Given claims that the West’s dissidents are slaves to crackpot conspiracies, the oxymoron of conspiracy theories needs examining by first stating what a theory is, by then going on to say what a conspiracy is and by examining how such name-calling is central to NATO’s dark agenda.

With that in mind, Steven Weinberg’s The Revolution That Didn’t Happen, his primer on what constitutes a theory, should be required reading for all those university professors, who teach their nonsense subjects to prospective journalists and social media influencers. (They know who they are, even if they are unsure of their pronouns).

As well as castigating Thomas Kuhn who, Weinberg asserts, should have known better than to spread his paradigm shift nonsense to the four winds, Weinberg tells us that there are two basic classes of theories, the deterministic and the stochastic, each of which remains important to this day.

Deterministic theories include Newtonian and Christian pre-determination theories, as well as Malthusian fatalism and similar off-shoots. In such worlds, the end result can never be in doubt: drop the apple, it falls to the ground; be a good Calvinist, go to Calvinist heaven.

Speckled about them, as the ether is to Maxwell’s equations, were Catholic notions of legions of angels and demons jousting with each other to win our souls. Kings, queens and other monarchs blended neatly into this over-identified model and folk knew on which rung of Jacob’s stairway to heaven they stood both in regard to God and to the King, God’s earthly representative and enforcer.

Greek philosophers like Aristotle helped solidify this hierarchy, where women essentially got the short straw partly because, as Aristotle explained, women have less teeth than men. It was not until Spenser came along some 2000 years later that folk got the novel notion of counting how many teeth men and women actually had to determine if Aristotle’s hypothesis was correct or not. Suffice to say that Weinberg says the only use a philosopher has is to protect us from other philosophers.

There arose then a gradual trend not to accept theologies, no matter how complete, beautiful or over-identified they seemed. Folk started measuring things and, in the process, they noted anomalies, exceptions to pre-conceived notions which would eventually cause the underlying theories to be modified, if not scrapped altogether and it was confusion on this point that dragged Kuhn and oodles of Gender Studies cretins into their self-made abyss; Arthur Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers makes some important remarks on Galileo and other frauds in this regard.

It was, for example, such calculations that got most of us to accept the world is not flat and that Newtonian physics works perfectly, but only in a Newtonian world where gravity is king. Thus, although we no longer believe in Maxwell’s ether, and we now know that there is more to nature than Newton’s particles, no future discovery can ever hope to alter the fundamental logic of their work. Both Maxwellian electrodynamics and Newtonian mechanics will remain integral parts of human knowledge until the end of time.

Branching far out from physics, we can have deterministic and/or stochastic theories on just about anything tangible and measurable. Measurement through appropriate models allows us to set insurance premiums as women, on average, live longer than men, men are more risk prone, and so-called Acts of God, though rare, can be devastating and so should be insured against at an appropriate premium that can be measured. But conspiracies?

Conspiracies are a legal fact and one can hardly have a theory about a fact. Prior to the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, trade unions were regarded as criminal conspiracies and the Tolpuddle Martyrs ended up being transported as convicted felons because they were part of a conspiracy, of a trade union, in other words. Guy Fawkes and his pals suffered terrible deaths because they were captured conspirators. Elements of the Catholic hierarchy condemned the Irish-American Fenian conspiracy and likewise condemned Freemasonry as a conspiracy. And then we have the persons unknown trial where Irishmen were convicted of conspiring with persons unknown at times unknown to commit crimes unknown. Though those conspiracies were all legal, historical facts, they in no way constitute building blocks for a theory on conspiracies or on anything else.

Canada’s truckers are not conspiracy theorists. They are blue collar workers, who want government conspirators to get off their backs and out of their bank accounts. French citizens protesting in solidarity with them are not conspiracy theorists, even though the French educational system devotes far too much time to philosophy. They are simply French citizens, who are carrying on the proud French tradition of protesting for their own notions of liberty, equality and fraternity. Kiwi protesters simply object to a pampered World Economic Forum fascist being foisted upon them.

As regards the Masons, though an endless number of allegations have been made against them, those allegations do not make a theory. They are observations, real or imagined, on how Freemasons work and they lead to hypotheses, which must be tested. Now, those who say the Masons, the Jesuits, the Jews or any broadly similar group control world affairs fall down at this very important hurdle: because theories or hypotheses such as theirs, which purport to explain everything, actually explain nothing, they are stilted theologies that get us absolutely nowhere.

One either accepts their theology and joins their cult or one continues to question and test and to ultimately reject all such cults, including those with massive marketing budgets, the biggest of which is that, which empowers and enriches our regional, national and trans-national overlords. And, although their marketeers seem to be all froth and no substance, they have been very successful froth peddlers ever since Edward Bernays first pulled the wool over governments and women more than 100 years ago. To believe that our political overlords have been on the level with us all that time is to display an innocence that belongs only in a cloistered convent and that is a destination the Gender Studies legions would object to, just as they object to much else.

What these strange folk are doing is hijacking the received narrative to shape today. Gone, for example, is the Bradleyist interpretation of the Shakespearian tragedy and even JK Rowling is being exiled from her own Harry Potter franchise because she won’t accept Alice in Wonderland’s Humpty Dumpty logic regarding the definition of womanhood.

The Bradleyist interpretation of Shakespeare is relevant as unorthodox, unpopular or downright stupid interpretations of history are held up as symptoms of these so-called conspiracy theorists. But historians do not work to theories; they consult, as far as is practicable, primary sources and draw conclusions, hopefully bias-free, therefrom for others to build upon. Because these soft sciences have no hard component equivalent to Maxwell’s equations, their ether lends itself to manipulation by the gullible, as well as those with sinister agendas.

That much should be obvious and, although this cancer is bad enough in literature and history, its toxins are now seeping into the hard sciences, exposures like that of the Sokal hoax notwithstanding.

Sokal noticed Jacques Derrida claiming to understand Einstein’s constant and proving he didn’t. Sokal wondered how abstruse mathematical topics not used in chemistry or biology and only very rarely in physics could possibly become relevant in the humanities or social sciences. Sokal showed these hucksters were using all the well established tricks of the intellectual charlatan and he exposed Julia Kristeva, Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrillard and Gilles Deleuze as the self-serving frauds that they were.

Postmodernism and similar schools are, Sokal shows, the software through which the hardware of ineffective, reactionary remedies enter the socio political system. To be blunt about it, French philosophers like Jacques Derrida have even less to offer than does Aristotle and that also applies to the university departments they continue to poison. They are far worse than any conspiracy minded barfly.

Although conspiracy theory canards should be debated and then dismissed as the red herrings that they are, we cannot debate The World Economic Forum’s Humpty Dumptys where words means precisely what they want them to mean. If we are ever to break free from their shackles, we must first articulate a platform that resonates with society’s real stakeholders. But, as Sokal asserts, we will not do that with the narcissistic sophistry of Derrida and his chums. Rather, we must instead challenge those like Trudeau, Macron and Ardern, who mask their virtue signalling fascism in the honeyed maze of Derrida and the reactionary Gender Studies tripe he spawned.

The case against Covid mandates, as articulated by Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore and Robert Kennedy Jnr, exemplifies. These three, amongst others, have not only shredded the accepted Covid narrative but, irrespective of whether they are “right” or “wrong” or whether they adhere to some conspiracy worshipping coven or other, they have given us cause to question and debate that narrative.

But debate is the very last thing the World Economic Forum’s Young Leaders want or can handle. Debate is bad for business, debate slows down decision-making and debate is, in any case, redundant as those who profit from Covid have, so they proclaim, settled the science once and forever.

And that is the key and cardinal point. The World Economic Forum’s consuls declare that those they oppose are conspiracy cultists, who should be cancelled, much like Rome cancelled the Catacomb dwellers. JK Rowling? A TERF, so persecute her. Canadian truckers? Theoretical heretics, so rob $10 million from them. Dostoevsky? Russian, so off with his head and kick his cat.

