian state and its intellectuals will try to suppress real facts, and even natural laws, if they diverge from their worldview. Through exerting power over ideas, they seek to shape reality. ‘Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together in new shapes of your own choosing’, says O’Brien, the sinister party intellectual. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull… You must get rid of these 19th-century ideas about the laws of nature.’

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the totalitarian regime tries to subject history to similar manipulation. As anti-hero Winston Smith tells his lover, Julia:

‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.’

As Orwell wrote elsewhere, ‘the historian believes that the past cannot be altered and that a correct knowledge of history is valuable as a matter of course. From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned.’

This totalitarian approach to history is dominant today, from the New York Times’ 1619 Project to statue-toppling. History is something to be erased or conjured up or reshaped as a moral lesson for today. It is used to demonstrate the rectitude of the contemporary establishment.

But it is language that is central to Orwell’s analysis of this form of intellectual manipulation and thought-control. Take ‘Ingsoc’, the philosophy that the regime follows and enforces through the linguistic system of Newspeak. Newspeak is more than mere censorship. It is an attempt to make certain ideas – freedom, autonomy and so on – actually unthinkable or impossible. It is an attempt to eliminate the very possibility of dissent (or ‘thoughtcrime’).

As Syme, who is working on a Newspeak dictionary, tells Winston Smith:

‘The whole aim… is to narrow the range of thought. In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’

The parallels between Orwell’s nightmarish vision of totalitarianism and the totalitarian mindset of today, in which language is policed and controlled, should not be overstated. In the dystopia of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the project of eliminating freedom and dissent, as in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, was backed up by a brutal, murderous secret police. There is little of that in our societies today – people are not forcibly silenced or disappeared.

However, they are cancelled, pushed out of their jobs, and sometimes even arrested by the police for what amounts to thoughtcrime. And many more people simply self-censor out of fear of saying the ‘wrong’ thing. Orwell’s concern that words could be erased or their meaning altered, and thought controlled, is not being realised in an openly dictatorial manner. No, it’s being achieved through a creeping cultural and intellectual conformism.

The intellectual turn against freedom

But then that was always Orwell’s worry – that intellectuals giving up on freedom would allow a Big Brother Britain to flourish. As he saw it in The Prevention of Literature (1946), the biggest danger to freedom of speech and thought came not from the threat of dictatorship (which was receding by then) but from intellectuals giving up on freedom, or worse, seeing it as an obstacle to the realisation of their worldview.

Interestingly, his concerns about an intellectual betrayal of freedom were reinforced by a 1944 meeting of the anti-censorship organisation, English PEN. Attending an event to mark the 300th anniversary of Milton’s Areopagitica, Milton’s famous 1644 speech making the case for the ‘Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing’, Orwell noted that many of the left-wing intellectuals present were unwilling to criticise Soviet Russia or wartime censorship. Indeed, they had become profoundly indifferent or hostile to the question of political liberty and press freedom.

‘In England, the immediate enemies of truthfulness, and hence of freedom of thought, are the press lords, the film magnates, and the bureaucrats’, Orwell wrote, ‘but that on a long view the weakening of the desire for liberty among the intellectuals themselves is the most serious symptom of all’.

Orwell was concerned by the increasing popularity among influential left-wing intellectuals of ‘the much more tenable and dangerous proposition that freedom is undesirable and that intellectual honesty is a form of anti-social selfishness’. The exercise of freedom of speech and thought, the willingness to speak truth to power, was even then becoming seen as something to be frowned upon, a selfish, even elitist act.

An individual speaking freely and honestly, wrote Orwell, is ‘accused of either wanting to shut himself up in an ivory tower, or of making an exhibitionist display of his own personality, or of resisting the inevitable current of history in an attempt to cling to unjustified privilege’.

These are insights which have stood the test of time. Just think of the imprecations against those who challenge the consensus. They are dismissed as ‘contrarians’ and accused of selfishly upsetting people.

And worst of all, think of the way free speech is damned as the right of the privileged. This is possibly one of the greatest lies of our age. Free speech does not support privilege. We all have the capacity to speak, write, think and argue. We might not, as individuals or small groups, have the platforms of a press baron or the BBC. But it is only through our freedom to speak freely that we can challenge those with greater power.

Orwell’s legacy

Orwell is everywhere today. He is taught in schools and his ideas and phrases are part of our common culture. But his value and importance to us lies in his defence of freedom, especially the freedom to speak and write.

His outstanding 1946 essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’, can actually be read as a freedom manual. It is a guide on how to use words and language to fight back.

Of course, it is attacked today as an expression of privilege and of bigotry. Author and commentator Will Self cited ‘Politics and the English Language’ in a 2014 BBC Radio 4 show as proof that Orwell was an ‘authoritarian elitist’. He said: ‘Reading Orwell at his most lucid you can have the distinct impression he’s saying these things, in precisely this way, because he knows that you – and you alone – are exactly the sort of person who’s sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the very essence of what he’s trying to communicate. It’s this the mediocrity-loving English masses respond to – the talented dog-whistler calling them to chow down on a big bowl of conformity.’

Lionel Trilling, another writer and thinker, made a similar point to Self, but in a far more insightful, enlightening way. ‘[Orwell] liberates us’, he wrote in 1952:

‘He tells us that we can understand our political and social life merely by looking around us, he frees us from the need for the inside dope. He implies that our job is not to be intellectual, certainly not to be intellectual in this fashion or that, but merely to be intelligent according to our lights – he restores the old sense of the democracy of the mind, releasing us from the belief that the mind can work only in a technical, professional way and that it must work competitively. He has the effect of making us believe that we may become full members of the society of thinking men. That is why he is a figure for us.’

Orwell should be a figure for us, too – in our battle to restore the democracy of the mind and resist the totalitarian mindset of today. But this will require having the courage of our convictions and our words, as he so often did himself. As he put it in The Prevention of Literature, ‘To write in plain vigorous language one has to think fearlessly’. That Orwell did precisely that was a testament to his belief in the public just as much as his belief in himself. He sets an example and a challenge to us all.

Why Are Leftists Obsessed With Destroying Hero Culture?

In the movie ‘Batman: The Dark Knight’ the well regarded district attorney Harvey Dent makes a statement that has since woven itself into our popular culture to the point that we often hear it quoted as if it was said by some ancient philosopher. He noted:

“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

The most predictable interpretation of this is that there is a fine line between doing good and doing evil with the best of intentions. People can start out as heroes and quickly fall to darkness in the name of serving the “greater good.” I think there is more meaning behind the quote, however.

There is also the issue of historical revision and the fact that the heroes of yesterday might be considered the terrorists of tomorrow given who is in charge of writing the history books or reporting the news. Sometimes heroes become villains through their own mistakes, other times they are just rewritten that way.

For example, today we hear constant gnashing and wailing from the political left about the “evils” of the Founding Fathers and why they should be erased or canceled from our cultural zeitgeist.

They have even attempted to revise the very foundations of American history through their “1619 Project” as they assert that no American accomplishment is valid because EVERYTHING was built around the institution of slavery.

They make no mention that slavery has been an institution in every single culture on the planet since civilization began, but that doesn’t matter to them.

The goal of the 1619 Project was to diminish or dismiss everything distinctly American, right down to the revolution that founded our nation. What they care about is the deconstruction of heroes, in part because if you can destroy the character of a hero then you might be able to also destroy what they stood for in the process. And, if you can destroy the ideals of a society, it becomes a lot easier to then control that society.

When the political left seeks to undermine the legacy of the founders they aren’t just engaging in character attacks against men who can no longer defend themselves, they are also attempting to sabotage the vision those men created – The vision of a free republic outside of the dictates of collectivism and monarchy (rule by the elites).

Obviously the Founding Fathers are no longer alive, but there are millions of people that have carried on their legacy for generations that are in fact still living to see their heroes be made into monsters through revisionism.

But the destruction of heroes goes even deeper than historical rewrites.

Leftists are also targeting the very foundations of heroic archetypes and mythologies by attacking heroic representations in our society.

They are seeking to change the nature of heroism by hijacking cultural pillars and erasing beloved stories and characters in order to “reboot” them in the image of the leftist cult.

This is usually done under the cover of “diversity and equity” as a means to obscure the true agenda. Let’s break down the tactics and motives behind this trend…

Rewriting Heroes To “Reflect Our Modern Era”

Woke ideology does not reflect our modern era in any way; it is actually a masked version of the old social models of collectivism and communism, specifically the social Marxism displayed by Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

The only difference is today we have online struggle sessions and corporations are fully onboard with the movement. When leftists claim they are fighting the system, they have no idea what this really means.

