Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
The movie Demolition Man takes place in 2032, in an oppressive society managed by a tyrannical doctor who rose to power after an epidemic and social unrest. Watching this movie today is an eerie experience as the “jokes” of the past are the realities of today. Here’s a look at the incredible predictions made by this movie made 30 years ago.
When I want to relax and take my mind off things, I like to watch movies from the 20th century, especially the 1980’s & 1990’s. As someone who grew up in this 80’s, immersing myself in 80’s/90’s nostalgia is like a balm to my soul. I mean, everything back then was better. Fun things were fun. Cool things were cool. And, in my opinion, society was just saner and happier.
So when I recently came across the 1993 movie Demolition Man, I could not resist. Is there anything more 90’s than Wesley Snipes fighting Sylvester Stallone while wearing denim overalls?
But watching this movie in 2022 ended up being a bizarre, mind-bending experience.
First, the movie takes place in 2032, which is only ten years from now. In other words, we are currently much closer to the “future” of the movie than to the year it was actually made. Second, the “future” depicted in the movie pinpoints, with near-prophetic accuracy, everything wrong in society right now. And it is ridiculing it – as if it is laughing at us from the past.
In Demolition Man, a tyrannical doctor oversees a tightly controlled “utopia”, where every aspect of life is monitored and heavily regulated. Sylvester Stallone’s character, who was cryogenically frozen since 1997, barges into that future and hates every single part of it. So I’m sitting there, trying to relive the 90’s by watching a movie, realizing that the movie is about a dude in 2032 who wants to go back to the 90’s. It’s all rather mind-bending.
While I like to idealize the 90’s, a lot of today’s tendencies originated from that decade. At the time of the movie’s release, political correctness was bourgeoning in media, technology was leaping into the information age, AIDS was a worrying epidemic and Los Angeles was the site of social unrest. Through comedy and satire, Demolition Man depicted a future where a tyrannical figure exploits these elements to an absurd degree to usher in a “brave new world”. And we’re living it now. And, in some ways, our “future” is worse than what we see in the movie.
Demolition Man is the only movie directed by Marco Brambilla, an artist who is mostly known for his elaborate art installations, his works are rife with symbolism. This is one of his latest art installations.
A portion of Marco Brambilla’s Heaven’s Gate (2021). Symbolism overload.
The artwork above is described as a “deconstruction of Hollywood”. About thirty years ago, Brambilla was actually directing a Hollywood movie. And, after being dismissed as a mediocre action flick, Demolition Man went on to become a visionary cautionary tale against the dystopian tendencies of the elite.
Here’s a look at Demolition Man and its astounding predictions about today.
In Demolition Man, a violent criminal named Simon Phoenix (played by Wesley Snipes) is sentenced to be cryogenically frozen for 70 years. In 2032, he is thawed for his parole hearing but he ends up escaping the facility.
Phoenix finds himself in a “utopian”, non-violent future where guns are banned (they can only be found in museums). At one point, he sums up the situation:
“The year is 2032. And I’m sorry to say that the world has become a p*ssy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself run by a bunch of robbed sissies”.
Everyone in the future wear robes. Other than a nod to globalism, the movie predicted the “gender-blurring” fashion that is happening now.
“Fashion” in 2022.
In a world filled with “robbed sissies”, nobody can stop Phoenix from destroying everything. So the police force decides to thaw John Spartan (played by Sylvester Stallone), an old-school police dude who was also cryogenically frozen in 1997 due to accusations of involuntary manslaughter.
When Spartan integrates the police force, he’s immediately at odds with the oppressive ways of this new society.
There are machines everywhere listening to what people say. When someone says something bad, the machine emits a buzzing noise and says: “You are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute”. In this scene, Spartan keeps insulting the machine so he can use the fines to wipe his butt with them.
What better way of representing today’s anti-free speech climate, where any violation of the “morality code” dictated by the elite results in immediate punishment, censorship, and cancellation?
Spartan also discovers that everyone has a microchip sewn into their skin. Including himself.
The chip is required to accomplish anything in San Angeles, including entering one’s own home. Since money is outmoded, all transactions are done using the chip.
Watching this movie in 2022, it is impossible not to draw parallels with vaccine passports which are, in many places, required to participate in society. Of course, there are efforts to turn these passports into chips.
A recent headline about a Swedish company developing a microchip vaccine passport.
When Spartan learns about the chip, he says “this fascist crap makes me puke”. Yup, back in the 90s, people could recognize fascist crap when they saw it. As Spartan discovers this “brave new world”, he also learns about how it all came to be. And it’s eerily similar to what happened in real life.
Order Out of Chaos
In 2032, the city of San Angeles (born from the merger of Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego) is under the control of Dr. Cocteau, a tyrannical figure who uses science and technology to create a “perfect” society. In Dr. Cocteau’s city, everything that is bad for you is illegal: Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat, bad language, chocolate, gasoline, non-educational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal but so is pregnancy … unless you have a license.
Also, physical contact between humans is forbidden.
A recurring joke in the movie is the contactless “handshake”.
With that being said, he’s a recent headline from real life.
I’m not saying that Dr. Fauci is Dr. Cocteau from Demolition Man, but let’s say that the similarities are stunning.
Left: Dr. Cocteau. Right: Dr. Fauci.
In this contactless society, the best way to run meetings is through … Zoom calls.
One of the many accurate technological predictions made in Demolition Man.
At one point, John Spartan discovers the full extent of the no-touching policy.
Spartan’s co-worker Lenina Huxley (named after Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) asks him to have sex. When he agrees, she hands him a “vir-sex’ device.
When one watches this scene in 2022, one automatically thinks: Those are VR devices. However, none of these things really existed in 1993. At that time, the height of technology was the Super Nintendo.
Spartan hates this device and wants to do it with Huxley the good old-fashioned way. Huxley refuses and explains to him how a series of epidemics and “variants” lead to the banning of “fluid transfer”.
“The rampant exchange of bodily fluids was one of the major reasons for the downfall of society. After AIDS, there was NRS. After NRS, there was UBT. One of the first things Dr. Coteau did was to outlaw and behaviorally engineer all fluid transfer out of societally acceptable behavior. Not even mouth transfer is condoned. (…)
With that being said, here’s a recent headline from Canada’s “top doctor”.
This is not satire.
Huxley also explains how procreation is regulated in 2032.
Procreation? We go to a lab. Fluids are purified, screened, and transferred by medical personnel only. It is the only legal way.”
With that being said, here’s a very recent headline.
People are actually discussing synthetic wombs right now.
Demolition Man also satirizes popular culture being destroyed by political correctness. Indeed, people in 2032 are so sensitive and infantilized that the only music they listen to are “mini-tunes” – short commercial jingles with absolutely no content. In one scene, Spartan’s co-workers sing the Armour Hot Dogs jingle in the car:
“Fat kids, skinny kids, kids of climb on rocks. Though kids, sissy kids, even kids with chicken pox love hot dogs”.
Upon watching this scene, I came to a mind-blowing realization: If the Armour Hot Dog jingle played today on the radio, some people would actually be offended by it. They would request its censorship. In other words, this satirical example of the least offensive song possible would still be considered offensive today. We’re beyond satire.
While Spartan hates every aspect of this new society, he discovers that some people are rebelling against it.
Living underneath San Angeles is a group of dirty rebels who oppose Dr. Cocteau’s rule.
The un-chipped rebels in the movie are complete outcasts from society. They are reminiscent of today’s unvaccinated people who are banned from public places because they have no passports. They are also reminiscent of those who are vilified because they want the freedoms that existed in the 20th century.