How, why and to what benefit ? The how has been a gradual ongoing and well funded war of attrition where these subversives took an inch on academia’s lowest rung and, with massive funding and targeted intimidation, expanded to where they have even expelled JK Rowling from her own franchise. The why has been to emasculate us all and, as the Harry Potter saga shows, to even cancel the imaginations of children. The benefit to the World Economic Forum and their NATO enforcers is to allow us collude in them cancelling Russia, the world’s biggest country, from our intellectual, economic, cultural, historical and even geographical space. Not even Harry Potter or Humpty Dumpty could conceptualize that degree of nihilistic madness.

For all their philosophical flaws, the French have the right idea when they kick against these pricks and strive, however imperfectly, for liberté, égalité, fraternité, for grounded ideals which are infinitely nobler than those who rule over them and over us. We, on the other hand, have fallen so far from grace one doubts we will ever rise again. And somewhat like how Delilah emasculated Samson, so also have we been seduced not with a bang from a gendarme’s truncheon but by the Gender Studies whimperings of insipid politicians. The price for our submission can be seen not only in our crumbling cities but in the endless wars NATO pretends to be fighting on our behalf.

If we look at it all through a stochastic rather than a deterministic lens, then things may not be that grim. The coming economic turbulence may be a blessing as well as the curse it will undoubtedly be, if we reject Foucault’s pretentiousness and shift our efforts back towards criticizing our failing economies, our corrupt states and our compromized leaders, whilst also improving our daily lives, reading Dostoevsky, adhering to grounded ideologies, and promoting sober social relations and community-rooted cultures. Striving, in short, for a life worth living, free from the petty chicanery of those who benefit from parroting NATO’s conspiracy theory slurs to deflect from their own vile conspiracies and viler intrigues.

The current situation in Ukraine has once again invigorated the lying Western media and sent them into an anti-Russian frenzy. For the last two years the media has been enthusiastically pushing the genocidal Covid narrative on behalf of the Globalist faction. Whatever doubtful credibility they had prior to Covid they have destroyed with their relentless lies. With an astonishing lack of self-awareness they are now pushing the anti-Russian narrative like the unprincipled mindless hacks that they are. Ignoring both facts and context they are relentlessly promoting war propaganda to justify this hostility to their own beleaguered populations.

The unfortunate reality is that despite unprecedented distrust in the media that propaganda works. Anti-Russian sentiment is rising throughout the West. We have witnessed the same phenomena with the rabid anti-China narrative emanating from Western governments and their client stenographers in the media. The message is clear, unless you are a pliant puppet of the Anglo-American empire, then obviously you are evil and must be destroyed.

The truth of course is deeper, the real war the Globalists are fighting is against the citizenry of every country on earth. As the Covid atrocity is being rapidly exposed the repression of the people is the only option open to the New World Order Davos cabal. As has always been the case, a war abroad is the best excuse to impose tyranny at home. The Western Neo-liberal governments of America, Canada, Australia and most of Europe cannot afford to be removed from power. The full anger of the people will be unleashed full power against those who imposed the Genocidal Covid lie upon them. Trudeau, Macron et al will be held to account (one way or another) for their pivotal roles in this atrocity. They cannot allow that to happen, they have too much to lose.

The tragic and unnecessary conflict in the Ukraine can be viewed as the “Great Reset War”. Although targeted towards Russia for media purposes, its real objective is the further subjugation of the peoples of their own countries. The Western Neo-liberal agenda is failing on every front, economically, socially and morally. The Cabal has destroyed the once prosperous and free societies that they governed. The dystopian future that they have planned for the world is now plain for all to see. It has been on display in Canada and Australia, New Zealand and throughout Europe. It is a prospect that should alarm everybody.

“The Great Reset” is the Cabal’s way of ensuring that the same Globalists who plunged the world into chaos are still in charge after the coming inevitable collapse. The Green agenda and the 4th industrial revolution are about de-industrialising the world and destroying successful industrial competitors such as Russia and China. Not surprisingly, neither Russia or China, along with India and Iran are going along with this insidious plan. They are not alone, many countries from Africa, South America and Asia are also gravitating more towards the Russian/Chinese orbit. All have good reasons to be distrustful and angry at the Empire. The Cabal is weak and failing, it has created powerful enemies who are formidable obstacles to the New World Order and the Great reset. Expect this to embolden other countries to resist the Empire’s plans.

The Empire doesn’t care about the Ukrainians anymore than they care about the people in their own countries. It is about maintaining control over humanity. President Putin is not in essence fighting the Ukraine, he is fighting the N.W.O. And that is everyone’s fight. The battle being waged by the West is for the minds of the Western people so they can justify the imposition of further tyranny. Until recently, President Putin has demonstrated incredible restraint, despite the incessant lies and aggression he has pursued peace and diplomacy. This has not been reciprocated, it has been meet with more lies and provocations. It has been faced with only two options, capitulate or resist, he has resisted. Russia’s fight is the fight of all peoples who value freedom and resist tyranny.

We are all Russians now.

A funny thing happens when corporate culture becomes indistinguishable from government culture. Corporatized governments promote and grant authority to those ‘ambitious’ individuals who can best over-sell and over-promise results. Think of unimpressive appointees like Trudeau, Ardern, Johnson, and Morrison.

At first glance it doesn’t really matter that these aims are unattainable. But it does matter, because from it we can crystalize this axiom: the more impossible the dream, the more it promotes the likes Ardern, et al.

As each one percent increase in unemployment sustained over a year creates some thirty-six thousand ‘deaths of despair’, a widely known and published fact, the shutting down of economies several years ago was going to cause millions of such deaths as initial unemployment rates in the U.S. alone spiked to nearly 15% according to Pew Research.

Ambitious leaders in league with the IMF/WEF were onboard with this, knowing full well the consequences. It was the pushback from popular ‘populist’ forces that prevented this early on, and in the U.S. a strong case can be made that the White House itself was on the side of these populist forces at the time, as it called for an opening of the U.S. economy and fought openly with governors from blue states.

But the eager-to-please misleaders in service of the IMF, for their part, would never approach any success without an entire cultural substrate. Narratives are a type of soft power, and like all forms of power, narratives can only go so far. We are now witnessing now just how far they can go.

Narratives are just ‘stories in our heads’. But if these are shared with broader communities, real or virtual/digital, then they are reinforced and become part of reality.

The WEF and the IMF it works for have a grand plan for the future – the technocratic aims of which are by now thoroughly understood. The WEF begins with these aims as a foregone conclusion, and so the only questions they wanted answered were ‘Who will carry it out?’, and ‘How will it be done?’

Whether or not it can be done (let alone, ‘should be done’) is not a question they are interested in. It’s a non-starter, because these things simply have to be done.

But this is a positive sign, is it not? The corporate culture of over-selling and over-promising investors and shareholders works in the public’s interest insofar as these catastrophically dystopian aims are far less stable or realizable than advertised.

In other words, the public has been resisting illegal legislation and shattering the narrative which justifies it, and so resetism itself is in danger of failure.

This much has meant the organic development of a counter-narrative, one that resonates with increasing layers in affected societies. Big tech oligarchs have done their part in trying to police, punish, and silence this counter-narrative.

Elites have fallen into a vicious cycle, as the populist counter-narrative is proven in part by that very censorship and repression. The more they push, the weaker they become.

Yet that point is so very well understood by Sorosian Color Revolutionary social engineers, planners, organizers, that one might raise some greater suspicion. It is indeed an axiom of Gene Sharp books like From Democracy to Dictatorship – A Conceptual Framework for Liberation (2012)and one of the most important points to make in popular organizing against ‘regimes’.

Each time the ‘regime’ attempts to make some ‘show of strength’, the counter-narrative prevails as mass publics understand that ‘shows of strength’ are derived from crises of strength and actual weakness.

Freedom, like love, come from places of strength. Dictatorship, like fear, come from a place of losing control. And power is like water, the more you grasp at it, the faster you lose it.