Leftists use the reflection argument all the time to justify the gutting of hero mythologies and replacing them with vapid clones. A recent example would be the latest Amazon release of their Lord Of The Rings prequel series.

I wrote about this extensively months ago in my article ‘Amazon’s Woke Lord Of The Rings Is The Death Rattle Of Social Justice Content.’

To summarize, the new Lord of The Rings is designed to spread a political message and undermine the values of the past rather than tell a meaningful organic story that pays homage to Tolkien. Amazon even released their woke Lord of The Rings on the anniversary of Tolkien’s death.

Sometimes the propaganda is subtle, and sometimes it’s a train wreck in your face.

Specifically, I examined the political left’s obsession with injecting their own Cultural Marxism into every new entertainment product as a means to saturate the media space with their ideology.

When they say they want to rehash old stories and old heroes but write them to “reflect the world of today,” what they are really doing is erasing past ideals and principles and eliminating choice.

They don’t want you to see the world from different points of view; you are only allowed to see it from THEIR point of view. This is the exact opposite of good story telling.

Diversity As A Crutch And A Cudgel

Diversity is meaningless. It serves no purpose in terms of heroic representations. People identify with actions and deeds and principles, not skin color.

Leftists in Hollywood do not actually care about diversity of skin color, they only care about two things – Using minorities as a crutch to justify poor storytelling and lazy productions, and using minorities as a cudgel or weapon when they face criticism.

That is to say, when they make garbage media with no imagination or effort, they announce “we got diversity, though,” and this is supposed to make you want to watch their products anyway, otherwise you might be “racist.”

By extension, when you dare to criticize the political pontificating and terrible writing in their media, they can then say “our stories are fantastic, you just don’t like us because we hire brown people.” See how that works?

They use minorities as a shield, either for their ineptitude or their malicious intent, but they DO NOT care about such people if they can’t exploit them.

“Diversity and inclusion” is the new slave plantation that leftist elites in Hollywood use to farm virtue points and ESG loans.

That’s all there is to it. If they actually respected the idea of presenting diverse heroes, they would create original minority heroes and write them well.

Or, they would pick minority heroes from real history and avoid implanting current day woke politics into that era.

Narcissists Can’t Write Heroes

It has long been my contention that the leftist ideology is rooted in appeals to narcissism. Everything about it is based in entitlement rather than sacrifice. It is based in demands for special treatment rather than respect for accomplishment and merit. It is based in equity of outcome while eliminating equality of opportunity.

A person that has embraced the victim mentality can never be a hero or imagine how a hero would act. They have no relationship to the concept, because narcissists are usually villains in the real world and villains tend to see themselves as victims while they spend their time victimizing others. How else can they justify the evils they do?

No Conservative Heroes Allowed

As our media world was overrun with woke ideologues over the years the depictions of heroes and villains have become utterly twisted. Heroes act selfishly with ego and hubris, and villains are usually depicted as either misunderstood people that are only reacting to the trespasses of society, or they are ridiculous exaggerations of conservatives and liberty activists.

This trend has become an epidemic in films, television, video games, comic books, etc. Only in the past couple of years has there been mass push-back against the agenda, but there is a long way to go before things can change for the better.

Many of these woke productions fail miserably, but they aren’t necessarily interested in box office success or making money.

Again, what they care about is saturation, as well as murdering the hero archetype openly where everyone can see.

They want to destroy your heroes in front of you and replace them with woke pod people. This is what drives them.

The biggest problem is that most conservatives ignored the culture war while only focusing on fleeting political battles. They acted as if the culture war didn’t matter, and in the process we have almost lost our country completely.

Future generations need heroic ideals and examples to live by, among real live people as well as in popular media. By ignoring the culture war, conservatives ignored the future.

There are some people out there that are working to change our country’s course by producing original media with a heroic message based in American foundations of freedom, individualism, self reliance and meritocracy.

I’m working to join them by producing my own graphic novel project based on a survivalist hero. The best we have is Burt Gummer from Tremors – He’s great but we need more. Readers who are interested in original non-woke entertainment can learn more about that project HERE.

It’s important not to underestimate the power of media in culture. There is a reason why leftists are so obsessive with it; by changing all our heroes to villains they hope to change our values and our behaviors.

They aren’t just rewriting movies, or characters, or comic books, they are trying to rewrite us.

The only way to stop this is to identify the threat, neutralize the propaganda, and then bring back legitimate hero culture by writing it once again with our own hands and our own deeds.

We Are Witnessing What Happens When Unrestrained Youth Gets Power

From Madison reading Cato and Cicero when framing the Constitution to the outsized impact both Rome and America had on the world around them, the United States has long been associated with historical Rome. There are great similarities, and there can be much to learn—and what’s happening now does not reflect well on either historical Rome or America.

When most of us think of the worst emperors in Roman history we think of names like Commodus, Nero, Caligula, and Elagabalus. To a man they were vain, self-centered, bloodthirsty hedonists who took what they wanted and tortured and killed many thousands of Romans and provincials.

All emperors, including the great ones like Augustus, Trajan, and Aurelian had blood on their hands to one degree or another but most tried to maintain or grow the empire. Commodus et al didn’t. Their goal was to satiate their lusts, whether literal lust or gluttony or, sadly, bloodlust. While there were other bad emperors, these four are among the worst.

What makes this relevant today is the fact that all four of these “men” were spoiled, pampered, entitled sadists who were given free rein when they were still essentially children. Commodus was the oldest at 19, while Nero was 17, and both Elagabalus and Caligula were 16.

They were overindulged brats who never faced consequences for their behavior. They were given virtually anything they wanted or, just as often, allowed to take what they wanted with impunity. And at those ripe young ages, and with that upbringing, they were literally given the keys to the kingdom and unleashed on the Empire—and virtually everyone in it suffered as a result.

Every day in America we see modern-day Commoduses or Caligulas wreaking havoc on our streets and in our stores, restaurants, schools, and more. Instead of a single entitled Emperor, America in 2022 is being ravaged by a generation of young men—many of whom have grown up fatherless—who have been told that they can do and say anything they want and that, regardless of what they do, there will be no consequences for them.

Just as Elagabalus et al brought nothing but blood, despair, and dysfunction to the Empire, these 21st-century youth are bringing blood, despair, and destruction to America. A generation of Americans has grown up being given “time outs”, “participation trophies,” and grades that have nothing to do with actual academic success, while at the same time they’ve been told that all inequality is due to racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything other than individual choices or actions.

The consequence of this indoctrination is that far too many young Americans think they can do anything with impunity. If they want something they take it. If they’re mad about something they protest, disrupt the lives of everyone within shouting distance, and frequently riot. They assault, rape and, sometimes, even murder, increasingly with impunity.

Pat Moynihan predicted much of this 60 years ago in his “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In it he “…described through pages of disquieting charts and graphs, the emergence of a “tangle of pathology,” including delinquency, joblessness, school failure, crime, and fatherlessness that characterized ghetto—or what would come to be called underclass—behavior.”

While most of the scenes of flash mobs, carjackings, Knock Out Game punches, subway shovings, and daily shootings involve black male youth, this is not a race issue. Yes, the problem is disproportionately black, but White and Hispanic America is increasingly experiencing the same challenges of unwed mothers, school failures, and the lack of responsibility that underpins much of the dysfunction.

Whether a California college student getting 6 months for rape, a Texas boy getting no jail time for killing four people in a car crash, or charges being dropped against a South Carolina boy for killing someone in a boat crash, unaccountable America spans across races, wealth, and indeed the country itself. This is nowhere better demonstrated than by the legions of rioters who participated in the “peaceful protests” of 2020 who found their charges dropped or their bails funded by the glitterati.

The Great Reset Is Turning Back The Clock On Civilization

The covid-19 pandemic featured an unprecedented fusion of the interests of large and powerful corporations with the power of the state. Democratically elected politicians in many countries failed to represent the interests of their own citizens and uphold their own constitutions and charters of rights.

great reset john bush

Specifically, they supported lock-down measures, jab mandates, the suppression of a variety of early treatment options, the censorship of dissenting views, propaganda, interference in the private spheres of individuals, and the suspension of various forms of freedom. All of these policies and measures were centrally designed by the social engineers of the pandemic.

Globalists, who are obsessed with societal control, decided to take advantage of the pandemic in order to increase their authoritarian power. Prominent among them was, Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of World Economic Forum (WEF). In June 2020, he stated that “the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.” According to him, “every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”

It is no secret that the WEF has focused on accelerating the implementation of central planning for the entire global population since the early days of pandemic. This plan to establish a new world order, known as the Great Reset, was a key theme at the recent annual meeting of the WEF, which was held during May 22–26 in Davos, Switzerland.