At one point, the leader of the rebels tells Spartan:
“See, according to Cocteau’s plan, I’m the enemy. Because I like to think. I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice”.
Could this be more relevant today? Of course, Cocteau hates these people. He calls them:
“Outcasts and deserters who choose to live beneath us in sewers and abandoned tunnels. They’re a constant irritation to our harmony”.
We eventually discover that Cocteau programmed Simon Phoenix to kill the rebels and stop their revolution. In other words, Dr. Cocteau used Phoenix as a mind-controlled patsy to take care of his dirty work. This happens in real life.
When Dr. Cocteau exposes the full extent of his plan, Simon Phoenix becomes disgusted and says:
“Look, you can’t take away people’s rights to be *ssholes.”
So, even the “bad guy” of the movie values freedom.
Then, Jesse Damn Ventura shoots Dr. Cocteau and rids the world of his awfulness
Eventually, John Spartan destroys Simon Phoenix and his gang of thugs. Then, in a new world, free from Dr. Cocteau’s rule, people ask Spartan what they should do next. As usual, Sylvester Stallone imparts the world with precious words of wisdom. He tells the brainwashed citizens to “get a little dirtier”. Then, he tells the rebels to “get a lot cleaner”. Then, he says:
“Somewhere in the middle, I don’t know, you’ll figure it out.”
And he’s right. Extreme oppression leads to extreme resistance. This is happening now. I say we stop everything, go back to how we were in the 1990’s, and try again.
The movie ends with a big, fat exchange of fluids. Sanity is back.
The movie Demolition Man is probably the most predictive sci-fi movie I’ve ever seen. It also predicted self-driving electric cars that look exactly like Teslas, Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming a politician, people conversing with Alexa/Siri-type machines, the widespread use of biometrics and artificial intelligence, the disappearance of small restaurants to be replaced by monopolistic chains, and much more. All of this was pure science fiction in 1993. But it could happen if society took a specific direction. And it did.
The future depicted in Demolition Man was meant as satire. It was basically a warning saying: “Here’s how things could end up if we’re not careful”. Today, which is ten years from the movie’s “future”, we can easily say that the satire has become reality. The jokes of the film have become our annoying reality.
The COVID pandemic allowed unelected “doctors” to rule every aspect of our lives and dictate oppressive policies. QR codes and microchips are creeping into our everyday lives. Opinions and attitudes that do not fit the current orthodoxy are immediately censored and punished. General manliness and womanliness are frowned upon and deemed undesirable.
While we are being conditioned to think that all of this is normal, IT IS NOT. Demolition Man is like a distant voice from the past telling us:
The US government has a long history of fun and interesting advice when it comes to imminent death:
Now, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, has issued updated guidance to its “Nuclear Explosion” readiness public awareness website, which includes tips to avoid Covid!
“A nuclear explosion may occur with or without a few minutes warning,” reads the page, which was updated on Friday.
“Fallout is most dangerous in the first few hours after the detonation when it is giving off the highest levels of radiation. It takes time for fallout to arrive back to ground level, often more than 15 minutes for areas outside of the immediate blast damage zones.
FEMA recommends the following steps to prevent ‘significant radiation exposure,’ which include “Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household,” and “If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not part of your household.”
[What a fucking joke!]
What’s more, “If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 9-1-1 and let the operator know if you have, or think you might have, Covid-19. If you can, put on a mask before help arrives.”
“Many people already feel fear and anxiety about the corona-virus 2019 (COVID-19). The threat of nuclear explosion can add additional stress.”
Hazards related to nuclear explosions include:
Bright FLASH can cause temporary blindness for less than a minute.
BLAST WAVE can cause death, injury, and damage to structures several miles out from the blast.
RADIATION can damage cells of the body. Large exposures can cause radiation sickness.
FIRE AND HEAT can cause death, burn injuries, and damage to structures several miles out.
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) can damage electrical power equipment and electronics several miles out from the detonation and cause temporary disruptions further out.
FALLOUT is radioactive, visible dirt and debris raining down from several miles up that can cause sickness to those who are outside.
FEMA also says you have 10 minutes after the shock wave passes to find the “nearest, best shelter location” if you’re outdoors when a nuke goes off, as radiation levels are the highest immediately after the fallout arrives.
But whatever you do, remember to wear your mask and practice social distancing while you hopefully avoid a painful cancerous death.
Maajid Nawaz, a British activist and radio broadcaster, seemed to startle Joe Rogan, a mega-star podcaster, as he outlined how Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF) is penetrating world governments to put its own members as leaders to establish a global “checkpoint society” in a Saturday discussion.
Nawaz, the founding head of Quilliam, a think tank dedicated to combating Islamist extremism, told Rogan in a three-hour interview broadcast Saturday that the WEF has planted its members in national leadership positions around the world to pursue the organization’s vast authoritarian goal.
Nawaz said the WEF has worked on “embedding people in government who are subscribed to” the Great Reset agenda, attempting to explain that government leaders around the world have started pulling COVID-19 mandates and constraints while keeping in place an apparatus of digital tracking and identification that shapes the embryonic phases of a digital social credit rating.
Schwab explicitly claimed that the COVID-19 reaction must be used to “revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions” in a 2020 book named “Covid-19: The Great Reset.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, French President Emmanuel Macron, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, Microsoft founder Billy Boy, and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg are some of the participants of the WEF’s Forum of Young Global Leaders.
Blair tried to create an ID system during the Iraq war, and now is publicly pushing toward digital IDs in the post-COVID age, according to Nawaz.
The Machiavellian quote (sic) that “if you’re going to come at the king, you best not miss,” may be about to bite Mark Zuckerberg and his army of fact-checking mercenaries.
While Zuckerberg may feel omnipotent atop his opaque algo-world but the so-called ‘fact-checkers’ – so expert at shutting down any narrative-conflicting-information (on behalf of, and often at the behest of, the Biden administration) – may have met their match by claiming that one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journals delivered “false information” that “could mislead people.”
As we detailed in early November, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) – a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association – published a whistle-blower report calling into question data integrity and regulatory oversight issues surrounding Pfizer’s pivotal phase III Covid-19 vaccine trial.
Brook Jackson, a now-fired regional director at Ventavia Research Group, revealed to The BMJ that vaccine trials at several sites in Texas last year had major problems – including falsified data, broke fundamental rules, and were ‘slow’ to report adverse reactions.
When she notified superiors of the issues she found, they fired her.
“A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” – The BMJ
Very soon after, as the worrisome story went viral, BMJ soon would get a taste of what Facebook, Google, and others are doing to independent media platforms. As TrialSiteNews.com reports, even though BMJ is one of the most prominent medical journals and the information was rigorously peer-reviewed, strange things started occurring.
For example, readers would try to post some of the information on social media such as Facebook to share with their networks. But “some reported being unable to share it [the information].” Moreover, those individuals that were simply sharing this content, peer-reviewed from The BMJ, were warned by Facebook that, “Independent fact-checkers concluded, “This information could mislead people.”
Moreover, they were told, “Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share ‘false information’ might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed.”
In addition, some group administrators received notices from Facebook that the information was “partly false.”
Readers were sent to a “fact check” performed by Lead Stories, a third-party fact-checker.
And so, as possibly the top experts in the world when it comes to medical research information, BMJ has now been forced to fact-check the ‘fact-checkers’.
Having received no response from Facebook or from Lead Stories, after requesting the removal of the “fact checking” label, the BMJ’s editors raise a “wider concern”:
We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime…
Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.
Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades.
What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.
In addition to the points raised by BMJ and in the comments below, there is a limit to what independent fact checking can accomplish.
For example, are their fact checkers conducting their own scientific experiments validating claims and outcomes of a scientific paper? Are fact checkers reaching out to sources from a news article and verifying quoted information? When “breaking news” or “scoops” are reported presenting totally new information about the world, how can that be verified against other information that – by virtue of something being new – cannot be verified by other preexisting sources?
If the fact checking process is limited to verification based on other information that is currently available, and if the fact checking process cannot distinguish between factual information and the opinions people hold as a result of that information, the outcome will be an inevitable echo chamber that reinforces currently dominant views or whatever preexisting biases are present.
… and that is exactly what the establishment wants.
We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.
In September, a former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.
The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.
But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context … Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.”
Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.
We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.
It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”
The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”
It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article
It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.
We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform.
There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence. Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.
We hope you will act swiftly: specifically to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error; and generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief
Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief
As current and incoming editors in chief, we are responsible for everything The BMJ contains.
Though certainly not intending to do so, the “paper of record” — in big bold headline letters as well as in the small print — has just announced to all of Normiedom (though to no effect) that the Stupid-19 scamdemic (including its oh-so-scary “son of” variantsequels) is a hoax of historic proportions. In case the subtle significance of the headline escaped your own notice, let’s try it again and let it sink in: 1 of Every 100 Older Americans Has Perished.
Just to keep this discussion on “normal” grounds — let us put aside, for argument’s sake only — the little known (concealed) facts that:
* No new virus has ever been purified, isolated and identified. * There has been and continues to be a deliberate misclassification of deaths (for money). * The PCR “test” is calibrated to yield false positives (for money). * Hospitals and nursing homes have deliberately isolated, sedated, ventilated and mass murdered many seniors (for money). * Hospitals in poorer areas have also deliberately isolated, sedated, ventilated and murdered some healthy younger people (for money).
Those damning little details aside, this headline still means that over the course of nearly a 2 year long period, in a country with an average life expectancy of 78.8years, 1 out of every 100 of those “65 and older” (that includes folks in their 80s, 90s, and 100s!) has passed away.
……. Yeah … so?
Is 1% really such a wildly disproportionate ratio? Are humans not mortal? Furthermore, as the article itself confirms, most of the dead suffered from other serious conditions (94% according to the CDC).
You would think that the OPENLY publicized death-by-age statistics would cause Normie to scratch his head in bewildered confusion and ask: “What’s the big deal?” —- But no.
Here’s another “open conspiracy” confirmation from the articles headline graphic:
“Three quarters of U.S. Covid deaths have been among people 65 and older.”
So then, why the frickety-frack are we traumatizing and masking up toddlers and children for?
The astonishing takeaway from these admissions is this: Even when the “respectable” media OPENLY serves up — albeit unintentionally and indirectly — enough raw data for any semi-astute reader to quickly pick up and easily debunk the “crisis” story line, the stupefied subjects of the overlapping tyrannical kingdoms of Normiedom & Libtardia still can’t critically think their way out of the brown bag of dog shit which has been placed over their stone-filled heads. Providing them with a “2” and another “2” (in a frickin’ headline, no less!) still isn’t enough. No, only when the Judenpresse specifically announces “4” are they finally able to puzzle out such advanced algebra equations — proudly believing they did it “on their own.”
The shattered mind of a normie has been gang-raped to pieces and cemented back together in such a hardened block form that it can no longer recognize blatantly contradictory double-think — even when it’s in his face. Point out the almighty CDC‘s own published statistics to an “educated” normie (including doctors and scientists!) and you’re likely to get the type of response which so frustrated the protagonist of Orwell’s “1984,” Winston Smith, while he was being schooled by O’Brien of the “Thought Police:”
“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself; who gives your arguments a fair hearing and simply persists in his lunacy?”
Short of whacking a normie over the head with a tire iron, what can you do to get him to see the obvious? Answer: Other than planting a seed in a dry crack of his block head and praying for rain at a future date, not much. So save your breath and move on to the next lost soul.
Normie 1: I read in the New York Times today that people over 65 make up the majority of Covid deaths, even though they have the highest vaccination rates.
Normie 2: Interesting. I wonder why that is. * Me: Because they’re frickin’ OLDER Dumbass!!!
It is a tragic fact that humanity has been living amidst a regime of perpetual warfare since known history. From the last 100 years alone, we have seen (amongst many others), two major European world wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, and now the Virus Wars.
In line with the unfolding trend of technology, the ‘wars’ are shifting from inter-bodies (between bodies) to intra-body (within bodies).
In this current state of ‘perpetual warfare’, there are now attempts to colonise the terrain within our most sacred space – the human biological body.
In my previous essay on biopower (see New Dawn 183), I noted there had been a shift from the disciplinary societies as described by French philosopher Michel Foucault toward more fluid networks of biopower control.
As Foucault noted, the biopower model functions to tax rather than organise production, and to rule on death rather than to administer life.
The older biopower models focused on the exterior modes of enclosure – school, factory, hospital, prison, etc. – whereas what I put forth in this essay is that the new reign of biopower is about gaining access to our interior spaces.
Older exterior institutions (school, factory, etc.) have an expiration date – the human being, in contrast, is an ongoing and continuous ‘body’ available for generational control.
The new regime seeks an ongoing vested interest in the exterior and interior spaces. These are the reconfigured social-body politics of control – or, the politics of control-biology. The new reign of biopower is concerned with continual modulation, adapting to ongoing events more like a wavelength than a fixed broadcast.
The ‘virus wars’ (to use their terminology) represent an enemy that attacks and infiltrates not only inter-bodily but especially intra-bodily. Human societies exist in open, not closed, systems. As such, the emerging biopower regimes need to gain access through these porous social-body systems.
To gain control, they thus need to have proprietary dominion over an individual’s body, outside and within. We only have to recognise the rise in molecular engineering, genetic manipulations, and pharmaceutical interventions to see how external systems have been increasingly gaining interior ground.
The rapid rise in city and nationwide COVID-19 testing stations gives the impression of an open-society granting permission for mobile freedoms – yet they are the facades for the encroaching control systems.
As an example of what is to come, Liverpool in the UK began a city-wide ‘mass testing’ program with walk-through and drive-through testing stations set up around the city.1
Liverpool was chosen as the pilot for a new ‘Lateral Flow System’ testing scheme. Broadgreen International School is running a pilot scheme with Public Health England that will: 1) bring in the military to run COVID-19 tests; 2) test children without parental consent; 3) identify each individual with a “unique barcode,” and 4) “isolate” and “secure” anyone who tests positive.2
No-one should be complacent under the illusion this is ‘one-off’ mass testing. It potentially represents the beginning of forms of continual control – persistent or ‘perpetual testing’.
Perpetual Testing, Tracking & Tracing
The new regimes of biopower are establishing continuous variations of ‘testing,’ with continual iterations of ‘being at risk’. If we are to be continually ‘at risk’, then we have to be perpetually monitored – the two concepts go hand in hand. And in the present age of heightened mobility, we cannot expect a fixed ‘administration of control’. Instead, it will come through the fluid flows of always-on, surveillant tracking/tracing.
As I write this, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had placed himself in self-isolation after receiving notification from his track-and-tracing app.
He stated in a video address, with a tone of deprecating ‘programming’ humour, that:
“The good news is that NHS Test and Trace is working ever-more efficiently, but the bad news is that they’ve pinged me and I’ve got to self-isolate.”3
‘Track and trace’ record-keeping is now being imposed not only on the hospitality sectors but also places of worship, businesses, and other organisations.