The absolute panic is palpable.

The Majority of People Trust Their Elites Less

One thing the WEF does by positioning itself as some independent watch-dog critic of a rapacious globalist oligarchy, when in fact it is employed by them, is demonstrate that they are ‘tuned in’ to how mass publics think and feel.

This is meant to subvert ‘tired’, ‘dated’, and ‘slow-to-change’ constitutional institutions.

Technocrats mean to show that by simple analysis of internet user data – their hopes, dreams, proclivities, political views and biases – they can arrive at top-down solutions which somehow reflect the user data.

They can then use state-of-emergency laws to enact these solutions into law, or into practice. So much of actual life takes place in the private sphere, that simple collusion and agreement between corporate chiefs on police is already enough to take the place of government and law. Elections are a cumbersome thing of the past, and – they reason – can be done away with.

As a managerial class, here they show the ruling class that because they so very well understand the ‘people’, they are capable of using an entire array of social sciences to achieve the desired result which they have over-promised and over-sold.

At the November 11^th 2021 WEF forum in Dubai, “The Great Narrative Meeting”, held in collaboration between the UAE government and World Economic Forum, which aligned with the announcement of the new book by Schwab and Malleret, The Great Narrative, (published December 28^th 2021), it was disclosed by panelist Ngaire Woods, Professor of Global Economic Governance at Oxford University, that global elites are now more trusting of each other than ever before, but that the people they rule over – nation by nation respectively – are far less trusting of their own rulers

Woods went on to say that one obstacle to governments’ Covid restrictions and climate measures in the coming years was that “the majority of people trust their elites less.”

Ngaire Woods, Professor of Global Economic Governance at Oxford University

“At Davos a few years ago [surveys] showed us that the good news is the elite across the world trust each other more and more,” … “So we can come together and design and do beautiful things together.

“The bad news is that in every single country they were polling, the majority of people trusted their elite less. So we can lead but if people aren’t following we aren’t going to get to where we want to go.”

The WEF’s new release, The Great Narrative, with its fixation on fake news, is as much an admission of guilt as it is recognition of failure.

The sheer speed, magnitude and scope of the weaponization of Covid-19 to prop up a police-state in Western democracies was a demoralizing psychological operation, an act of political warfare not of nation against nation, but of elites against mass populaces.

This was an information warfare blitzkrieg. But without a decisive vernichtungsschlacht (battle of annihilation), they only left their own line of assault riddled with holes and supply-line issues. Nothing can hide a genuine lack of real preparedness as such displays of confidence. Of course, both their ability to succeed and their operating narrative seemed plausible enough when they launched their attack.

Now, these holes and supply-line issues are termed ‘Fake News’, and this frames the primary focus of The Great Narrative and is the real root of all issues admittedly discussed in the introduction (pg 12-19).

The rest of the thinking world understands instantly what this means: the WEF is calling for further censorship and repression of any alternative narratives.

And yet the hurried pace of the Covid-19 introduced Great Reset, and the way that a sizable portion of the populace has been able to expose it, reject it, and organize with some successes against it, also raises questions.

Was the Great Reset hurried?

What events forced the elites to make this happen now, instead of later?

What conditions would have been riper, and why were those conditions not fostered in advance?

As we have developed this so far in our work on the subject, it indeed appears that the Great Reset was launched with an insufficient foundation for reasons which expose the weakness of the plan. This seems to leave sizable room for the possibility that a notable split within the plutocracy now exists. This can be understood in terms of looking at the future possible outcomes in terms of the balance of class dynamics: billionaires are themselves stratified.

This stratification and conflict among elites is critical to understanding the present balance of forces.

Regardless of political orientation, the predominant error made among citizen-activists pushing back against Resetism is to resort to a default vulgar leftism in their interpretation of the motivations of the elite.

The error here is to project class solidarity onto the owning class. This error is easy to make for a number of reasons, and mostly because indeed the owning class does get behind many if not most of the upwards redistribution schemes which they all benefit from. But these moves tend to conceal or distort the real division which exist among them.

There are signs that their gambit is faltering and those developments were forecasted in our previous work on the subject The Globalist Dilemma: How to Implement a 4th Industrial Revolution Without Losing Power.

Chiefly, their plans were overly publicized, for reasons likely unavoidable given the number of governments, NGOs and organizations required to execute it. Despite their use of euphemisms and the language of human rights and economic development, those parts of the concerned public including lower-order elites, all could see what was really afoot.

In short, the public’s tolerance was misapprehended and through this, the public’s ability to wage a counter-offensive was possibly underestimated. Or conversely – and this also fits the bill –the position of the public to act in the public interest was accurately understood, but the plan had to go forward anyhow.

Either miscalculation would not in and of itself spell demise for the orchestrated Reset agenda.

The rate, volume, and type of upwards capital redistribution is a strong indicator of where the Great Reset agenda stands. But these move in a complex, non-linear fashion. And furthermore, what we can compare the changes to in a concrete sense, are changes over a preceding similar period of time. By that matrix alone, we can say there has been some ‘success’ in the Great Reset scheme.

But comparing this to what was really aimed for, what could have been if executed as it appears they had designed, presents another picture entirely.

A Great Reset in Crisis – A failure to Manufacture Consent

The Non Profit Industrial Complex was not deployed to soft-sell the Great Reset prior to its announcement. Instead, it came all at once, out of nowhere. And for those reasons, it was clumsily attached to their work-to-date (on climate change and poverty reduction).

Suddenly it seemed like a decade or so of propaganda was missing to connect these dots, between climate change, poverty on the one hand, and neuro-implanting and track and tracing the populace, on the other. That’s because there was a decade missing.

A gradual process of building support for the Great Reset, through manufacturing consent, (through building up these ideas through academia and the press, in popular culture and in media), could have been carried out.

The fact that it was not presents us with a contradictory set of postulates. The direct and brutal ‘honesty’ of the reset, in which the medium is the message (“do it because we say!”) makes it easier to combat. At the same time, it raises serious questions as to its timing and its method.

All together then, the release of The Great Narrative is all the more fascinating. This acts much like a sequel to Covid-19: The Great Reset, which itself served the role of narrative instruction. Intended as much for university students as for public relations agencies and politicians, in reading it one discovers all the errors and narrative points which failed to be useful, be related to actual events, and so on.

There is such a discrepancy between the narrative and predicted events in The Great Reset, and what has actually occurred, that we can understand all the better what The Great Narrative had to be written and released so hastily.

It will be an important research task therefore to compare the differences between these two texts.

Ever since the conclusion WWII, western elites have opted for a course of historical development on the foundation of ‘gradual reforms and change’. This, as opposed to the radicalism and rapid changes saw in the first fifty years of the 20^th century.

Many of the changes to the geopolitics of the world and Europe envisioned by the architects of the Third Reich are being implemented today by western elites, but these changes are delivered incrementally and slowly over a period of seven decades instead of seven years.

Through this, concerns can be addressed and cohesion in and among elites can be built. The rapid pace of changes seen in the first half of the 20^th century raised concerns, and caused divisions between western elites, and provoked a ‘histamine’ reaction from the populations in question.

When populations use social media to openly discuss the holes in the mainstream narrative, their comments and posts are called ‘fake news’. Fact checkers say so, even though a recent lawsuit against Facebook revealed through FBs rejoinder that Zuckerberg considers the views of the fact checkers to be merely opinions. “Facebook Quietly Admits Its Third-Party ‘Fact-Checks’ Are ‘Opinions’”

The need to openly talk about ‘narratives’ and combatting fake news as the WEF does, is itself a sign of the times and a sign of their own weakness. The Resestist narrative is crumbling, and lacking popular support they resort to an unstable repression.

See Part I for how RAND and its creed “systems analysis” was created and how Albert Wohlstetter would ultimately become the kingpin of RAND.

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: the Fabian Society

For us to understand what ultimately made Albert Wohlstetter the man he became we must first start with the story of Bertrand Russell. And for this, we must begin with the Fabian Society.