Drastic changes to the world order like the Great Reset do not happen spontaneously; rather, they are designed by global policy makers, including influential billionaires, politicians, celebrities, biased academics, wealthy philanthropists, and the bureaucrats of international organizations and institutions. These types of people support social engineering, because it will enable them to acquire control over the world’s wealth and natural resources, and strengthen their ability to shape society as they see fit.

Like their predecessors across history, the social engineers of the WEF believe that “there must be no spontaneous, unguided activity, because it might produce results which cannot be foreseen and for which the plan does not provide. It might produce something new, undreamt of in the philosophy of the planner.”1

Based on the WEF agenda, the successful completion of the current industrial transformation will require redesigning and controlling every minuscule aspect of human life and behavior, including the private spheres of individuals, the economy, politics, and societal organizations, without the possibility of voluntary and spontaneous cooperation between individuals based on their will, values, thoughts, and beliefs.

We were warned almost two centuries ago that when this type of tyrannical power succeeds, it will be “busy with a multitude of small” tasks penetrating “into private life,” governing families, and dictating the “actions” and “tastes of individuals.”2

In fact, some of the most ridiculous controls proposed by the WEF included limiting the washing of jeans to no “more than once a month” and “pyjamas once a week.” The WEF also advocates for transforming entire food systems by encouraging people to consume insects, arguing that “insect protein has high-quality properties and can be used as an alternative source of protein throughout the food chain, from feed for aquaculture to ingredients for nutritional supplements for humans and pets.”

Reforming the food system would also involve eating “cultured meat,” referring to “meat product created by cultivating animal cells in a controlled lab environment.”

The WEF also supports the elimination of “car ownership,” as “paying for a ride or delivery is as easy as tapping a smart phone app,” and “renting a vehicle” means that “car loans and insurance payments shrink or disappear.” Ultimately, the Great Reset aims to create a world where “you will own nothing, and will be happy” by 2030, as people will not possess any private property and rent everything they “need in life.”

However, this premise ignores the fact that private property ownership is associated with the advancement of civilizations, higher stages of material and moral development, and the development of modern family life. The WEF scenario would also diminish the sense of security, which is strengthened by the possession of private property.

Once the Great Reset is complete, individuals will essentially have their thinking and decision-making “done for them by men much like themselves, addressing them or speaking in their name.”3 Such a “desire to force upon the people a creed which is regarded as salutary for them is … not a thing that is new or peculiar to our time.”4

However, as various totalitarian regimes throughout history have demonstrated, the oppressive central planning of social engineers leads to the masses’ losing their sense of autonomy, freedom, dignity, creativity, and strength. Also lost is the incentive to improve one’s own condition and contribute to the progress of society.5

If the social engineering of the WEF is successful, then, by 2030, one will not be able to rely on oneself, family members, relatives, friends, or the community. This is because the supporters any absolutist regime want traditions and customs to be corrupted, “memories obliterated, habits destroyed, … liberty, chased from the laws.”6

In other words, they want to design a societal order where sympathy and mutual assistance will be rendered obsolete and where every citizen of the world is equally powerless, poor, and isolated, so that people will be unable to oppose the organized strength of global governance and become dependent on governments and their allies for their survival.

Eventually, nothing will protect citizens any longer, and citizens will no longer protect themselves.

Social engineers of the WEF are essentially advocating for natural freedom, which would allow the strong to exercise their power while subjugating the weak.

In doing so, they are basically calling for the world to move backward in the development of human history toward the re-institution of feudalism and slavery.

It is important to remember that economic freedom, positive freedom, political freedom, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are not attributes of primitive man or serfdom; rather, they are products of the most advanced stages of society.

To be more precise, these types of freedom are outcomes of the efforts of countless thinkers, social movements, revolutions, and wars throughout human history.

However, social engineers are not interested in the history and struggles of our civilization, as they believe that they possess expertise in all areas, which is the line of thought at the heart of all dictatorial regimes.7 They do not think that social engineering is alien to the true nature of human beings, even though it is based on “mechanical exactness” and does not “spring from a man’s free choice.”8

Furthermore, advocates of social engineering ignore the fact that “the progress of mankind, in powers of mind and heart, in well-being and in technique, in law and morality, necessarily involves the participation of the lower classes.”9

Anyone who believes that the social engineers of the WEF have noble intentions at heart as they design and implement the Great Reset should heed the warning of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1935), who (ironically) declared:

The doctrine of regulation and legislation by “master minds” in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last 10 years. Were it possible to find “master minds” so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost godlike in their ability hold the scales of justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interests of the country; but there are no such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.

References:

1. F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944; repr., New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 166.
2. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America: Historical-Critical Edition of “De la démocratie en Amérique,” ed. Eduardo Nolla and trans. James T. Schleifer, bilingual ed., 4 vols. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2010), 1:223.
3. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Kitchener, ON: Batoche Books, 2001), p. 261.
4. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 168.
5. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.
6. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2:156.
7. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.
8. Wilhelm von Humboldt, The Limits of State Action. (1792; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
9. Gustav Friedrich Schmoller, “Class Conflicts in General.” (American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1915), p. 519.

Source: MISES.org

Exposing The Agenda To Implement Global Totalitarianism Based On Technocratic & Transhumanist Ideologies

It’s become absolutely crucial to understand what we’re up against, globally, and who’s responsible for the rising totalitarianism and their ultimate intention.

The COVID pandemic was a coup d’état by the technocratic cabal that is behind the global takeover agenda, referred to as The Great Reset.

exposing the agenda to implement global totalitarianism based on technocratic & transhumanist ideologies

The Great Reset was introduced by the World Economic Forum, which is tightly coupled to the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Their agenda is to implement a global type of totalitarianism based on technocratic and transhumanist ideologies. Part of that plan also includes reengineering and controlling all life forms, including humans.

While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not an individual. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference.

In short, there will be no individual to blame or hold accountable. The “dictator” is an algorithm

Technocracy is an invented and unnatural form of economics that expresses itself as totalitarianism and requires social engineering to work. Technocrats in the past defined technocracy as the science of social engineering. Controlling the populace is crucial for the system to function.

Patrick Wood, a repeat guest, has spent decades studying technocracy — an invented economic system that the global cabal is currently trying to implement worldwide. He was recently interviewed by The Defender, the Children’s Health Defense newsletter. You will find that interview below. I would actually encourage you to watch that one first, because it provides a really good background of Wood and his work.

This conversation also ties in with an interview I recently did with professor Mattias Desmet, author of “The Psychology of Totalitarianism,” which will air in a few weeks, so be sure to keep an eye out for that one. While technocracy and totalitarianism have many similarities, there are some differences in perspective, which we will unravel here.

“I wish there was something else to talk about, but this is it,” Wood says. “This is the topic of the day. This is what people need to know and understand.

“If we are going to fight back against this enemy, which previously has pretty much been unseen, we must recognize who we’re dealing with. Period. We cannot provide any defense or offense to push back on this unless we know who the enemy really is and what they’re thinking, what’s in their head.”

COVID Was Technocracy’s Coup D’état

While the COVID crisis sent most into a state of confusion, Wood was not surprised by the chain of events that eventually took place. He’d been following the climate change alarmism and the sustainable development agenda for a long time, and as soon as the same people who were promoting climate alarmism jumped on the COVID train, he knew they were connected, and that COVID was going to be used to promote the technocratic agenda.

The same flawed computer models used to convince us climate change will kill us all were also used to incite panic about the lethality of COVID. These computer models are basically rigged to say whatever they want them to say. According to climate change alarmists, mankind should have been wiped off the face of the earth 10 years ago. Yet here we are. The COVID models also failed, missing the mark by miles.

“At the time [in early 2020], I said this is technocracy’s coup d’état. They’re finally making their major global move to do what they said they were going to do for a long time. Now, they’re actually putting shoe leather to it and they’re making it happen, so I called it coup d’état early on,” Wood says.

Unfortunately, to quote Wood’s coauthor of previous books, Anthony Sutton, only 2% of people have critical thinking skills, 8% of people think they can think, and 90% would rather die than think. This willful ignorance explains why only 10% of a given population, on average, does not fall into mass formation hypnosis.

Wood, along with Dr. Judy Mikovits and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an international lawyer who cofounded the German Corona Investigative Committee —  have formed the Crimes Against Humanity Task Force. The first event will be held in Tampa, FL with guest speaker, Michael Yeadon, Ph.D..