For example, governments in Australia are mandating businesses and organisations to collect data on “every person including staff, patrons and contractors entering the premises.”4
Further, any records collected on paper must, by law, be digitised within 24 hours. Similar measures have been implemented by the UK hospitality sector, although not yet across the whole board or fully digitised.
Also being implemented is government access to card payment data for tracking people in “coronavirus hotspots,” as announced by the Australian government recently.5
In Spain, where this author currently lives, all arrivals into the country from 23 November will need to show certification of a negative COVID-19 test taken 72 hours prior to arrival.
Such procedures are likely forerunners to the ‘soon to be expected’ arrival of digital health passports, such as CommonPass which is being trialled by a small number of passengers flying from the UK to the US.6
At the G20 summit – an online meeting of heads of state from the world’s 20 largest economies hosted by Saudi Arabia over the 21-22 November weekend – Chinese President Xi Jinping called for a “global mechanism” that would use QR codes to open up international travel.7
As if in direct response to this, a day later (23 November) the boss of Qantas Airways announced that international air travellers would, in the future, need proof they have taken a COVID-19 vaccine to board Qantas flights. He claims it will be a “necessity” once vaccines are available and that it’s going to be a “common thing” in other airlines around the globe.8
As with risk and monitoring, the tracking goes hand in hand with testing. And in order to undergo testing, people must succumb to giving up their biological data. Intra-body data will enter the burgeoning biometric data-machine of huge corporations.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in October 2020, the US administration’s appointed ‘vaccine czar’, Moncef Slaoui, stated that tech giants Google and Oracle were to “collect and track vaccine data.”9
In a previous interview, Slaoui referred to this tracking “data-driven timeline” as a “very active pharmacovigilance surveillance system.”10
This almost real-time biosecurity testing and tracking will soon be necessary for most everyday activities, such as going to a live music concert.
Ticketmaster, which merged with Live Nation in 2010 to create the music industry’s foremost concert promotion and ticketing agent, announced in November 2020 that it would check the COVID-19 vaccination status of ticket buyers before issuing passes when live events return in 2021.11
Ticketmaster has been working on developing what they call a system for “post-pandemic fan safety” to verify fans’ vaccination status or whether they’ve tested negative for the coronavirus within a 24 to 72-hour window.
Ticketmaster plans to combine the Ticketmaster digital ticket app with third party health information companies like CLEAR Health Pass or IBM’s Digital Health Pass, and testing and vaccine distribution providers.
When the person receives their test/ vaccine certification via their “health pass company,” the health pass would verify COVID status to Ticketmaster. If all was ‘clean’, Ticketmaster will issue the fan the credentials needed to access the event. On the other hand, if a person tested positive or didn’t have a valid, up-to-date vaccine certificate, they would not receive a ticket.
Ticketmaster president Mark Yovich is on record saying that he expects the demand for “digital screening services” will attract a new wave of investors and entrepreneurs to “fuel the growth of a new COVID-19 technology sector” (i.e. biopower capitalism).
Marianne Herman, co-founder of a company that focuses on assisting entertainment companies develop COVID-19 strategies, stated:
“In order for live events to return, technology and science are going to play huge roles in establishing integrated protocols so that fans, artists, and employees feel safe returning to venues.”12
Welcome to the new biopower capitalism of “integrated protocols”!
Biopower ‘Good For Business’
Some major players in healthcare and business have already come together to declare what these “integrated protocols” may likely consist of. The Riyadh Declaration on Digital Health was formulated during the Riyadh Global Digital Health Summit, 11-12 August 2020. It called itself a “landmark forum” for highlighting the importance of digital technology, data, and innovation for “fighting pandemics.”
According to their Health Summit webpage:
“It aims to bring together leaders of healthcare systems, public health, digital health, academic institutions and businesses in order to discuss the vital role of digital health in the fight against current and future pandemics.”13
The Lancet medical journal did a feature on The Riyadh Declaration in which a “panel of 13 experts” articulated seven key priorities and nine recommendations “for data and digital health that need to be adopted by the global health community to address the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics.”14
They outline that the first priority for the health and care sectors to adopt is applied health intelligence (HI). According to the report, “HI is used for the surveillance, monitoring, and improvement of population and patient outcomes.”
The second priority relates to “interoperable digital technology” and for this technology to be scaled up and sustainable. The third priority is to support the adoption of artificial intelligence.
From the nine recommendations, the following are of particular interest: 2) Work with global stakeholders to confront propagation of misinformation or disinformation through social media platforms and mass media; 3) Implement a standard global minimum dataset for public health data reporting; 7) Ensure surveillance systems combine an effective public health response; and 9) Maintain, continue to fund, and innovate surveillance systems as a core component of the connected global health system for rapid preparedness and optimal global responses.
At the very least, these recommendations sound ominously like the framework for establishing a biosecurity apparatus of a biocapitalist consortium of healthcare businesses, digital health corporations, and governments.15
Do not think for a moment that the average working person will not need to pay for this apparatus. It was recently announced that Deutsche Bank researchers propose a 5% tax for people choosing to work from home rather than the office.
The reality, as we know, is that many people will not be given a choice; yet, as per the new report from the German bank, the average person would be “no worse off if they paid this tax” because by working remotely “they save money on travel, food, and clothes.”
One of the report’s authors (a research strategist at Deutsche Bank) said:
“Working from home will be part of the ‘new normal’ well after the pandemic has passed. We argue that remote workers should pay a tax for the privilege… That means remote workers are contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits.”16
In other words, within the new biopower regime, people may not be contributing enough ‘into the system’ if they are working from home – and so must be taxed for the privilege.
What we are seeing through this increased regulation and intrusion between and within human bodies is a direct curtailing of human sovereignty.
The Question Of Human Sovereignty
The new enclosures are no longer disciplinary institutions (as identified by Foucault) but the fluid flows and networks of inter and intra-body spaces and the new regimes that are arising to govern these social-biological terrains.
The individual human body is being fully incorporated into the global body politique. There are no ‘fixed markets’ for biopower; instead, there are flexible networks of exchange.
Yet the question remains – who sets the parameters of legal authority on these exchanges?
We have truly entered the age of the erosion of biological boundaries. We are all being targeted as possible mobile hosts for our own crippling disease – regardless of the true potency of the viruses – just as a person could be a suspect in the War on Terror.
In both cases, the human being has been re-cast as a site of suspicion and risk. The body is now re-classified as a ‘site of weakness’ – which may itself play into a later transhumanism agenda.
Becoming ever clearer is that the new reign of biopower will deny us our rights to keep the frontiers of the human body closed. The fundamental right to health (health safety) is being reconstituted as a legal obligation to health (biosecurity).17
This process, overtly and covertly, attempts to reorganise human citizenry in a way to create maximum obedience to institutions of governance and security. This is also a process that will eventually lead to denying each person their individual sovereignty.
The rise of biosecurity amid the converging health intelligence (HI), along with tech-based “integrated protocols,” and increased reliance on Artificial Intelligence both within healthcare systems as well as state-sponsored surveillance, all point towards a worryingly cohesive ‘full spectrum dominance’ over human life.
It is a biopower-enforced control system not only between bodies and within bodies but also within the human mind.
Biopower is also, I propose, a control system for human consciousness. This is confirmed by rapid moves on the internet to censor any information that criticises or is contrary to consensus narratives and programming.