The Fabian Society was founded on January 4^th, 1884 in London as an offshoot of The Fellowship of the New Life, which in turn was founded just one year earlier by Scottish philosopher Thomas Davidson. The Fellowship advocated pacifism, vegetarianism and simple living, under the influence of Leo Tolstoy’s ideas. (1) Some of its members also wanted to become politically involved in transforming society which led to the formation of the Fabian Society.

One of the nine founding members of the Fabian Society was Frank Podmore, who was also an influential member of the Society for Psychical Research.

Alfred Russell Wallace, William Crookes, F.W.H. Myers and renown psychologist William James’ work on mediums, telepathy and materializations led to the founding of the Society of Psychical Research, the Theosophical Society and their American branches.

Alfred Russell Wallace was a close associate of T.H. Huxley (Darwin’s bulldog) and co-founded the theory of natural selection alongside Charles Darwin.

The Fabian Society was extremely influenced by the ideas of Darwinism. Much of what they supported in terms of ideologies and philosophies was for the purpose of advancing Darwinism and saw Karl Marx’s newly published system as the perfect vehicle to carry Darwin’s logic into a controlling ideology to organize the masses.

Karl Marx himself was very much drawn to the ideas of Darwin, including two explicit references to Darwin and evolution in the second edition of Das Kapital. (2)

Marx would write in a letter that:

“Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.”

In a book review of the first volume of Das Kapital, Engels wrote that Marx was “simply striving to establish the same gradual process of transformation demonstrated by Darwin in natural history as a law in the social field.” (3)

The Fabian Society would define itself as a socialist movement, influenced by Karl Marx and the Marxist Social Democratic Federation soon founding England’s Labour Party in 1900. The party’s constitution was written by Fabian Society leader Sidney Webb and borrowed heavily from the founding documents of the Fabian Society.

Immediately upon its inception, the society featured such prominent eugenicists such as George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Huxley’s protégé H.G. Wells, Arthur Balfour, founder of Geopolitics Halford Mackinder and Bertrand Russell.

Prominent Theosophist Annie Besant would also become a member of the Fabian Society upon its inception, and was the leading speaker for both the Fabian Society and the Marxist Social Democratic Federation.

At the core of the Fabian Society were Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who would also help co-found the London School of Economics (LSE), with Rothschild funding, to propagate the Fabian Society outlook in 1895.

Harold Laski, one of Britain’s most influential intellectual spokesmen for Marxism, would become a Fabian Society member, a professor at the LSE (1926-1950), and a chairman of the British Labour Party (1945-1946).

Bertrand Russell would teach social democracy at LSE from 1895-1896 and from 1937-1938 lectured on the science of power. On the official site of LSE, Russell is credited as “one of the spiritual and financial founders of LSE…[whose] involvement in the early life of the School helped to define its ethos.”

The Coefficients club was also set up by Sidney and Beatrice Webb and included among its membership H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, as well as Leo Amery, Harold Laski, Halford Mackinder (who was Director of the LSE from 1903-1908), Alfred Milner and Clinton Edward Dawkins (the three times great uncle to the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins).

The name “Fabian” is derived from the Roman General Quintus Fabius, known as the Cunctator from his strategy of delaying his attacks against the invading Carthaginians until the right moment, and who’s fame is founded on having beaten Hannibal by never engaging in direct combat.

In the founding Fabian document it is written: “For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.”

Fabians would advocate the strategy of permeation, whereby you affect the change you want to see by slowly permeating all levels of society’s controlling structures. Once you have permeated sufficiently you can strike collectively and essentially take over from within. It would be a technique that the Trotskyists would become notorious for, such as with the French Turn.

As Matthew Ehret wrote in his “Origins of the Deep State”:

“The Fabian society program focused on broad social welfare programs such as universal health care, mass education, and better working conditions which were designed to attract the disenfranchised masses. Under the Fabian program, such programs held no substance in reality, as the true means to justify their creation was banned…[that is]…true scientific and technological progress…

This ruse was thus designed to merely bring the will of the lower classes under the deeper influence of a ruling oligarchy via the promise of ‘democratic socialism’ and a naïvely utopian ‘end of history’ ideal…The controllers of Fabian Socialism are not, nor have they ever been ‘democratic socialists’…”

At its heart, Fabianism was merely fascism with a “scientific” socialist face.

Matthew Ehret writes:

“The Round Table movement served as the intellectual center of the international operations to regain control of the British Empire and took on several incarnations over the 20th century. It worked in tandem with the Coefficients Club, the Fabian Society, and the Rhodes Trust, all of whom witnessed members moving in and out of each others ranks.”

Historian Carrol Quigley, wrote of this cabal in his posthumously published “Anglo-American Establishment”:

“This organization [the Round Table]…has been the most powerful single influence in All Souls, Balliol, and New Colleges at Oxford for more than a generation…it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it.”

H.G. Wells was chairman of the League of Free Nations Association and published his call for “world peace” in his book “The Idea of a League of Nations” published in 1919.

The purpose was again to lure people in with glorious promises of a “social democracy” while in fact weakening nation states such that they would be unable to resists the coming of a new world empire.

H.G. Wells would publish “The New World Order” in 1940, and was no doubt the guiding influence on Julian Huxley’s outlook when he wrote the manifesto for UNESCO.

Bertrand Russell’s “Proposed Roads to Freedom”

In 1918, Russell publishes “Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism”. Here are some relevant quotes:

“My own opinion – which I may as well indicate at the outset – is that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible…On the other hand, both Marxian Socialism and Syndicalism, in spite of many drawbacks, seem to me calculated to give rise to a happier and better world than that in which we live. I do not, however, regard either of them as the best practicable system…The best practicable system, to my mind, is that of Guild Socialism, which concedes what is valid both in the claims of the State Socialists and in the Syndicalist fear of the State by adopting a system of federalism among trades for reasons similar to those which have recommended federalism among nations.”

“The terrorist campaign in which such men as Ravachol were active practically came to an end in 1894. After that time, under the influence of Pelloutier, the better sort of Anarchists found a less harmful outlet by advocating Revolutionary Syndicalism in the Trade Unions and Bourse de Travail.”

“In England Marx has never had many followers. Socialism here has been inspired in the main by the Fabians…What remained was State Socialism and a doctrine of ‘permeation.’ Civil servants were to be permeated with the realization that Socialism would enormously increase their power. Trade Unions were to be permeated with the belief that the day for purely industrial action was pasts, and that they must look to Government (inspired secretly by sympathetic civil servants) to bring about, bit by bit, such parts of the Socialist programme as were not likely to rouse much hostility in the rich. The Independent Labour Party…was largely inspired at first by the ideas of the Fabians…It aimed always at cooperation with the industrial organizations of wage-earners, and chiefly through its efforts, the Labour Party was formed in 1900 out of a combination of the Trade Unions and the political Socialists. To this party, since 1909, all the important Unions have belonged, but in spite of the fact that its strength is derived from Trade Unions, it has stood always for political rather than industrial action.”

“Anarchism, which avoids the dangers of State Socialism, has dangers and difficulties of its own…Nevertheless it remains an ideal to which we should wish to approach as nearly as possible, and which, in some distant age, we hope may be reached completely…The system we have advocated is a form of Guild Socialism, leaning more, perhaps, towards Anarchism than the official Guildsman would wholly approve. It is in the matters that politicians usually ignore – science and art, human relations, and the joy of life – that Anarchism is strongest… ”

In his “Proposed Roads to Freedom” Russell makes it clear that he is most sympathetic to the philosophy of Mikhail Bakunin and Prince Kropotkin, who were both involved with the Mounte Verità society, a sister branch to the Theosophists (refer here for the relevance of this).

Interestingly, Russell’s proposed roads to freedom, that is, socialism, anarchism and syndicalism all lead to the same destination point…the League of Nations.

Russell writes:

“If the peace of the world is ever to become secure, I believe there will have to be, along with other changes, a development of the idea which inspires the project of a League of Nations.”