“We believe there is a great case to be made that, indeed, crimes against humanity have been committed in the same context and sense that they were discovered at the Nuremberg trials that produced the Nuremberg Code, which is now embedded in the legal system in every nation on earth, [including] our country and every state as well.

Medical experimentation is verboten, period, and yet it has happened anyway, with no informed consent along the way. People are getting sick and dying, the same old drill. What went wrong? We’re presenting this case to the American public in person, and I will say the dynamic of talking to a live audience today is a breath of fresh air for me, personally. I think everybody else would say the same thing.”

Creating A New Normal On Our Own Terms

While many resist this stance, I and Wood agree that the crisis is not over, and it’s not going to right itself. No. It’ll get worse, and things will never go back to the way they were. It’s important to realize that we shouldn’t want things to go back to the old normal, however. Because the old normal is what precipitated the many crises we’re currently facing.

We can fully expect that the partially failed jjab passport will be replaced by digital identity, which will progress to a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Most central banks in the world will be rolling out CBDCs within the next three to five years.

Digital identity and CBDCs are a disaster racing toward us like a freight train, and it’ll be extremely difficult to get out of harms way. The past two years will seem like a picnic compared to what’s coming.

“If my hypothesis is true, January 2020 was the coup d’état that started this war in earnest, the hot war, if you will, versus the leading up to it. Lots of bad stuff happened from 9/11 through 2020 that we could point to and say, it looks like somebody’s orchestrating this, but it went into a hot war, literally, globally as well, in January 2020. Revolutions never stop with one attack. That’s obvious. I’m sure it’s self-evident.”

By Their Words And Actions, You Can Know Them

So, who instigated this global revolution? Who’s pulling the strings? Who’s the real enemy? It’s not the populace. It’s not even a specific nation. It’s a conglomerate of wealthy and influential people all over the world. But they have a shared philosophy, ideology and agenda. Wood explains:

“What’s going on is called The Great Reset of the planet. The Great Reset has become a catchphrase. Most people don’t have a clue what it means yet, but it’s promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is tightly interlinked and coupled with the United Nations.

This elite group of people represent in mix all of the people that were originally in the Trilateral Commission back in the 1970s. It’s the same kinds of people, the same agenda to transform the world into their vision, the way they think things ought to be. These are the people that have orchestrated this whole thing and they’re the ones that are pushing it right now.

It’s easy to identify most of the people involved in this. You can look at the Klaus Schwabs and the Billy Boyes [of the world], and the thousand companies that belong to the World Economic Forum. They all have CEOs, board members, et cetera, that are part of the World Economic Forum. It’s pretty easy to identify them today.

The idea of The Great Reset is complete transformation of society and individuals that live in this society. The World Economic Forum is boldly talking about both. They talk about this technocratic takeover on one hand, to reform society, that is the structures of society, the institutions, but they also talk about the restructuring of humanity itself.

That is, the merging of technology with the human condition, with the flesh, the changing of genetic code, Humanity 2.0, H+ is another term is used. This is mad scientist type of stuff. The average guy on the street has never been exposed to this.

It’s hard to get your head around how evil this whole thing is, and it’s all uninvited. Nobody asked for it, they just did it. That’s another thing that’s really important to understand: This didn’t just come out of the blue or fall out of the sky from outer space. This has been in the works for a very long time.”

Agenda 21 Laid The Groundwork

In 1992, Agenda 21 was created. That was the genesis of sustainable development. That’s where that doctrine was openly described. The Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Convention that took place at the same time was the agenda for 21st century.

As explained by Wood, Agenda 21 was foundational in the sense that laid out all the events being rolled out and changes being implemented today. It’s just that no one was really paying attention to where things were headed, the ultimate implications of it all. Of course, those who did see the writing on the wall were discredited as “crazy conspiracy theorists.”

“There was a great book released in 1994 called ‘The Earth Brokers.’ The two authors were scholars. They were also the original environmental crowd. They weren’t on our side necessarily, but they went to the Agenda 21 conference in good faith, figuring there was going to be some negotiation to dial back the development that was messing with the Third World and try to get the planet back together.

They went hoping to turn some things around, and they came away from the Agenda 21 conference completely disillusioned … In that book, they criticized the Agenda 21 process. They started out by saying something like this: ‘We argue that USAID — the United Nations conference on economic development — has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet and its inhabitants.

We see how, as a result of USAID, the rich would get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.’ What can we say, but ‘amen’ to that. Here we are today. It’s exactly what’s happened.”

The Plan To Own And Control All Life

“The Earth Brokers” also reviewed what they learned from the Biodiversity Convention, which ran parallel with the Agenda 21 conference. It had the same participants, just two different thought tracks brought together at the same conference.

“They wrote about the biodiversity convention, which has become incredibly important today to the United Nations. They said the convention implicitly equates the diversity of life, that is animals and plants, to the diversity of genetic codes. By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate. It promotes biotechnology as being essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

They redefined the term biodiversity, for one, but they also said the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity. The major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries. That was their assessment.

To which, today, we can say, ‘Bingo!’ That is exactly what happened back then, and this is exactly the expression today that we see of the genetic takeover of life on planet earth. They’ve gotten the seeds, they’ve gotten the plants, they’ve gotten the animals.”

Today, the technocrats are also moving in on the human genetic code. Chief medical officer of Moderna, Tal Zaks, for example, has stated that Moderna, a developer of the mRNA COVID jab, is “hacking the software of life.” He described the human genetic code as an operating system, and if you can change that operating system by introducing a new line of code, or by changing a line of code, you can change how the operating system functions.

Since 1992, legislation has been created to protect Big Pharma. You could say the 1992 Agenda 21 was a pre-coup. They laid the groundwork back then to protect the pharmaceutical and emerging biotech industries they knew were coming. And, today, the very genetic makeup of mankind is up for grabs.

Origins Of Technocracy

Technocracy dates further back than the 90s, however. Handwritten letters dating to the 1930s reveal some of the originators of the technocratic movement had gotten into an argument with the Hearst newspaper empire, and because of that, they forbade journalists to discuss them or the technocratic ideology. Hence, technocracy went underground and got sort of buried for a few decades. Wood explains:

“What happened was, Howard Scott, one of the cofounders of Technocracy Inc., was also the leader of the group at Columbia University when it was housed there in 1932. He had promoted himself as being a certified engineer and one of the intellectual guys that would fit in to Columbia University. He wasn’t from Columbia, but he was heading the [technocratic] movement there.

It was discovered, while he was there, that he was a complete fraud. He had no engineering degree at all. He was just a blowhard. He was a promoter — basically a con man — and Nicholas Murray Butler, the president of Columbia … flipped out, and drop-kicked Scott out of Columbia …

By the same token, Howard Scott was out working in the media like crazy, and he worked the Hearst empire to get articles about technocracy published all across the country.

When Randolph Hearst discovered, as Butler did, that he had been taken for a ride and that his media empire had been manipulated, he freaked out and sent out a telegram-type memo to every newspaper in the country, saying, ‘If anybody ever mentions technocracy again, you’re fired.’

Well, that took care of that. History books have a 25-year lag, typically. Historians don’t go back and analyze stuff from last year to write in history books. They go back 25 years and they look around and they read the newspaper articles and whatever, and try and figure out what happened. That’s how they write history.

Well, there’s this huge hole on the technocracy movement because it just got dropped out. All of a sudden, there’s no newspaper articles. It’s just like they disappeared into thin air. The big, highly credentialed scientist and engineers at Columbia who were crowing about technocracy the year before, now, all of a sudden, would not dare mention the word.”

Wood eventually discovered a major university archive at University of Edmonton in Alberta, where all of the leaders of the Canadian technocracy movement had combined their papers in the ’90s.

The documents were placed in a warehouse where they sat for years on end, until a catalog of them was finally published on the internet. It was a real jackpot. Wood and his wife drove to Edmonton and spent a week sifting through and copying materials. After that, it wasn’t very difficult to break down how the technocratic agenda had been moved forward and was being implemented.

Totalitarianism Versus Technocracy

While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not a dictator. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference. In short, there are no people behind the curtain pulling strings. There’s no individual to blame or hold accountable.

The “dictator” is an algorithm. Looking at Google over the past couple of years, in particular, we can see this in action. We can also see it in the censorship of social media, and in the social credit system in China.

“The so-called artificial intelligence boom has created the possibility of controlling people by algorithm, rather than by political dictate,” Wood says. “There has been a battle between technocrats and governments ever since technocracy started. Back in the day, they hated government. They wanted to get rid of government. There is still that propensity today.