A case in point: the UK Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth (Labour) is demanding a law be put into effect, with financial and criminal penalties, to “stamp out dangerous” anti-vaccine content online.
It is time for all political parties, says Ashworth, “to work with the government on a cross-party basis to build trust and help promote take-up of the vaccine.”18
According to a report in the Sunday Times, UK ministers are preparing to launch a massive public information campaign to convince people to get vaccinated.
The Times reported that the British Army mobilised the 77th Brigade’s Defence Cultural Specialist Unit to monitor and “counter online propaganda against vaccines.”19
The news report admits the 77th Brigade specialises in creating “behavioural change.”
The current biological ‘state of emergency’ is forcing people, on a global scale, to accept previously unimagined ideas to the point where the human psyche is tested to its limits.
A new narrative is being established and seeded into mass human consciousness. The usual response to anomalous data is to try to fit it into pre-existing parameters of thought – our existing ‘reality boxes’ – to maintain a sense of stability.
When the irrational encroaches upon consensus reality, a person is forced to accept the abnormalities as the ‘new normal’ or to undergo critical, often radical, change at a personal level.
Which do you think is the easiest, most popular option?
Polarising events have the result of affecting both the conscious and the unconscious mind. A person can be both consciously and unconsciously torn between what they are told to believe and what actually is.
This can easily create a schism in the human psyche and result in further social divisions and polarisations within familial and cultural groupings. This is not the time to be fostering mental, emotional, and socio-cultural dissociations.
On the contrary, we should be asking ourselves: what does human sovereignty and empowerment mean to me? The question of human sovereignty applies to each and every one of us. It is not a privilege or a luxury – it is a basic right and necessity.
As the reign of biopower continues to unfold, we are going to be seeing – and receiving – many more instances where control-biology situates itself into our daily lives.
It is a calculating narrative because, after all, does not everyone wish for good health and well-being? The situation, though, is being managed and coerced into a state where each person will have no choice over how they make their own health decisions.
Biopower forces dominion over our external and internal realms through the rhetoric (or double-talk) of representing the power of well-being. The end result is more on the side of controlling the human being, and few people, it seems, have an adequate response to this. Too many people continue to respond as if caught off-guard in the coming headlights.
The very nature of how we recognise human well-being is at the core of what is transpiring now. This is the fundamental issue we need to address. It is no longer simply a matter of whether we need to wear masks or not – it is a question of our humanity being masked.
As many of you may know, all of humanity is under a massive psychological warfare attack. And Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Matthias Desmet, who has studied the psychology of totalitarianism has done an excellent job of explaining how we got here and how we win.
Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Matthias Desmet
In dictatorships, obedience comes from a basic fear of the dictator. But with totalitarianism, people are hypnotized into obedience. In psychological terms, this mass hypnosis is known as mass formation.
And totalitarianism always starts with a mass formation inside the population.
A mass formation requires 4 conditions for it to take root:
1) The masses must feel alone and isolated.
2) Their lives must feel pointless and meaningless.
3) The masses then must experience constant free-floating anxiety, and
4) They must experience free-floating frustration and aggression.
This simply means there is no discernible source for the anxiety or aggression. And so, the person begins to irrationally crave a remedy, no matter how absurd or destructive it may be.
And these conditions were met in 2020, with the COVID lockdowns and the BLM Riots.
They are now ripe for hypnosis.
And once they accept the experimental jabs, they feel solidarity, which validates the whole thing for them, no matter how senseless. They are now changed, no longer rational. They become intolerant and cruel.
So How Do We Win?
Studies have shown that about 25% of the population cannot be hypnotized. And about 10% are highly-susceptible to hypnosis.
Professor Desmet simplifies this even more for us. He says that 30% of people are now deeply hypnotized and have irrationally accepted the experimental shots as their solution. 40% are not yet hypnotized but will ultimately go along with the herd.
And the rest of us are seeing things clearly.
What the enemy is trying to do is extremely dangerous, because if the masses ever awaken from their spell, they will demand justice and so stress must constantly be maintained upon the masses until the “mass formation” is complete.
We are the voice of dissent. And while we may not have much in the way of influence over the hypnotized 30%, we must definitely hold sway over the 40% who will go along with the herd.
We need to become the herd.
Whether you think this all happened by accident or conspiracy; whether your reasons are based on religion or personal health, our voice of dissent must become one, it must grow and it must never end.
We must spread the seeds of doubt to everyone: At the gas station, at the grocery store, at work, with the neighbors.
They are desperately trying to provoke a civil war or a violent revolution, because they can control that.
Violence will not break people out of the hypnosis, it will only push more people into it.
Telling the truth has become a revolutionary act. Telling the truth to everyone you meet will save humanity, so keep doing it.
Before that can happen, the current economic system must be destroyed and the people prepared for total submission to the coming scientific dictatorship where the world is run by algorithm rather than elected representatives.
To say that Technocracy is sterile and dehumanizing is an understatement.
It is patently anti-human in the clearest sense of the word, and will result in world-wide human misery. (Source)
“It has frequently been observed that terror can rule absolutely only over people who are isolated against each other and that therefore one of the primary concerns of tyrannical government is to bring this isolation about. Isolation may be the beginning of terror; it certainly is its most fertile ground; it always is its result.
“This isolation is, as it were, pretotalitarian; its hallmark is impotence insofar as power always comes from people acting together, acting in concert; isolated people are powerless by definition.” – Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
The Ultimate Divide And Conquer
Western civilization, led by the US government and media, has, embarked upon a campaign of mass psychological terrorism designed to cover for the collapsing economy, set up a new pretext for Wall Street’s ongoing plunder expedition, radically escalate the police state, deeply traumatize people into submission to total social conformity, and radically aggravate the anti-social, anti-human atomization of the people.
The pretext for this abomination is an epidemic which objectively is comparable to the seasonal flu and is caused by the same kind of Coronavirus we’ve endured so long without totalitarian rampages and mass insanity.
The global evidence is converging on the facts:
This flu is somewhat more contagious than the norm and is especially dangerous for those who are aged and already in poor health from pre-existing maladies.
It is not especially dangerous for the rest of the population.
The whole concept of “lockdowns” is exactly upside down, exactly the wrong way any sane society would respond to this circumstance.
It’s the vulnerable who should be shielded while nature takes its course among the general population, who should go about life as usual.
Dominionist-technocratic rigidity can’t prevent an epidemic from cycling through the population in spite of the delusions of that religion, especially since Western societies began their measures far too late anyway.
So it’s best to let herd immunity develop as fast as it naturally will, at which time the virus recedes from lack of hosts (and is likely to mutate in a milder direction along the way).
This is the only way to bring a safer environment for all including the most vulnerable.
The fact that most societies have rejected the sane, scientific route in favor of doomed-to-fail attempts at a forcible violent segregation and sterilization is proof that governments aren’t concerned with the public health (as if we didn’t know that already from a thousand policies of poisoning the environment while gutting the health care system), but are very ardent to use this crisis they artificially generated in order radically to escalate their police state power toward totalitarian goals.
The whole concept of self-isolation and anti-social “distancing” is radically anti-human. We evolved over millions of years to be social creatures living in tight-knit groups.
Although modern societies ideologically and socioeconomically work to massify and atomize people, nevertheless almost all of us still seek close human companionship in our lives.
(I suspect most of the internet police-state-mongers are not only fascists at heart but are confirmed misanthropic loners who couldn’t care less about human closeness.)
This terror campaign seeks to blast to pieces any remaining human closeness, which means any remaining humanity as such, the better to isolate individual atoms for subjection to total domination.