Thus, Russell is all for minimising the power of the State until we can reach the “ideal,” in the form of a world empire.

The Unity of Science: Radical Positivists, Eugenicists, and Anarchists Unite

The Vienna Circle of Logical Empiricism was a group of philosophers and scientists who met regularly from 1924 to 1936 at the University of Vienna. The Vienna Circle’s influence on 20th-century philosophy, especially philosophy of science and analytic philosophy, is immense up to the present day.

The philosophical position of the Vienna Circle was called logical empiricism (aka: logical positivism). It was greatly influenced by such members as Ernst Mach, David Hilbert, and Bertrand Russell. The Vienna Circle was committed to the ideals of the Enlightenment and its aim was to make philosophy “scientific” with the help of modern logic.

This was very much along the line of what David Hilbert (member of the Vienna Circle) had called for at the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1900, whereby Hilbert put forth the thesis that all scientific knowledge should be reduced to the form of mathematical “logic.” Thus, all “scientific” knowledge would henceforth be solely deducible from mathematical models.

In 1900, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead (who taught Russell) set forth to achieve Hilbert’s challenge which resulted in the three volume “Principia Mathematica” published thirteen years later. The Principia would be the new Bible in many ways for generations of analytical philosophers and logical positivists.

Continuing along these lines, the Unity of Science Movement was organized in the late 1930s by former members of the Vienna Circle of Logical Empiricists, such as Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, and new members such as Ernest Nagel. The greatest aim being to create an encyclopedia that would establish how the unity of sciences should proceed, bringing together intellectuals to establish a fortress against the chaotic terrain of politics, which was extremely adverse to the “ideals” of a scientific way of life. All contributors to this process agreed that the progress of science should eventually create a “scientific world-conception,” helping to build (or control) a big picture of what science means.

“Encyclopedia and Unified Science” would be published by the movement with this aim. The first edition came out in 1938 and was co-written by Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, Charles Morris, John Dewey, Niels Bohr and Bertrand Russell.

Interestingly, science fiction was considered just as important as the logic of science to this world-conception.

Though H.G. Wells was not an official member of this movement, we should keep in mind that he was always committed to the same goals as Russell. Wells was not only a world famous writer of science fiction, but was also working on his own new secular Bible series in three books designed to unite all forms of knowledge. (4)

Among this trilogy is “The Science of Life” co-written with Julian Huxley, and meant to give a popular account of all major aspects of biology as known in the 1920s. It is credited with introducing modern ecological concepts and emphasised the importance of behaviourism and Jungian psychology (Jung was a member of the Mounte Verità society).

It also promoted Eugenics.

Julian Huxley, Vice President (1937-1944) and President of the British Eugenics Society (1959-1962) was the one to coin the term “transhumanism.” Julian was also the first director-general of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in 1946, to which he wrote its mandate “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.”

Norbert Wiener was taught by Bertrand Russell at Cambridge and by David Hilbert at the University of Göttingen. He would go on to found “cybernetics.”

John Dewey, a member of the Unity of Sciences movement, would greatly dictate and shape a global educational reform, which was promoted by UNESCO, and has immense influence to this day.

It was clear that along with a world government, you would need a world-conception of what is regarded or approved of as “scientific,” all else would be thrown into the dust bin and would be considered unfit to shape policy. This was enforced by the construct of a global education system to implement the “right” sort of ideas and forbid the “wrong” sort.

Russell would put it forth most succinctly in his “The Scientific Outlook” (1931):

“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviorism and biochemistry will be brought into play… all the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called “cooperative” i.e.: to do exactly what every body else is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished will be scientifically trained out of them.”

In 1953, Russell would update this creepy piece of work and make it even creepier, writing:

“It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment… This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”

If you think that sounds awfully similar to Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World,” it is because it is, in fact Russell was contemplating charging Aldous with plagiarism.

Albert’s Radical Days

Albert Wohlstetter started at City College of New York (CCNY) in 1931. It was here that he would be mentored by Morris Raphael Cohen, a professor of philosophy and mathematics and a Russian émigré with a nihilist background.

In the 1930s, City College had developed a reputation as the “proletarian Harvard,” and this was very much due to Cohen, who started a Marx Circle at CCNY. This Marx Circle met regularly at the Henry Street Settlement House, which had been established by followers of the Fabian Society.

The Henry Street Settlement House was purchased by Jacob Schiff in 1895, likely through Rothschild funding (recall Rothschild also funded the London School of Economics which was started by the leading Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb). By the 1930s the settlement house was being used for classrooms and residences. Schiff was a financier who went on to receive the Medal of the Rising Sun from Japan in exchange for providing $200 million for the Japan-Russo war and then went on to pour millions into the Bolsheviks that overturned Czarist Russia in 1917.

While a Professor of Philosophy at CCNY (1912-1938), Morris Raphael Cohen came under the influence of philosopher Thomas Davidson, founder of the Fellowship of the New Life from which the Fabian Society arose in 1884. Cohen’s “Marx Circle” continued within Davidson’s enterprise. Cohen also studied under William James, co-founder of the Society for Psychical Research (connections to the Theosophists), while at Harvard University.

Cohen was also strongly influenced by Bertrand Russell, who in turn held Cohen in high regard. Cohen would write in his autobiography “A Dreamer’s Journey”:

“It was the study of Russell’s Principia Mathematic which I began soon after I was appointed to teach mathematics at City College in 1902, that finally liberated me…Russell came closer to being my philosophical god than any one before or since…”

Cohen would also mentor Ernest Nagel and Sidney Hook at CCNY. All of these men were close mentors/friends to Albert Wohlstetter. Hook would become a leader of the Marxist faction at CCNY.

Nagel cowrote “An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method” with Morris Raphael Cohen, in 1934.

Ernest Nagel, one of the founders of the Unity of Science Movement, earned his PhD from Columbia University in 1931 and went on to spend his academic career there, becoming the first John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at the University in 1955.

Upon graduating from City College in 1934, at the age of twenty- one, Albert enrolled at Columbia Law School. Albert abandoned law school, after a year, for a graduate program in mathematics. He wrote his MA thesis under the supervision of Ernest Nagel and under the watchful eye of his friend, the philosopher and mathematical logician Willard Van Orman Quine. (5)

Alfred North Whitehead was Willard Van Orman Quine’s thesis supervisor for his Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard University in 1932. It was Whitehead who introduced Quine to Bertrand Russell which began their correspondence.

Morton White was another one of Ernest Nagel’s doctoral students, and a close friend of Albert (6) who would join the Fieldites (a Trotskyist splinter group) along with Albert.

It should be clear thus far that, Albert was heavily under the influence of the Unity of Science movement thinkers, with Fabian Society overlap, since his days at City College New York.

During Albert’s time as a student at Columbia University (1934-1939), he would become very close friends with militant philosopher and Trotskyist Sidney Hook and found a mentor in Columbia’s highly respected Art Historian and Trotskyist intellectual Meyer Schapiro. (7)

The reader should be aware that Sidney Hook is credited as having converted James Burnham (who, like Hook, was also a professor in philosophy at the New York University) to Trotskyism, acknowledged by Burnham himself in his autobiography. In 1933, along with Sidney Hook, Burnham helped to organize the socialist organization, the American Workers Party (AWP).

In 1934, Trotskyists in the Communist League of America (CLA) did a French turn on the American Workers Party (AWP), in a move that elevated the AWP’s James Burnham into the role of a Trotsky lieutenant and chief adviser.

Sidney Hook earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from Columbia University, under the supervision of John Dewey. It was at Columbia that Hook began the project that was to occupy him throughout the 1930s, of seeking a synthesis between Karl Marx’s “dialectical materialism” and Dewey’s pragmatism.

In the late 1930s, Hook assisted Trotsky in his efforts to clear his name in a special Commission of Inquiry headed by John Dewey, otherwise known as the Dewey Commission.