You see it at the World Economic Forum, you see it at United Nations. They want to dissolve the national governments of the world. Historically, fascism and communism have been instituted by national governments. These entities are on the hit list for technocracy. We saw this, by the way, just recently. There was a conference in Dubai, called the World Government Summit1 [March 29-30, 2022].

It was partly put on by the United Nations and there were a bunch of financial mucky mucks there. There was one in particular, Pippa Malmgren — she’s from America, but she’s in Great Britain — and she does financial wealth management services for the ultra rich.

She talked about the destruction of the fiat currency system, and she said, when it happens, there’s simply going to be a change-over. All the fiat currencies are going to go, and there’s going to be an implementation of digital currency. But she also made point that the nation state structures of the world are declining rapidly now. She saw, I guess, that the nation states are the target of destruction. They must go.”

This has been in the works for some time. Look at the European Union. While Europe has country borders, the EU member states have virtually no power to do anything anymore. They’re subservient to the EU’s wishes. “That’s why a lot of people in Europe call the EU a technocracy, they’re a bunch of technocrat elites — they’re unelected, they’re unaccountable,” Wood says.

Nobody can get to them and they’re making decisions for everybody else. So, while the nation states are still there in name, they’ve stripped of their sovereignty. The World Health Organization is now also in the process of stripping nations of their sovereignty through the so-called Pandemic Treaty, which will grant the WHO unprecedented power and influence to govern behind the veil of “global biosecurity.”

We also see the rule of technocracy in companies such as Google, which is meddling in the affairs of nations, oftentimes wielding more power over people than the state itself. So, it’s important to realize that the enemy is not a nation state.

Today’s enemy cannot be compared to anything that nation states have produced in the past, such as fascism, communism or socialism. This is an altogether brand-new entity. So, while technocracy feels like totalitarianism, today’s totalitarianism is an outgrowth of technocracy, and cannot be compared to any previous totalitarian regime.

“If you look at it in the context of the takeover genetic material on earth, this is the dangerous payload that we face. It’s not just the governance part of it. It’s not just the scientific dictatorship part of it, where people now can be manipulated in doing things that don’t want to do. We’re talking about the direct takeover of the human genome.

This is an incredible thing, because that means, potentially, that our genome of humanity could be changed,” Wood warns.

Unintended Consequences Are Probable

Now, it’s quite possible, and indeed probable, that the orchestrators of this technocratic takeover are in over their heads and will end up self-destructing. They’re playing a game that has never been played before, so there’s no telling what unintended consequences might be initiated.

One such unintended consequence could be a world war, and if that happens, gene editing the human genome will become irrelevant, because the living standards of the whole world will be pushed back hundreds of years. Wood comments:

“No question about it — World War III or a world war is going to be triggered. It’s not in the best interest, for instance, for the World Economic Forum to have a world war. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen either. So far, I think the Ukraine war is pretty orchestrated and scripted in many ways to the agenda of the World Economic Forum. But it doesn’t mean it couldn’t lose control and the thing just goes nuts.

If that happens, I don’t know where I’d put that on the doomsday clock. I’m not really sure, but it is definitely a possible outcome. If it does happen, it will spoil everything for everyone for a very long period of time. As the Bible says, it’ll take seven years to go through the countryside and bury all the radioactive bones. That’d be very ugly.

It might not be [a nuclear war]. But it could be. They have the technology. I mean, just look what they can do by launching these pandemics and these bioweapons … Another thing that can happen — and again, we’re talking about waves of attacks, things that could bring us down and bring about this Great Reset — is some type of a cyber attack.

This has been in the news a lot lately. A cyber attack could be a false flag operation, but it doesn’t really matter what it is, whether it is or isn’t [a false flag], but some big thing, like taking down the power grid, or taking down JPMorgan Chase and nobody can get their money out for a period of a week.

Something like that would, again, put the fear of God into everybody. We’ll be back to the fear and panic; we’ll do whatever you say to get safety, et cetera. It will perpetuate the takeover, the coup that we’re looking at. These are two possibilities, near-term, that are very real. We’ve got different scenarios right now, but we know where this group of technocrat actors are going.

We understand their mindset, their philosophy, if you will. I hate to even call it that, but what is in their head? There’s no passion, there’s no compassion, there’s no love, there’s no mercy, there’s no grace, there’s nothing like that. It’s a completely inhuman endeavor to capture mankind into a scientific dictatorship, the likes of which the world has never seen before.”

Preparing Can Help Ease Your Anxiety

The Boy Scouts motto is “Be prepared,” and that is what I would encourage everyone to strive for at this time. Another motto to embrace would be “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.” Prepare as best you can for any and every contingency. If you can, get out of the big cities and big urban areas. Rural areas where you can build community is your safest bet.

Prepare for sustained food shortages with long-term food storage. Secure a potable water source. Stock up on medical remedies. Prepare for supply chains of all kinds to fail and stock up accordingly. Transition out of fiat currency, either by spending it on things you’ll need in the future, or buying physical gold and silver.

Prepare for energy shortages, rolling blackouts and the complete shut-down of the power grid. Importantly, don’t rely on high-tech solutions. Include low-tech manual backups in your preps. If the thought of all of this scares you, remember that taking action is the best remedy. Knowing you’re prepared will ease a lot of anxieties.

Why Free Speech Is On The Chopping Block

Free speech is a universal concept. Everyone, everywhere, have a mind and want to express themselves without being censored or canceled for their views. Free speech is now under attack worldwide, and the truly massive attack on free speech began at the same time as the coup d’état started. This is because silencing dissent is required for the full takeover to occur.

“These technocrat transhumanist revolutionaries must destroy free speech at the same time that they take over the world, because they have to control the narrative,” Wood explains. “The attacks on free speech right now are absolutely legendary, off the charts, everywhere on the planet.

If Mattias Desmet is right, and I feel absolutely certain that he is, because I can read a history book as easy as anybody, when free speech is effectively silenced, that is when the killing of the scapegoat begins. It’s always the scapegoat that gets killed first. There may be other groups that get mixed in, but the people who are the scapegoat are the ones that will be attacked by the mass formation psychosis crowd.”

Eventually, the totalitarian regime will devour its own. It’ll kill its own leaders in the name of the greater good. But in the meantime, it’ll start by culling various scapegoats, one group after another.

“Original technocracy from the 1930s, was defined in their own magazine, which was called ‘The Technocrat Magazine.’ They defined themselves in 1938 as ‘the science of social engineering.’ That was what they said about themselves.

Technocracy is the science of social engineering and they talked incessantly in their literature about Pavlov and BF Skinner and how they could control people and mold people to the economy, to the utopia that they wanted to build.

They’ve had since 1938, at the very least, to think about how to develop the science of social engineering to be used against humanity. I don’t think we need to even think about it any further.

We can feel it today. It’s right in our face, every day. They’re using these techniques against the people of the world to manipulate them, to hypnotize them, to push them into mass formation psychosis. Somebody at the top knows exactly what they’re doing with this. That’s my point.”

And, again, tech companies like Google and Facebook play central roles in that effort. I look at Google as the Skynet of the Terminator series. They’re probably the worst offender of all the technology companies that are accelerating this. They the champions of social engineering. They own DeepMind, the most sophisticated artificial intelligence company on the planet, and they’re clearly using it for nefarious purposes. That said, they’re certainly not alone.

Action Plan Moving Forward

In closing, we need to give careful thought to how we might slow down, block or at least limit the devastation that’s been planned for us. At the top of that list, aside from preparing yourself and your family with the essentials for life, is to buck the narrative.

“Anytime you feel like you’re being given a role to play, just refuse to play that role,” Wood says. “I don’t care what it is, just don’t do it. If they say, ‘You need to wear a mask because blah, blah, blah — don’t wear a mask. Just don’t play the role they give you.’

I know, but there’s a lot of personal choice here. You got to make a personal decision on what it’s worth to you to do it. I personally haven’t worn a mask yet. It’s cost me. I haven’t flown an airplane for a long time. I didn’t go a lot of places.

It’s important to keep your mouth open, not shut. We need to reestablish human connection again. This has been denied us with all the social distancing and lockdowns and everything else. Get in touch with people. It hurts, I realize, for a lot of people, because relationships have been burned between children and parents and brothers and sisters. Get over it, deal with it.

You have to get out and reconnected with people again, because the future of humanity is in those connections.