Hannah Arendt wrote profoundly on this goal of totalitarian governments (The Origins of Totalitarianism), though even she didn’t envision a state-driven cult of the literal physical repulsion of every atom from every other atom.
So far the people are submitting completely to a terror campaign dedicated to the total eradication of whatever community was left in the world, and especially whatever community was starting to be rebuilt.
Some dream of this terror campaign somehow bringing about a magical collective transformation.
They don’t explain how that is supposed to happen when everyone’s so terrorized they’re desperate to detach physically from their own shadows, let alone physically come together with other people.
But any kind of political or social action, any kind of movement-building, requires close person-to-person contact.
It seems that for most erstwhile self-alleged dissidents, the fact that social media is no substitute for face-to-face organizing and group action, a fact hitherto universally acknowledged by these dissidents, is another truth suddenly to be jettisoned replaced by its complete antithesis.
Thus the terror campaign is a virus causing those it infects to abdicate all activism and all prospect for all future activism, for as long as they remain insane with the fever of this propaganda terror.
Far more profoundly and evoking despair,
the terror campaign is a virus causing those it infects to fear and loathe all human contact, all companionship, all closeness, all things which ever made us human in the first place.
Prior totalitarian regimes sought this lack of contact and trust through networks of informers.
These networks are part of today’s terror campaign as well, encouraged from above and spontaneously arising from below as a result of the feeling of terror as well as the exercise of prior petty-evil intentions on the part of petty-evil individuals.
But today’s totalitarian potential is far worse than this.
Now the regimes aspiring to total domination have terrorized and brainwashed the vast majority of people into an automatic physical distrust of all other people.
One no longer fears that someone is an informer, but fears the very existence of another human being.
Any kind of human relations, from personal friendship and romance to friendly social gatherings and clubs to social and cultural movements become impossible under such circumstances.
This threatens to be the end of the very concept of shared humanity, to be replaced by an anthill of slave atoms,
with no consciousness beyond fear and the most animal concern for food and shelter, which already is allowed or denied in the same way experimenters do with lab rats…
And the more people fear and loathe the literal physical existence of all other people, the more the situation becomes ripe for every epidemic of murder, from the spiking rate of domestic violence and killings to incipient lynch mobs to pogroms to Nazi-style extermination campaigns.
This is the system’s end goal.
It’s the logical end where every trend of today leads.
All of it is trumped up over an epidemic which objectively is a flu season somewhat rougher than average.
Why do the people want to surrender and throw away all reality and future prospect of, shared humanity, happiness, freedom, well-being, over so little?
Is this really a terminal totalitarian death cult, the globe as one massive Jonestown?
So far it seems this is what the majority wants.
If they don’t really want this consummation of universal death in spirit, emotion and body, they’d better snap out of their terror-induced mental delirium fast, before it’s too late.
Mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis has initiated a socioeconomic chain reaction that has only begun to play out. Nevertheless, this story has a silver lining: the chance to make the world a better place.
But it has to start with an honest assessment of how we got here, and point to a positive course of action…
Imagine ten years ago if someone described to you what the world would look like as we entered the 2020’s. Would you have believed them?
Interesting times eh? It’s about to get a lot more interesting.
History will remember this decade as a critical turning point. The end of an era.
2020 was the year that ideas like this went mainstream. Headlines that used to be relegated to the lunatic fringe were now being promoted by the corporate media.
Then of course we had the COVID-19 debacle. Though the ‘authorities’ would blame the disease itself, it was their ill-conceived response that actually served as the catalyst.
Their short sighted policies initiated a chain reaction. Some consequences of this chain reaction are inevitable (like a bullet that has left the barrel of a gun). Others hang in the balance. There will not, however, be any going back to normal.
This story has a silver lining; a chance to make the world a better place. But it has to start with an honest assessment of how we got here, and point to a positive course of action.
In the winter of 2020 as COVID-19 went exponential a panic was spreading even faster.
Those who hatched this plan had made no provision for a pandemic that would linger on for months or years. They didn’t even account for the socioeconomic chain reaction that the first round of lock downs would set in motion.
By the summer of 2020 flash points of violence and social unrest were flaring up in cities around the world. Pent up frustrations were building, for obvious reasons. Billions of people had just spent months locked in their houses.
Most stress relieving activities had been banned: social gatherings, sports, time with friends at restaurants or bars… even places of worship were restricted. This was a powder keg waiting for a match.
Politicians obviously saw the danger in this equation. When millions of people are suddenly left hungry and homeless that’s a recipe for revolution. Something had to be done, and quickly. So they did something. Boy did they do something.
When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail, and the governments around the world were looking at a very, very large nail. The fiscal stimulus programs of 2020 were epic; absolutely off the charts. By June over 18 trillion had been disbursed globally.
Then there were the forgivable loans – via the paycheck protection program and similar schemes around the world – which were supposed to help prop up small businesses. Some of these loans ended up being extended to some rather strange small businesses.
If you’ve never heard of Quantitative Easing (or QE) you might want to look that up. The short version is that when central banks purchase assets new money is created.
The money that is transferred to the asset holders account is literally typed into existence. These asset holders typically reinvest this new money, causing asset prices (including the stocks) to rise. Poor people don’t typically own these kinds of assets so it’s basically welfare for the rich.
And while it’s wonderful that we can provide a such a nice safety net for the upper crust of society it does have one little side effect: inflating markets with liquidity creates asset bubbles. It’s like filling up a water balloon more and more… till its so big you can see through it. Sooner or later it always pops.
The first round of QE started in 2009 after the housing bubble collapsed. Cutting interest rates to zero just wasn’t enough. 2020 brought us round four (affectionately referred to by some as QE Infinity).
In this round the Fed would take their liquidity experiment to a whole new level; buying financial assets never touched during QE1, 2, or 3 including corporate debt and etfs.
In one month they purchased more assets than they had during the entire first year following the 2009 crisis.
With unemployment numbers still hovering at great depression levels and hopes of a quick, V-shaped recovery evaporating, all eyes were on governments and central banks. The question was not if there would be more stimulus and money printing, the real question was how big it would be this time.
Would it be enough? No one seemed to be asking what would happen if they went too far.
Our fearless leaders had painted themselves into a corner at this point. If unemployment benefits, mortgage forbearance and eviction moratoriums weren’t extended, those in power would soon be facing millions of homeless, hungry and angry people.
With violence and unrest already smoldering in many major cities, this would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. Extending these protections however, would not be without a price.
Eviction moratoriums and mortgage forbearance programs had temporarily prevented millions from being suddenly made homeless. But with no rent coming in, landlords would soon be defaulting on mortgages en masse, as would many homeowners and businesses.
By imposing sanctions on any individual, company or bank which did business with Chinese officials enforcing the new security law, this legislation set the stage for Washington to cut China’s access to the dollar; a move which would ultimately divide the world into Yuan and Dollar based currency blocs.
Spoiler alert: it doesn’t end well for Uncle Sam.
These economic provocations were accompanied by multiple rounds of good old fashion saber rattling.
It’s worth noting that by this time these islands were fully militarized and operational; complete with ports, runways and other facilities that gave the Chinese a clear strategic advantage.
At this stage the rest of the world was beginning to suspect that Uncle Sam was experiencing some form of cognitive decline. He wasn’t playing four dimensional chess here. He didn’t even seem to be playing with a full deck.
This was like a drunk guy poking a tiger with a stick (probably not going to end well).
The provocations would continue on multiple fronts: embassies ordered to close, Chinese companies sanctioned or banned from operating in the U.S. Anything and everything connected to China was open game.