The Dewey Commission was initiated on March 1937 by the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky. The commission proclaimed that it had cleared Trotsky of all charges made during the Moscow Trials (8) and made the claim that Stalin had framed Trotsky.

This Commission was a pseudo-judicial process set up by American Trotskyists and its sympathizers. It had no power of subpoena, nor official imprimatur from any government.

Thus, we find a very clear overlap between the Unity of Science Movement and the Trotskyists.

Albert would co-write at least one article with Morton White an article for the “Partisan Review” (9) which was a very influential Marxist magazine that had become more Trotskyist in its leaning. This was due to a new cast of editors, including Dwight Macdonald.

Dwight Macdonald is another close friend of Albert. (10)

Albert would actually join a communist group called the Fieldites, also known as the League for a Revolutionary Workers Party (LRWP), a splinter group from the “official” Trotskyists. In the case of the Fieldites, they had a reputation of having an even more aggressive stance against Stalin’s Soviet Union than the typical Trotskyists. So even more militant.

Interestingly, the founder of the Fieldites was Max Gould (his pseudonym was B.J. Field) a former Wall Street petroleum analyst and graduate from Columbia University. Field had been personally close to Trotsky (11) in the early 1930s and was one of the leaders of the CLA during the heated 1934 period before he was expelled. It was at this point that Field founded the LRWP in May 1934.

The LRWP soon found itself under investigation by the FBI for subversive activities.

Thus, one very big question that comes to mind is, if Wohlstetter was a card carrying member of the LRWP (12), how did he manage top security clearance as a leading nuclear strategist for the RAND Corporation during the McCarthyite era and to which the House Committee on Un-American Activities acted as a standing committee from 1945-1975?

Even Herman Kahn, another prominent RAND nuclear strategist had his security clearance temporarily removed due to his wife’s affiliation with a communist group. So why was Albert’s past never brought up?

Alex Abella offers a possible explanation for this in his “Soldiers of Reason,” where he writes:

“…the records of the group [LRWP] were lost when Field, moving files surreptitiously from an office in a horse-drawn lorry—this was 1934, after all—became involved in an accident at a busy intersection after his horse died. Afraid that he would be charged with the accident and that his radical activities would land him in an even greater jam. Field fled the scene, leaving all the files, publications, and membership rolls to be disposed of by New York City sanitation.”

It is this rather dubious story that is used to explain how all records of the LRWP were lost, never to be found again, and how Albert was very conveniently given a fresh start.

So yes, if we are going to be “fair” with Albert, he was never a faithful Trotskyist, but then again, who ever was? The entire group was notorious for infighting, factions, splintering and permeation tactics, with a long list of renunciations. The importance is rather on what were all these groupings, notably the Fabians, Unity of Science Movement and the Trotskyist all working towards, since it was no coincidence that they were always revolving in each other’s orbits.

Albert was steeped in Marxist doctrine in tandem with the ideologies from the Unity of Science Movement by a network of socialist philosophers that spans three generations, and thus it is absurd to claim that this was all just a coincidence or a “brief” phase of radical experimentation on Albert’s part.

Renunciations, switching titles and mock conversions were all part of the game.

A Road to Damascus? Trotskyists “Convert” to Radical Positivism

James Burnham would remain a “Trotskyist intellectual” from 1934 to 1940. Before this, James Burnham graduated from Princeton, followed by Balliol College, Oxford University (recall Carroll Quigley’s quote on Balliol’s connection to the Round Table and the Fabian Society) before becoming a professor in philosophy at the New York University where he met Sidney Hook and was converted to Trotskyism.

In February 1940, Burnham renounced both Trotsky and Marxism altogether, writing “Science and Style: A Reply to Comrade Trotsky,” explaining his reasons for this and why from now on he would be a follower of Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead and the new Encyclopedia of Unified Science:

“Do you wish me to prepare a reading list, Comrade Trotsky? It would be long, ranging from the work of the brilliant mathematicians and logicians of the middle of the last century to one climax in the monumental Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead (the historic turning point in modern logic), and then spreading out in many directions – one of the most fruitful represented by the scientists, mathematicians and logicians now cooperating in the new Encyclopedia of Unified Science.”

In 1941, Burnham would publish “The Managerial Revolution” which was a sort of guidebook to Fabian Society thinking at the time of how the world was to be ruled. In fact, Burnham was of the viewpoint that this vision had already won (for more on this refer here).

In his “The Managerial Revolution,” Burnham echoes the Fabian Society methodology and Russell’s “The Scientific Outlook,” writing:

“Nevertheless, it may still turn out that the new form of economy will be called ‘socialist.’ In those nations – Russia and Germany – which have advanced furthest toward the new [managerial] economy, ‘socialism’ or ‘national socialism’ is the term ordinarily used. The motivation for this terminology is not, naturally, the wish for scientific clarity but just the opposite. The word ‘socialism’ is used for ideological purposes in order to manipulate the favourable mass emotions attached to the historic socialist ideal of a free, classless, and international society and to hide the fact that the managerial economy is in actuality the basis for a new kind of exploiting, class society.”

Although Albert would never make such a dramatic public declaration as did fellow technocrat Burnham, it is clear where he ultimately pledged his allegiance by his promotion of systems analysis (part of the trifecta of information theory and cybernetics) behind everything he did at the RAND corporation. (For more on this story refer to Part 1 of this series)

Burnham would go on to work for the OSS, followed by the CIA and would become “the real intellectual founder of the neoconservative movement and the originally proselytizer, in America, of the theory of totalitarianism.”

This helps us to understand why so many of Alfred Wohlstetter’s acolytes were prominent neoconservatives, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

RAND, under the guidance of Albert Wohlstetter, would gain the power to execute the mission of the Fabian Society. The Hannibal moment of victory had come with their entry into the JFK administration as McNamara’s Whiz Kids, who would not only “manage” the Vietnam War, but all wars that ensued under the American flag.

With entry into the government, they now had access to influencing all national policy including housing, healthcare, and education. Their permeation had become absolute.

Albert and Roberta would continue living in Laurel Canyon (a center of the counterculture movement), promoting an image of Albert as the ever-loving and patient teacher to an endless stream of doting students who would see him as a father figure, rather than for what he truly was, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Notes

(1) Colin Spencer (1996), The Heretic’s Feast: A History of Vegetarianism, Fourth Estate, pg. 283.
(2) I. Bernard Cohen (1985), Revolution in Science, Harvard University Press, p. 345.
(3) Ibid.
(4) The three books to H.G. Wells’ self-declared “new Bible” were: “The Outline of History” (1919), “The Science of Life” (1929), and “The Work, Wealth, and Happiness of Mankind” (1932)
(5) Ron Robin (2016), “The Cold War They Made: The Strategic Legacy of Roberta and Albert Wohlstetter,” Harvard University Press, p. 40.
(6) Ibid, p. 38.
(7) Ibid, p. 40.
(8) The Moscow Trials occurred between 1936-1938 and concluded that Trotskyist cells were at the heart of a fifth column operation within Russia which were committed to overthrowing Stalin and bringing Russia into a pro-Fascist program.
(9) Wohlstetter, Albert; White, Morton Gabriel (Fall 1939). “Who Are the Friends of Semantics?”. Partisan Review. 6 (5): 50–57.
(10) Wreszin, Michael (1994). A Rebel In Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight Macdonald. New York: HarperCollins. p. 113.
(11) Ron Robin (2016), “The Cold War They Made: The Strategic Legacy of Roberta and Albert Wohlstetter,” Harvard University Press, p. 45.
(12) Alex Abella (2008), “Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire,” Harcourt Books, p. 76.

[Part 3 will go over Albert’s role in shaping the RAND/Whiz Kids management of the Vietnam War, and his relationship to Team B, the false dichotomy of Kissinger vs Brzezinski, and the Trilateral Commission.]

“Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

-Matthew 7:20

On January 17, President Xi Jinping delivered remarks to the annual Davos Summit where a coterie of billionaires with larger than life aspirations for reshaping the world into a new techno-feudal dystopia conglomerated for several days of self-congratulatory speeches and networking.

As could be expected, Xi’s speech garnered a fair bit of hysteria from many nationalists across the Trans Atlantic who are obviously not reacting well to the ugly fact that their governments have been hijacked and their lives threatened by a very sociopathic supranational entity that wants to reset the clock on human civilization.

One particular nationalist news outline named LaRouche PAC- historically supportive of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), took the occasion of Xi’s remarks to suffer an uncomfortable meltdown with a January 22 editorial authored by Robert Ingraham stating:

“Xi’s speech was reprehensible. Despite the references to ‘global cooperation’ and ‘win-win,’ his remarks can only be read as a veiled attack on Donald Trump and an unambiguous endorsement of the Davos agenda. He endorsed ‘holistic’ environmentalism, carbon neutrality, and a ‘complete transition to a green economy.’ He endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, praised free trade and condemned protectionism. He expressed effusive admiration for the COP26 agenda, as well as the WTO and WHO. Perhaps, most disgusting was his strong praise (twice in his speech) of the United Nation’s genocidal policy of ‘sustainable development.’ “

Although LaRouche PAC was but one of many news outlets decrying Xi’s speech as proof of China’s complicit role in the WEF’s Global Great Reset, I decided to direct the thrust of my defense of Xi to this organization for two reasons.

• They otherwise represent many very good ideas which I sincerely believe could play an important role in putting out the fires engulfing civilization… as long as they don’t self-sabotage by giving into simple-minded populism when it matters most.
• The author of the editorial has conducted some of the best historical research I have ever read which should have inoculated him from making the sorts of inexcusable errors in judgement which will do great damage to the minds of his own readers, his organization, and the cause of truth more generally.

Perhaps my words are harsh, but I hope to demonstrate in the following response, that I am absolutely serious in my claim that the author is misguided in his analysis of China’s motives.

Claim 1: “China Supports Decarbonization and is thus Evil”

For those who have come to discover that COP26 de-carbonization targets are actually driven by an intention to dismantle industrial civilization (and the means of sustaining modern population levels), congratulations. You have earned an intellectual edge to cut through misinformation lacking in those cave dwellers who still wish to believe that Greta Thunberg, Prince Charles and Bill Gates are climate experts or that the world will end in a hellish oven in 12 years unless we radically alter our collective behavior and shut down industrial civilization pronto.

To those who have stepped out of the cave on this issue, Xi’s public remarks have certainly drawn some confusion. Does the Chinese President actually support the “globalist” depopulation agenda? Does he support the dismantling of advanced industrial civilization?

If we focus on those actions beyond the mere surface words used by Xi at Davos, the answer is a resounding “no”.

Eurasian vs Trans Atlantic “Decarbonization”

China’s approach to “decarbonization” and “sustainable development” are very different from those dominant in the NATO-Five Eyes cage on numerous levels. Unlike the western occupied states who are being told to brace for a reduction in living standards, production, and even ownership of possessions under a new age of scarcity, China’s “green agenda” is geared towards hydrocarbon development with a focus on natural gas, coal, oil and nuclear.

In terms of China’s robust nuclear power sector (which emits zero CO2), theirs is the only nation currently utilizing EVERY single third and fourth generation reactor design existent including molten salt thorium, and fast breeder reactors with more advanced initiatives to break through to practicable commercial fusion than any other state.

While China is also a leading investor in so-called “renewable” energy including windmills and solar panels, unlike the Trans Atlantic community, they have not made their capital-intensive industrial productive bases reliant on these low intensity, unreliable and expensive forms of electricity, preferring to use “green” energy principally for residential consumption.

It is also no secret that China has become the world’s primary user of concrete, steel, iron, and other minerals vital for building large scale megaprojects emblematic in the evolving Belt and Road Initiative.

Claim 2: “China Supports TPP and is Thus Evil”

To say Xi “is pro-Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)” is beyond simplistic.

As Pepe Escobar explains extraordinarily well, there is a fight over who will shape the rules of globalization 2.0.

The globalization 1.0 that has run rough shod over the world for 50 years is dead in the water waiting only for the immanent snap to break the ship apart like a new Titanic being pulled into the dark abyss. This collapse is not actually a flaw in the system as many conjecture, but was in fact always designed to be a time bomb from the moment the dollar was floated off the gold reserve in 1971 to the current systemic bubble breakdown.

The question is thus not ‘WILL the system collapse’ but rather: WHO will shape this new system and upon WHAT operating system will its rules be based?

Will it be an open system capable of creative growth and self-directed improvement or would it be a closed system defined by the assumed immutable laws of entropy and diminishing returns? Would the system be zero sum (win-lose) or would the whole be more than the parts (win-win)?

The Obama-era TPP which Trump rightfully killed in 2016 was nothing but a blatant economic assault onto both the Peoples’ Republic of China specifically the Sovereign Nation State system generally. This assault was premised on several factors:

1. A) Binding all TPP-member nations of the Pacific into a top-down NAFTA-like system controlled by London and Wall Street.
2. B) Giving corporations the right to sue nations directly for breaking the rules of TPP’s version of “free trade” (which in truth were never free as multinational private interests like those coordinating through such outlets as the World Economic Forum were always working to stay in control).
3. C) Cutting off China from its neighbors since the pre-2016 version of TPP always excluded China.

The “TPP 2.0” to which Xi is referring is only “TPP” in name.

In regards to its operating system, this version looks more like an extension of the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) launched in 2020 as the largest trade deal in history involving 15 Pacific nations representing 30% of the world’s population.

Does it involve free trade? YES. Is this version of free trade being used to justify the imperial rape of poor nations? NO.

Free Trade Governed by What Intention?

It should be an obvious fact that much evil has been done behind the cover of “free trade” since Adam Smith wrote his infamous Wealth of Nations in 1776.

From opium wars, to potato famines, to repeated Indian genocides, to modern cases of pillage under globalization, British “free trade” has often been used as a means to get nation states to turn off their security systems while bandits robbed them naked.

The difference between the Chinese vs Anglo-American versions of free trade comes down to INTENTION.

Where the Anglo-American variants were designed to destroy national development, the Chinese (or earlier U.S. Hamiltonian System) variations are inextricably tied to the industrial improvement of all participating nations. Where one intends to divide, conquer and destroy, the other intends to unite, cooperate and create. Big difference.

One might here scream: “YOU CAN’T KNOW INTENTIONS!”

As Jesus once responded to the question: “you will know them by their fruits”. A materialist would not know how to process this, but anyone looking at world history would quickly recognize that in politics, using words that make your intention transparent will nearly always undo your objectives. We love John F. Kennedy’s robust candor, but his murder after only 1000 days in office resulted in the destruction of many great goods which a more wise and savvy statesman like Benjamin Franklin would never have permitted to occur.

Let me say it one more way: sometimes bad men committed to bad acts use good words and sometimes good men committed to good acts use bad words. How do you know their intention or goodness? Not through their words, but through their fruits.

China’s Hamiltonian Fruits

China has provably pulled over 800 million souls out of abject poverty while the unipolar system of empire has only created decades of starvation, poverty and war. China has launched trillions of dollars worth of productive long-term credit through state-owned banks tied not to speculating on debts, but building actual infrastructure both within their own nation and internationally.

Where our western system is entirely dependent on hyperbolically increasing rates of speculative/fictitious capital, the Chinese system is premised on PHYSICAL systems of production and value. An Evergrande bubble popping in the west would be an atomic force of destruction, whereas in China, it is an extremely containable aberration.

IF the LaRouchePAC-affiliated author attacking Xi actually read the original works of economist Alexander Hamilton (which the author professes openly to have done), he would know that the American System which he espouses is not intrinsically against free trade, nor is it always pro-protectionism.

What Did Hamilton Create?