Just don’t argue with them. If you love them, love them anyway, in spite of where they are. But it’s also important to get with like-minded people and spend time developing deeper relationships with people. Guys have lost the ability to have best friends, almost universally across the country.

Women are better at having best friends, but they’ve been denied best friends because everything’s been broken up. Get embedded in a local church and start going to these home fellowships, whatever, where people are meeting face to face and just talk to them …

We have a lot of answers and a lot of tangible things we can help people with. You need to do it, be prepared to do it. When you have the opportunity, open your mouth and help them out. At least, give them some hope, because right now the other side wants you to have no hope. They want to strip all hope away from you so that you will turn to the government or turn to the technocrats for help.

We need to help people with this whole hope business and not to sell hopium, as some people call it, but to give them some tangible help on what they can do right now to put up a defense around their own body, around their own mind or whatever it might be …

This is where we are as a world today — we, on the non-mass formation psychosis side, we’re all in. Whether anybody else recognizes that as immaterial, but we are all in this. This is the most important civilizational, existential thing that we’ll ever deal with in our lifetime.

It really is that important. It’s not something we can just say, ‘Well, it’s just another problem,’ kind of like, ‘We had problems with Jimmy Carter.’ No, it’s not that kind of problem. This is a bigger existential threat that we’re facing right now.

We must be dead serious. But there’s hope, I will say. And until it’s over, it’s not over. We can make a difference and we need to try. We just can’t throw up our hands and say there’s no point trying, I’m going to go home and get drunk. Klaus Schwab told you, with his own lips, that by 2030 you will own nothing and you will be happy. They’re trying to make it happen. Yes, they are.

One of the reasons, by the way, that the World Economic Forum has met with the United Nations to speed up the agenda, closer on this side of 2030, is because of the mounting resistance around the world to the agenda. I’m convinced of this. I’ve been watching this since the beginning.

Americans can’t have 500,000 people in the street protesting anything, that doesn’t happen here. That’s just not our culture. But not Europe, at the drop of a hat, you’ll get a 100,000 people in the street, all screaming and banging pots and pans and hollering and carrying signs.

I know they see these massive hordes of people that are saying, essentially, ‘Hell, no’… This has to have an impact on them. I think that’s one reason they’re trying to accelerate the program right now and make it happen faster.

To me, that’s just kind of a little bit of a sign of resistance is working, and this to me, this ought to tell the resistance to double down — double down right now on whatever it is you’re doing. Do twice as much as you did last week or last month and continue to put the pressure on it.”

AI Expert Says Parents Will Choose ‘Digital Babies’ In The Metaverse Over Real Ones Within 50 Years

An expert on artificial intelligence says that within 50 years, parents will opt to have “digital offspring” that only exist in the metaverse due to concerns over the environment and overpopulation.

ai expert says parents will choose ‘digital babies’ in the metaverse over real ones within 50 years

The prediction was made by Catriona Campbell, who is described as “one of the UK’s leading authorities on artificial intelligence.”

According to Campbell, parents will decide to have digital babies, an updated version of Japanese Tamagotchi digital pet toys, for the same reasons they are already choosing not to have real babies, namely, “concerns about the environment, overpopulation, the rising cost of bringing up a child.”

“Campbell predicts they will be commonplace and embraced by society within half a century,” reports left-wing newspaper the Guardian.

Overpopulation Lie Debunked: US Farmland Alone Can Feed the Whole World.

The AI expert says the cyberspace babies will eventually be indistinguishable from the real thing and that if parents get bored of them, they can just cancel them like they would a monthly Netflix subscription.

“Campbell says virtual children will look like you, and you will be able to play with and cuddle them. They will be capable of simulated emotional responses as well as speech, which will range from “googoo gaga” to backchat, as they grow older,” reports the newspaper.

The article also says concerns that the digital babies would just be ‘creepy dystopian dolls’ that can be turned on and off are “old fashioned.”

“Think of the advantages: minimal cost and environmental impact. And less worry,” it adds.

As ever, this is just more anti-natal propaganda, predominantly targeting white western countries, which are already seeing birth rates rapidly decline.

There is an entire cottage industry of social engineering based on convincing westerners not to have children.

As we previously highlighted, in 2020, CNN marked Valentines Day weekend by promoting “the benefits of being single,” even as birth rates across America and Europe continue to plunge.

America’s fertility rate currently stands at 1.8 births per woman.

From 2007 to 2011 the fertility rate in the U.S. declined 9% in the space of just 4 years.

In 2016, the U.S. fertility rate fell to 59.8 births per 1,000 women, the lowest since records began.

Fears about “overpopulation” are also a contrived myth given that plummeting population levels are far more likely to be a bigger problem in 50 years time.

‘Ministry Of Truth’ Trends On Twitter After Government Unveils New ‘Disinformation Governance Board’

On Wednesday news broke that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — a department that didn’t exist 20 years ago but today spends $52 billion annually — had created a new “Disinformation Governance Board.”

'ministry of truth' trends on twitter after government unveils new 'disinformation governance board'.jpg

The news comes just days after Twitter accepted Tesla-Owner Elon Musk’s offer to buy Twitter for $44 billion, a move that critics of the deal claimed could unleash disinformation. (Musk has been vocal in his support for free speech.)

DHS declined to be interviewed by the Associated Press, but issued a statement after news broke of the development.

“The spread of disinformation can affect border security, Americans’ safety during disasters, and public trust in our democratic institutions,” DHS said.

A Ministry Of Truth?

Perhaps naturally, the revelation that the government had created a new board to fight “disinformation” prompted a slew of Nineteen Eighty-Four comparisons, especially since it came so soon after Musk’s purchase of Twitter.

“Elon Musk buys Twitter to save free speech and days later President Biden announces a Ministry of Truth,” one observer quipped. “It’s like we’re living through an Ayn Rand/George Orwell novel mash-up.”

For those unfamiliar with George Orwell’s masterpiece, the Ministry of Truth is the propaganda and censorship department of Oceania, the fictional setting for Orwell’s dystopia.

Known as Minitrue in Newspeak, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer. Like all the departments in 1984, the name reflects the opposite of what the government actually does.

The book’s protagonist, Winston Smith, learns this in the second half of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.

These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely.

Smith, who works at the Ministry of Truth, realizes the Ministry of Truth is not the least bit interested in truth. Its use of propaganda is overt, as is its use of banal slogans designed to confuse and humiliate the people of Oceania.

On the exterior of the Ministry of Truth building are three party slogans:

WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” and “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

Inside the structure, problematic documents are incinerated, dropped down a Memory Hole where they are conveniently forgotten.

1984: ‘Based Chiefly On Communism’

One might be tempted to laugh off comparisons between a “Disinformation Governance Board” and the propaganda department in Orwell’s classic work. After all, we’re talking about a novel.

This would be mistaken, however.

For starters, Nineteen Eighty-Four is indeed a fictional work. But it was inspired by the authoritarian regimes and ideologies Orwell witnessed firsthand. A one-time socialist who observed the fighting in the Spanish Civil War — a conflict between fascists and communists — Orwell became a budding libertarian who became disillusioned with collectivism.

In fact, Orwell makes it clear that Nineteen Eighty-Four was inspired by communism.

“[Nineteen Eighty-Four] was based chiefly on communism, because that is the dominant form of totalitarianism,” he told Sidney Sheldon, who purchased the stage rights to the book; “but I was trying chiefly to imagine what communism would be like if it were firmly rooted in the English speaking countries, and was no longer a mere extension of the Russian Foreign Office.”

Stalin’s regime was not the only totalitarian regime to utilize propaganda and censorship, of course. Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party, is perhaps the single most infamous wielder of propaganda in human history. And of course the Nazis were infamous for their book burning.

The Chinese Communist Party uses propaganda and censorship to such great effect today that scholars say it’s difficult to even know what’s actually happened in the country over the last century.

“At a time when censorship is a part of everyday experience of the Chinese people, even few historians actually know all the history of the party,” historian Sun Peidong recently told The Guardian. “It’s hard to get hold of party history materials as a history researcher nowadays. It’s even harder to know what the past 100 years has really been about.”

This is why Americans should be concerned that the US government — nearly two and a half centuries after it was founded — is suddenly in the business of rooting out “disinformation.”

Humans will always disagree over what is true. Descartes’ first principle — “cogito, ergo sum” posited that the only thing we can know with total certainty is “I think, therefore I am.”

It doesn’t take a philosopher to see that a lot of stuff one finds online is drek, so it shouldn’t surprise us that “misinformation” — in various forms and to various degrees — is rampant online.

But history shows that no one wields misinformation and propaganda with greater effectiveness — or at greatest cost — than government.