China condemned each of these provocations but they didn’t take the bait. Their response would come when was in their strategic interests. They would choose their own timing. If direct conflict could be averted long enough, the U.S. was likely to collapse on its own. The war could be won without firing a shot.
The high probability of war when an emerging power threatens the dominance of an international hegemon.
Meanwhile back in the U.S. of A. the violence and mayhem in the streets was intensifying. Businesses, government buildings and vehicles had been burning virtually every night for months on end. Protesters and counter protesters were now bringing semiautomatic weapons to the scene.
By September there were multiple fatalities on each side.
Perception of these events was increasingly polarized. The left and the right were no long behaving like political factions of a nation. They had devolved into hostile tribes fighting for control of a territory.
A radicalized strain of thought that directly endorsed violence as a political tool was metastasizing among a new generation of activists. A growing contingent had convinced themselves that they could win in an armed conflict. This was a serious miscalculation.
(If you try to outgun the police and the military you’re going to have a bad time).
Here humanity approached a crossroad. Probabilities were coalescing as the crisis progressed.
Those who saw the stakes would feel an urgency. With every moment of inaction the likelihood of a tragic ending increased. Something had to be done.
What could an ordinary individual do to improve the outcome? Could the trajectory of history really be altered?
Some questions are best answered with a riddle.
Rather than predicting what comes next, let’s tell a story. This story has multiple endings and you get to choose.
It’s been said that every nation is three meals away from a revolution.
Never before had this principle been tested in so many countries simultaneously as it was in the 2020’s.
At first many held onto the hope that everything would soon go back to normal, but as the long term realities of the decade set in, more and more people would come to the same startling conclusion: the ‘authorities’ were out of their depth.
There was no exit strategy. The situation was not ‘under control’…
In the early stages of the crisis, when the first few governments were collapsing, very few realized how the conflux of economic, geopolitical and social variables were coalescing in a perfect storm.
But when G20 nations started dropping like flies the phenomenon it became impossible to ignore. Like dominoes falling, the collapse of one major economy destabilized every country connected to it. In the age of globalization very few would be spared.
What began as a trickle suddenly accelerated as the downfall of the U.S. dollar precipitated an unprecedented shock to global supply chains.
Imports ground to a halt all around the world. In countries dependent on outsourced food production and manufacturing this translated into widespread shortages and social unrest. In this environment extremist movements of all stripes flourished.
A small handful of nations would weather this storm peacefully. Rather than tearing themselves apart from within or transforming into totalitarian dictatorships, they would unify and adapt.
As economic and monetary shocks disrupted global supply chains and trade, these countries would quickly reorganize their economies to replace imports with local production – starting with food and essentials. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels was an important element of this transition.
To accomplish this feat every aspect of modern life was re-imagined.
Lawns were replaced by gardens; golf courses converted to orchards. Waste streams were recuperated to minimize losses. It wasn’t easy, but these countries pulled through, and before the decade was over, they were building regional trade networks that hadn’t existed before the crisis.
A lot of wealthy countries didn’t do so well in the second phase of the crisis; the part where real hardship kicked in. Populations accustomed to easy living and constant entertainment had a very short fuse.
As shortages and rationing became the new normal and homeless encampments grew, protests would morph into riots, armed uprisings and civil wars.
Governments that were ill prepared for these challenges crumbled quickly; some into the hands of populist movements, others to military juntas. In most cases the replacement was more brutal and repressive that the old system.
The underlying paradigm was rarely questioned at all.
Many regimes would extend their lifespan by totalitarian means. Emergency powers established under lockdown would prove invaluable here.
Policies previously justified by public health would now be implemented in the name of national security; control mechanisms adapted and repurposed to crack down on dissidents.
It was every petty dictator’s wet dream: granular control over every aspect of human behavior and interaction. No one allowed to gather in public without permission. Every contact tracked and traced. If you’re outside you better be prepared to show your papers.
This approach was most effective when the latent fears and hatreds of the population could be rallied against an enemy.
Convince a people that they are under attack and it’s easy to unify them under a flag.
Rather than rioting in the streets, impoverished youth can be conscripted into the military.
Their identities shattered and remolded; conditioned to obey; trained to kill on command.
Send them abroad to steal land and resources.
Use them at home to crush dissent.
War is – after all – the health of the state.
Regardless of which axis prevailed in these conflicts the result would be the same.
A new totalitarian order was the universal prescription; the only cure for the chaos.
The world’s first truly global currency would replace the dollar. This currency would be completely digital; coins and bank notes phased out. Every single transaction conducted using this currency would be recorded on a block blockchain.
Unlike the original cryptocurrencies this blockchain was controlled by a central authority and monitored with AI. Economic privacy a thing of the past.
It was the holy grail of ruling elite, the precursor for global governance with teeth, but before they even had time to properly congratulate themselves, their house of cards was already catching wind.
As living conditions deteriorate, and fear and uncertainty prevail, certain psychological forces are always unleashed. These forces are like the incoming waves of a tsunami.
Once they gather momentum there can be no stopping them.
Throughout history there have been individuals and movements who rode these waves; channeling the tides of human sentiment towards a course of action. Though the science of crowd psychology is complex and nuanced, the application of its principles is mind bogglingly simple.
So simple in fact, that intellectuals typically recoil from them, while bonafide idiots wield them easily (and to great effect).
Like riding a tsunami on a surfboard, attempting to redirect the momentum of a society is highly dangerous.
The crowd can lift a leader to great heights, but one mistake can leave them hanging from a lamp post. Those who manage to navigate these forces usually guard the formula carefully. Failure to do so would threaten the foundations of their power.
This time around however, humanity flipped the script.
In the age of the internet the science of crowd psychology and color revolutions had been available to the public for some time now, but very few saw the utility in studying it.
However as the 2020’s progressed, and it became more and it became more clear that that those in power were pushing civilization toward a dystopian nightmare, a contingent of activists would reverse engineer the tools being used against them.
The work of Gustave Le Bon and Edward Bernays would be modernized and tempered with a cultural code:
the positive application of human instinct.
The instinctual psychology of species can be harnessed for good or for evil. In the modern era it has been weaponized by the military industrial complex for regime change, and by corporations for marketing and public relations.
The same principles however can applied to create rather than destroy. Visions and values can spread like viruses from mind to mind, and from place to place.
The contagion of a single idea can inspire generations towards a new paradigm.
To topple a government is surprisingly easy when conditions are right. Silver spoon politicians who’ve never served or worked a day in their life can easily lose the respect and obedience of military and law enforcement. When that happens, it’s game over.
The question that always comes up in such events (usually as an afterthought) is what will you replace the old system with?
There is nothing more dangerous than armed men with utopian dreams. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.
History provides many cautionary tales. To avoid the trap of oppressed rising up to become the oppressor the paradigm that facilitates this dynamic has to be questioned.
The vast majority of modern governments, businesses and organizations utilize a social structure called vertical collectivism. Vertical collectivism is top down system of organizing human groups which amplifies power by stacking layers of authority in pyramids.
The result is a highly stratified society where those on the bottom have little or no say, and are left to fight over scraps from above.
Vertical collectivism is apolitical. Capitalists companies and Communist regimes both use it without contradiction, as do republics that call themselves democracies.
The vertical model was born of military strategy. A general or warlord alone can only control a small army, but by using subordinate officers in layers of rank, a single individual, or a small ruling class can dominate millions of people and vast territories.
This is why a state is often defined as the monopoly on violence within a region.