Orwell understood this. Americans would do well to heed his warning.

Source: FEE.org

Explosive! Dutch Bank Links Customers’ Expenditure With CO2 Emissions

We’ve recently published articles about governments in Bologna, Vienna, Bavaria and Belgium making plans to implement social credit systems: those who consume less CO2 will be rewarded. In the Netherlands, starting on 22 April, the first Dutch bank, and possibly the first in Europe, is linking payment transactions with CO2 emissions.

explosive! dutch bank links customers’ expenditure with co2 emissions

Mastercard, in collaboration with a start-up, already has a credit card that monitors and automatically cuts off spending when purchases have reached their “carbon max” – an initiative praised by the World Economic Forum.

Now, the second-largest bank in the Netherlands, Rabobank, has begun to monitor CO2 emissions of every payment made.

rabobank customers gain insight into the co2 emissions of their purchases, 22 april 2022

Rabobank customers gain insight into the CO2 emissions of their purchases, 22 April 2022.

Rabobank does not want to go as far as Mastercard. Its new tool is voluntary and is being sold as a service and not as a disciplinary procedure … for now.

The bank’s CEO, Barbara Baarsma, said: “The goal is absolutely not to point the finger as a bank and act as an advisor.”

To sell the idea to the public Baarsma wraps the innovation in fluffy language: “We want to give people insight into their own behaviour and if they want to, they can adapt their behaviour.”

Baarsma is considered an “expert” in the Netherlands: she advises the Ministry of Health through “expert commissions” and often makes guest appearances in the media.

The bank is also already issuing vouchers to farmers who are doing something about CO2 emissions.

“We’re making consumers part of the solution, just as we are doing with sustainable farmers who can earn carbon credits by storing carbon in their fields. Together, our eight million private customers can make a difference and fight climate change by changing their consumer behaviour towards a lower CO2 footprint. For example, by buying other, less carbon-intensive foods, they also encourage supermarkets to offer more sustainable products,” Baarsma said.

She also advocates that in future the CO2 emissions should be indicated on the products in the supermarkets. That’s what people want, they want “well-informed decisions and transparency.”

“This is a good first step for the bank,” said Laurens Sloot, a professor of retail entrepreneurship at the University of Groningen, “as a consumer, you don’t know exactly what damage the products you buy are doing, and you certainly don’t have to pay extra for it.”

What neither the bank nor “scientists” have considered is that Europeans’ disposable income is slowly being eroded and Europeans will factor in the price of goods, not the CO2 emissions, when making a purchase.

Another crucial aspect neither the bank nor the “scientists” have considered is that changes in climate are not due to CO2.

CO2 – plant food, as generations of school children have been taught – is Earth’s greening gas.

The lie about CO2 is being perpetuated by World Economic Forum technocrats to further their agenda: “You will own nothing and you’ll be happy.” Notice the use of “you” and not “we” in their statement. Their agenda does not apply to them and not to all of us equally – initially, as is the case with all of the technocrats’ plans, the poorest will be hit hardest.

Source: DailyExpose.uk / Reference: New service: Bank links expenditure with CO2 consumption, TKP, 27 April 2022.

UK Government To Launch Digital ID Technology In April 22

The UK government is pushing ahead with its nationwide digital ID plans, despite half of the responses to its public consultation on digital identity opposing the idea.

uk government to launch digital id technology in april 22

Source

On April 6, 2022, new digital identity document verification technology (IDVT) that enables data sharing between public bodies and businesses for the purpose of identity verification will be introduced. It will be made available to UK employers, landlords, and letting agents who can use it to digitally carry out pre-employment criminal record checks, right to work checks, and right to rent checks.

The introduction of this digital IDVT is part of the government’s far-reaching digital ID plans which were announced in March. The government has framed these digital ID plans as a way for UK citizens to “easily and quickly prove their identity using digital methods instead of having to rely on traditional physical documents.”

Under these digital ID plans, UK citizens will be able to “create a digital identity with a trusted organisation” which can be used “in-person or online” and “via a phone app or website.” These trusted organisations will then be given a “legal gateway” to “carry out verification checks against official data held by public bodies to help validate a person’s identity.” The government will also allow the “trust” generated by a single successful digital identity check to be passed to other organisations “where appropriate.”

The trusted organisations that provide these digital identity solutions will need to get accredited and certified under legislation that the government plans to introduce. Once accredited and certified, they’ll be “given a trust mark to demonstrate their compliance and will be defined as being a trust-marked organisation.”

A new interim governing body, the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (ODIA), will be set up in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) and it will have the power to issue these trust marks. The ODIA will also publish a publicly viewable list of trust-marked organisations.

new legislation set to make digital identities more trustworthy and secure

Source

Other companies that rely on the digital identity solutions provided by trust-marked organizations won’t need to be certified but may be subject to “flow-down conditions” such as agreements to not share the information they receive.

Before announcing these digital ID plans, the government sought views and feedback on its proposed approach to digital identity via a public consultation.

50% of the responses to this consultation were “against digital identity in principle” but the government didn’t include these responses in its statistical analysis of responses to the consultation because they “did not engage with the questions.”

However, the government insisted that “outside the context of producing the statistical analysis, we have taken these responses into account as part of this consultation exercise.”

The government also admitted that some respondents feared that “digital identities are going to be made mandatory for all people” but dismissed these concerns as “false” and said it will seek feedback on how to “encourage more inclusive digital identities.”

“As set out in the consultation, there are no plans to make digital identities mandatory, but we recognise they are an emerging technology and people may not be fully aware of the privacy and security benefits,” the government said.

“Therefore we will take steps to increase understanding amongst potential users and engage with civil society groups to receive their expert feedback on how to increase inclusion, now and into the future.”

The government added that it’s “committed to ensuring” that “people will still be able to use available paper documentation.”

The government’s digital ID framework has completed alpha testing. The next steps are a beta publication followed by beta testing before the framework is formalized in legislation.

The government cited “positive feedback received about the ability to conduct right to work and right to rent checks remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic” as one of its reasons for initiating its review of digital ID technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government embraced jjab passports – a technology that shares many similarities with digital ID by requiring citizens to use a digital pass.

These jjab passports were used to scoop up large amounts of data from UK citizens, some of which was shared with private companies.

identity document validation technology in the right to work and right to rent schemes, and bs pre employment checking

Source

Vaccine passports are one of many examples of the UK government using or proposing the use of technology to surveil its citizens. Other examples include it secretly surveilling millions of COVID jjab recipients via their phones, proposing a social credit style app to encourage healthy eating, and proposing the increased use of surveillance drones to “protect” women.

Despite its history of surveillance, the government insists that this digital ID technology will have “strong security and privacy standards.”

The government’s digital ID plans were announced in the same month that the UK government’s Online Safety Bill began its legislative journey. This bill mandates the implementation of identity and age verification technology on many large online platforms.

This current attempt to introduce digital ID comes almost a decade after the UK government launched its 2013 digital ID project “Verify” which was blasted by the National Audit Office and internal Parliamentary committees for “failing the public” and missing all of its performance targets.

The Absolute HORRORS Of The Social Credit System That Is Coming To The Western World

A few years ago, in a book called The Game’s Afoot (published in 2018), the author wrote that the Chinese Government was giving people marks according to behavior. Its called social engineering, and citizens were being ranked and rated according to their behavior.

social credit system tyranny

‘ The Government,’ It said, ‘will measure people’s behavior in order to decide what services they are entitled to. Anyone who incurs black marks for traffic offences, fare dodging or jay walking will find that they are no longer entitled to the full range of public services and rights. Moreover, internet activity will also be used to assess behavior. Individuals who do bad things on the internet (or whose searches are considered questionable) will find themselves ‘black marked’. Individuals who have ‘responsible’ jobs will be subjected to enhanced scrutiny.’

It was called a social credit score and I wrote then that it was likely that Western Governments would soon follow suit.

And they are doing so with great enthusiasm. It might not have obviously reached your town just yet – but it will, oh it will.

China has led the way because the Chinese system is more ruthlessly efficient than anything the West can offer. The Chinese government has more control over everything and the people don’t have much control over anything.

It works very easily.

Everyone starts off with so many points.

And a smart app on every phone measures behavior and helps the authorities decide whether or not you are good citizen.

There are, of course, video cameras absolutely everywhere watching to see whether you cross the road at the wrong time, smoke in public, throw down litter or do anything considered anti-social or inappropriate. If you talk to the wrong sort of people you’ll find your credit rating goes down. Stand and talk to me and you’ll get black marks.

China has one camera for every two people and they’re equipped with facial recognition technology that can pick an individual out of a football crowd in less time than it takes to say `surely they can’t do that!’

Supermarket computers watch to see how much you spend on alcohol, cigarettes, sweets and fatty foods. You’ll lose points if you spend too much on the wrong sort of food.

Local authorities measure how much recycling you put out and cameras in the bins will tell computers how much food you’ve thrown away and how much excess packaging you’ve had to discard.

Of course, social credit scores are already here in the West and they have been introduced slowly.

In the UK for example, drivers of more expensive motor cars have to pay a special, massively increased tax to use a motor car on the roads. That’s a blatant punishment for spending a lot on a car.

On the other hand, citizens who drive electric cars do not have to pay anything towards the building, maintenance and repair of roads. They are exempt from the tax because they are `good’ citizens. Their cars use the roads just as much as cars which are powered with petrol or diesel but they are exempt. Drivers of petrol or diesel powered cars are punished for being `bad’ citizens and must pay ever-rising annual taxes to pay for the roads. The system ignores the fact that electric cars have been proven to be no better for the environment than petrol or diesel powered cars. Drive your car into a city and you’ll have to pay a special penalty.

If you live in a house that is bigger than you need then you will be marked down and your taxes will rise. If you have spare rooms you’ll be punished. If you do a useful job and give money to charity you’ll get extra points. If you criticise the Government then you’ll lose points.

When you’re away from home, the authorities will, of course, know where you are all the time.

Indeed, if you behave badly you won’t be allowed to go far from home. If you haven’t obeyed all the health regulations you won’t be allowed to travel on public transport, fly anywhere or go abroad.

If your social credit rating goes down you won’t be able to borrow money, buy a house or book a decent room in a hotel.

If your rating goes down too far you won’t be allowed to go into hospital, and if you get in by accident they’ll slam a Do Not Rescusitate notice around your neck before you can say `what’s that for?’

You’ll receive bonus points if you live in a tiny, modern, poorly built flat with thin walls and absolutely no privacy but you’ll lose those points if you keep a pet or complain about absolutely anything.

If you spend too much on clothes or shoes your rating will go down and saving money will mark you out as guilty of something or other and you won’t be able to hire a car, get a promotion at work, use a gym or get your children into a school with textbooks.

If you are a lot of trouble you’ll find that your internet speeds will slow to a crawl and if you have your own business and talk back to council officials you won’t get any help with planning problems or be able to obtain any official government contracts.

If you don’t dress appropriately when out in public or are spotted crossing the road when the lights are against you then you’ll be photographed and your picture displayed. If you have a row with a neighbour then your pictures will be put on a billboard near your home and you’ll be shamed. If you are late with your taxes you’ll be marked down for regular audits, your business will be inspected once a week and your picture will appear on a shame board on the internet. You’ll find it impossible to obtain licences, permits and loans you might need.

In restaurants the cameras will study your manners and your eating habits and the amount of food you leave on the plate – all likely to damage your social credit rating.

Snitches, sneaks, police officers and over-compliant government employees will mark you down for any sin of commission or omission.

And by now you probably think I’m making this up and I wish I were but I’m not. We’re not talking about the far distant future. We’re talking about the very new future.

You’ll receive points if you give blood, lose points if you associate with people with low scores, be punished if you spend frivolously or don’t praise the Government on social media.

Eating meat or indulging in unsuitable activities will result in a severe points loss, as will putting too much refuse into public bins. Facial recognition cameras in bins will see and punish you and reduce food credit.

Not having the correct number of children, being overweight and owning land will result in a loss of social credit points. In the UK the Office for National Statistics has already claimed that childless women will be a burden on the state because they’ll have no one to look after them).

Not having a smart meter will result in a loss of points as will any example of civil disobedience. Chronic sickness, mental illness, being old and being disabled will lose you points as will being arrested (it doesn’t matter whether you are found guilty).

Having too big a carbon footprint, being middle class or white or asking too many questions will all result in a loss of points as will being too protective of your family.

You’ll lose social credit points if you cause some `identity harm’, say something that makes someone feel uncomfortable about who they are, where they are from or what they look like – or don’t say something that causes them to feel good.

If you show any micro-aggression, exhibit white privilege or stir up hatred you’ll be punished. If you behave in a threatening or abusing or insulting manner you will be in trouble as you will if you communicate threatening abusive or insulting material to another person.

Your intention will be irrelevant. The complainant only has to say he was hurt. Writers, actors or film or stage directors could be charged if anyone finds any of their material offensive. Shakespearean plays won’t appear much in the future.

You probably think I’m really kidding now. If you do just check out what is happening in Scotland.

In the UK, the police now define a crime or incident as hateful based on the perception of the victim (and not on the intent of the offender).

Naturally, the police and politicians have been encouraging citizens to snitch on those breaking laws.

You can get into serious trouble for playing loud music or having trees in your garden. Trees are bad because they may interfere with communications and have no practical purpose. There will be no place for aesthetics or nature in the New World Order.

What else will be bad?

Eating on public transport, missing a medical appointment, parking in the wrong place, missing a job interview and jaywalking will all lose your points and make your life more difficult.

If you think I’ve gone mad you should know that cybersecurity experts have discovered that 32% of adults between 25 and 34 in 21 countries (a total of 10,000 individuals) have already had difficulty getting a mortgage or loan because of their social media activity.

So far around 4.5 billion people around the world use the internet and most have social media accounts.

A fairly scary survey found that two thirds of individuals are willing to share information about themselves or others to get a shopping discount while half are willing to do so if it helps them skip queues at airports. One in two individuals say they are happy for the government to monitor everyone’s social media behaviour if it means keeping the public safe.

Of course, it will be impossible to find out what your social credit score is, to find out exactly how scores are made up or to correct any error. And scores will be changed in real time. So you could join a queue thinking you are entitled to hire a car or board a train and find, when you get to the front of the queue that your rating has changed and you can’t do either of those things.

Governments, big companies and local authorities are already gathering information about you from facial recognition cameras, biometric studies at airports, drones, surveillance planes and social media. This is the technocratic state in full fly. Using a silly name or avatar on social media will provide you with absolutely no protection. They know exactly who stinkyfeet of Weymouth really is and they know the name, address and inside leg measurement of bumfluff from Colorado.

You can forget about privacy, freedom or rights.

We will soon all be living in China.

If one person in a family breaks the law, the whole family will be punished.

Taking an active part in a religious ceremony will result in punishment. You may, for example, be sent to an education and training centre where the inmates study political propaganda.

Every time you give information on line they are storing up information about you, your views, your personality and so on.

And there are so, so many ways in which your social credit score can be adversely affected.

If you drop rubbish in a public place you will be shamed and will lose points. In Thailand, tourists who drop rubbish in a national park must give their name and address. If they leave rubbish behind they are in trouble.

All this is known as social engineering. It’s something politicians have been trying to do for many years since, when it works, which it does, it gives them complete control over the population. There is no longer any need to worry about opposition or criticism.

In China, citizens who do `good’ things for the State and their community are rewarded by having their photographs and names on a local wall. This is exactly what I remember seeing in East Germany in the 1970s. And back then people vied with one another to please the State and win a place on the wall.

So, again, if you want to know the sort of society you and your children will live in then look at China now where what people do, say and think is being monitored.

But our future won’t be so free and easy as life in China is at the moment.

We are moving rapidly into a dystopian, digital dictatorship.

Good behaviour will be rewarded and bad behaviour punished. But who defines what is good and what is bad?

Geotracking is the new normal now. Your financial records are combined with your criminal record, academic record, medical record and shopping patterns. They’re keeping an eye on the type of friends you have, the videos you watch, the people you date or marry or meet.

This is Big Brother on speed

In the brave new world, those with a low credit score won’t be able to move an inch.

People who speak out about corruption or who question the propaganda will be punished. If they are fined then their fine will be higher because they are seen as bad people.

And it’s already all happening.

Computer games are training us for our future.

the author is banned in China because he wrote a column for a Chinese newspaper which was considered unacceptable. His books in Chinese were instantly removed from sale.

I leave you with this fact.

There are public loos in China which won’t let you in without first checking your face and identifying you. Only then will the machine dispense the small quantity of loo paper you are allowed.

How many sheets will you be allowed if you have a low credit score? Two? One? None at all?

You may be smiling now.

But see if you’re still smiling in twelve months’ time.

Vernon Coleman’s book Endgame: The Hidden Agenda 21 explains how we got here and where the conspirators are taking us. If you want the truth about the past, present and future then read Endgame.