Vertical collectivism didn’t spread to every corner of the globe because it improved peoples lives.
Vertical collectivism spread like a cancer because it is brutally effective in the in the context of war.
Every culture that it encountered was either crushed on the battlefield or forced to copy the model to survive. The dawn of civilization – as many euphemistically refer to it – is a story of conquest and colonialization that began approximately 10,000 years ago and continues to this day.
This was not however, the beginning of the human story.
For over 300,000 years – long before the first empires of Asia and Europe began to absorb surrounding tribes – humans organized themselves using a very different model.
Rather than building top down, stratified societies that concentrated wealth and power in the hands of an upper class, these cultures organized horizontally.
Organizing horizontally didn’t mean that there were no leaders.
The authority and instincts are far older than humanity.
Like all social animals, our species is hardwired to follow those who demonstrate courage and intelligence.
However in horizontal societies disparities of wealth and power were significantly smaller.
The leaders and councils responsible for group decisions were not insulated by armies and law enforcement conditioned to obey without question.
Defense and order were maintained by an armed citizenry, bound by a code of conduct. This dynamic forced leaders to be directly accountable to the population.
Their power was rooted in their ability to communicate with the people, build consensus and chart a course of action to the benefit of all.
The fact that horizontal societies required leaders to work with the public in such a personal way had one obvious disadvantage: it limited the size of the group. After all, why would someone voluntarily follow someone far away that they never met?
There is however, a way around this limitation. By forming federations horizontal societies can expand their sphere influence significantly.
An example of this adaptation can be found in the Iroquois confederacy which unified 5 tribes for hundreds of years in the region that came to be called New York.
Each member tribe in the confederacy had their own culture and and internal governance, but a set of shared values enabled them to cooperate economically and militarily. If one tribe was attacked they quickly mounted a common defense.
Many historians believe that United States federal system was based on the Iroquois model. One significant difference however, was that the Iroquois had no central government. There was a central council comprised of representatives from each tribe, but this council had no power to enforce its will.
Each representative was tasked with building a consensus that would resonate with their people.
A modernized adaptation of this Iroquois model gained traction in the mid 2020s as the gears of globalization ground to a halt. While governments proved incapable of solving the most basic problems, decentralized networks were replacing the system from the ground up.
They would start by organizing local food production in their communities and gradually expand cooperation to other sectors.
Their revolution was driven by an idea worth spreading. Not only was it possible to live on this planet without destroying it, this way of life was more abundant and fulfilling than the alternative. There was no need to wait for governments to act. Humans are perfectly capable of organizing themselves.
Those that succeeded became epicenters of a new renaissance; attracting skilled workers and artists from all around the world.
Some of these travelers would put down permanent roots.
Others would return to their homeland to plant seeds of their own.
From the fragments of fallen empires new nations would be born.
From the ashes of dying cultures new cultures would rise.
The great collapse of the 2020’s was not the end of the world.
It was the end of an era, and the dawn of a new one…
Time To Flip The Script
Remember how we said this story has multiple endings?
We’re going take one of them to a literal extreme; and we’re going to do it in the real world.
Now if you’re living in a crowded city center, maybe pushing the boundaries starts by planting a garden in your front yard, organizing a community compost, or speaking out against a war.
However it’s important to understand that in the era we have entered the stakes are rising, and the trajectory we’re on needs to be altered significantly.
This implies fundamental changes in the way we livRemember how we said this story has multiple endings? We’re going take one of them to a literal extreme; and we’re going to do it in the real world.
(Those who piece together the clues, get through the filters, and pass quarantine will at some point find themselves standing here. GPS COORDINATES FLASH)
Now if you’re living in a crowded city center, maybe pushing the boundaries starts by planting a garden in your front yard, organizing a community compost, or speaking out against a war.
However it’s important to understand that in the era we have entered the stakes are rising, and the trajectory we’re on needs to be altered significantly. This implies fundamental changes in the way we live, not just gestures in right direction.
You have to decide what kind of story you and your family want to be a part of. In some cases this might involve immigrating to another country. Others will be more inclined to stay, and fight to change the outcome at home. One way or the other you’ll want to be in a place where you can grow food, and you’ll want to be set up to do this without agrochemical inputs or fossil fuels.
You also don’t want to be reliant on the grid. Utilities can and will go down. Some will be shocked by how long they can stay down.
These aren’t the kind of lifestyle changes you want to make at the last moment, or put off until you can do something large scale. Far better to start transitioning to a new way of life right now. Do what you can with what you have. Join forces with others to amplify.
The learning curve for this kind of transition can be steep. There are a lot of practical skills that we should be taught in school but aren’t. Most kids when they graduate… don’t know how to build a house, or grow a garden, or even how to make bread.
The best way to learn this stuff isn’t really in a classroom anyway. People learn best by example, anchored with hands on experience.
That’s why we built this place. You could think of it as an experiential learning center / maker space. This whole landscape is a laboratory.
Here we can put ideas to an extreme test.
Rather that just reading about this stuff or watching a presentation, volunteers and travelers from all over the world come here to do it themselves. They get their hands dirty in the field: planting plants, working with animals, building crazy structures like these.
They also get to experience first hand what it takes to self organize and live in a different way.
The experience is extreme, because the challenges we face are real. We’re completely off-grid here. Our electricity comes from the sun. We have running water by pumping from the spring up to a tank on the hill.
It’s also up to us to us to maintain the road and drainage. Up here when there’s a problem we have to put our heads together and find a way to solve it.
To put this in perspective, our first long term volunteer was here when we sustained a direct hit from hurricane Maria. He also assisted in the recovery and became part of the story.
Talk is cheap. If you really want to change the world you have to be able to show people how.
We’re doing this here in the Commonwealth of Dominica cause these people are moving in the right direction, and their culture holds some of the keys to the solution.
But where ever you decide to make your stand now is the time to get serious about food security.
Our challenge in the next phase is to grow more and develop local production systems to replace imports.
The President of Croatia hammered the media Monday after a reporter asked why the vaccination rate in Croatia is not as high as in other European Union countries. The Croatian President Zoran Milanovic retorted saying, “We will not be vaccinated anymore”.
Croatians have been “vaccinated enough” and should be allowed to accept the risks of becoming infected with COVID on their own terms, according to President Zoran Milanović.
President Milanović broke with the majority of his contemporaries in expressing frustration over medical authoritarianism and COVID hysteria pushed by the mainstream media and the globalists.
“We will not go more than 50 percent, let them fence us with wire,” Milanović said in recent statements to the press. “I don’t care. We’re vaccinated enough and everyone knows it.”
“We need to know what the goal of this frenzy is. If the goal is to completely eradicate the virus, then we have the goal. I have not heard that this is the goal. If someone tells me it’s a goal, I will tell him he’s out of his mind.”
“I start every day with CNN and those few channels and I wonder if I am normal or are they crazy,” he said. “They spread panic. They do it from the beginning.”
Continuing to express his frustration, Milanovic said there is “simply no chance” Croatia’s vaccination rate is “endangering” anyone, because all the other countries are heavily vaccinated, and therefore have no reason to fear unvaccinated Croatians.
“There is no life without risk, without the possibility of getting sick. People get sick from a thousand other more serious things, and while that’s happening we’ve been talking about COVID-19 for a year and a half.”
“Okay, [one] year. I understand. I justify. I was fdor it. Since the New Year, I have only listened [to] nonsense.”
On the other hand, Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries on earth, is nothing less than a disaster. The Israel vaccine crisis should be a warning to the rest of the world.