The point Hamilton made in his reports to congress of 1791 was that every bankrupt, undeveloped state of the new nation were condemned to disastrous internal division and chaos. During its first 7 years, America was a financial wreck waiting to be retaken by the British Empire. Each state controlled its own economic priorities, currency issuance and none of the 13 states even had free trade among each other making it not much of a union at all.

This lack of unity among the early confederacy made the formation of common action impossible. Without a power of common action, there was no weapon sufficient in power to do battle with the highly centralized globally extended financier oligarchy centered in the heart of London.

Hamilton solved this crisis by federalizing the many local unpayable state debts incurred during the war and converting them into assets of a new national banking system that began issuing credit for comprehensive national infrastructure goals. Although each state lost some of its personal liberty “to do whatever they wanted”, trade barriers were broken down, a national currency was launched and this quantum leap allowed the young nation to not only survive but thrive. Under Hamilton, debts were no longer usurious inflation machines, but rather self-liquidating “national blessings” serving the interests of the entire people. China’s tendency to cite Hamilton in their state-news coverage is also not a coincidence on this point.

In the first several decades of the Hamiltonian program, America’s population grew four-fold, technical knowledge, industrial productivity, interconnectivity and inventions grew in leaps soon challenging the world’s largest empire.

Mr. Ingraham might be surprised to know that Hamilton was not a dogmatic supporter of tariffs, supporting free trade as long as it was shaped by a unifying intention to develop the many parts of the whole to their fullest industrial and creative potential. This was the essential purpose of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution including the important Article I Section VIII.

Hamilton’s later follower Friedrich List (who coined the term “American System of Political Economy” in 1828) used this system to unite a disjointed Germany under a “Zollvereine” (aka: custom’s union) driven by free trade among the regional divergent states for the first time in history. Under List’s program, national credit tied to internal improvements (rail, canals, new industries and pure science) launched Germany into the modern age.

Wherever this system was applied (including 19^th century Russia) population growth improved in quantity and quality, harmonious relations between the member states improved, oligarchism lost its hold onto its hosts and creative change governed the self-perfectibility of the increasingly open systems.

These were good fruits.

British Free Trade, like “Globalization 1.0” ALWAYS used nice words, but bore rotten fruit.

Wherever it was applied, British Free Trade destroyed economic sovereign nation states, crippled long-term planning, dismantled the regulation of private capital, and always divided to conquer.

Adherents to this system indoctrinated across Anglo-American Ivy League universities found themselves assimilated ever more into myopic money crazed fiends incapable of seeing a whole beyond their local self-serving identities… which was just the way an oligarchical elite running the system like a nightmarish video game always wanted it.

Claim 3: “Xi Spoke Well of WTO and is Thus Evil”

The World Trade Organization (WTO), much like the UN Charter, has many fine words and rules of economic conduct embedded in it. IF said rules and words were followed, neither organization would do any harm to anyone and might in fact do quite a lot of good.

The problem isn’t with the nice words promoting healthy competition, fairness, or freedom to trade.

The problem is found in the MINDS of those forces who wrote many of those rules with the intention of breaking them.

WTO rules, much like the British demands for national obedience to free trade that kept the tiny island in the dominant alpha position over the majority of the world during the 19^th century, were meant to be believed by credulous victims, but were always understood to be just another tool of colonialism and slavery by those shaping the Great Game.

In this sense, the WTO of 1999 has much in common with Adam Smith’s 1776 Wealth of Nations.

Does Adam Smith extoll the virtues of evil or promote the right of a hegemon to control the weak?

Not at all.

One would find many laudable words in his text and if the world was truly an equal playing field of nations living together aspiring for improving their quality of life and without any internationally extended financier oligarchy, then one would be hard pressed to find anything wrong with it at all.

The problem, as Ben Franklin, Hamilton and many of the most potent founding fathers understood (or Friedrich List afterwards), is that Adam Smith was just a political hack who never actually believed anything he himself wrote. As historian Anton Chaitkin points out in volume 1 of Who We Are, Adam Smith was directly tied to the inner echelons of the British Empire and had been groomed for years by none other than Lord Shelburne himself before publishing his Wealth of Nations (not coincidentally the same year of the U.S. Declaration of Independence).

Smith and his oligarchical masters in London always understood that they were the true owners of his “hidden hand” which they wished their victims believed were the “magical ordering principles” of the unregulated marketplace.

BRI-oriented free trade zones as we have seen applied in the past seven years are shaped by the intention to build real measurable infrastructure and industrial powers among all participating states. Whether we look at the Africa-China Free Trade Agreement, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, China’s RCEP, China-EAEU deals or China-South America free trade agreements, we see the opposite of anything done during the dark years of the British Empire or post-JFK age of imperial capital. Rather than looting and debt slavery, we have seen the largest explosion of industrial growth, large scale infrastructure, manufacturing and education pop up wherever these treaties have been applied. The intention is just very different from anything seen in the age of globalization 1.0.

China knows that if the UN Charter and WTO rules can be actually enforced for once, within the context shaped by the $3+ trillion Belt and Road Initiative, then globalization 2.0 becomes governed by rules that are fundamentally anti-oligarchical, pro-population growth, pro-nation state, pro-cooperation and anti-depopulation.

Good fruit.

Claim 4: “Xi said good things about WHO and COVID Cooperation and is thus Evil”

A final word must be said about Xi’s World Health Organization/pandemic response remarks.

It may not be popular to state this, but I’m going to do it.

To date, China still has not fully purged the transhumanist-oriented west leaning fifth column set into motion during the 1980s under the reign of Soros’ agent Zhao Ziyang.

During Zhao’s period of influence over China’s government, vast infusions of transhumanists, monetarists and technocrats shaped China’s modern deep state. Many of these parasites were thankfully flushed in phases starting in 1989, again in 1997, and with the most recent purge launched with Xi’s ascension in 2012 with over 1.5 million officials nailed on corruption charges to this day.

Despite these purges, there is still a World Economic Forum/Anglo-American presence felt within certain quarters, seen most clearly in “the Shanghai Clique” centered around former President Jiang Zemin and his coterie of western leaning billionaires like Jack Ma who have at various times made attempts to subvert China’s economic sovereignty.

Russia also suffers from its own deep state problems built up during the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years.

Unlike China which has maintained national controls of banking, Moscow’s technocratic deep state still enjoys more influence over their Keynesian-infested liberal central banking system which is closely linked up to Russian big pharma giants (see: Sberbank as one of many instances).

Unlike North America or Europe, China has always provided alternative COVID remedies that do not simply fixate on vaccines or shutting down their economy on behalf of computer models. China’s use of hydroxychloroquine-zinc and various eastern medicine treatments have been provided from the get-go to great effect resulting in a 0.6% covid death rate compared to America’s. China has made it clear that it has no idea if COVID emerged out of one of the 200+ Pentagon connected biolabs, or if a future genetically targeted creation will be released onto their society as was outlined in blood curdling detail in the 2000 PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defenses. What is clear is that since January 2020, they have responded to COVID as if it were a possible war scenario.

Just as in the case with Russia, we have seen numerous clashes between various regional powers and the federal government on the issue of mandatory vaccination protocols.

Unlike most western governments whose federal institutions have become the primary enforcers of tyrannical vaccination mandates (vs. regional/state government resistance), the opposite pattern is seen in both Russia and China.

In these Eurasian states, it is the federal government that has principally intervened against the tyrannical excesses of local authorities cattle herding their citizens.

The leaders of both Russia and China are fighting not only for the survival of their own civilizations but something much bigger than themselves. Moreover, they not only intend to emerge from this fight alive, but in a dominant position as the system crumbles and globalization 2.0 is brought online.

It is hard for some Americans to accept the fact that their beloved republic has fallen to a fascist coup. It is hard to accept that Donald Trump may not have the moral or intellectual capacity to do anything about this, and it is hard to accept that the USA does not currently have the internal fortitude to change itself without a broader global change being forced upon it externally by nations of Eurasia.

Sometimes the truth is a bitter medicine. But a bitter medicine that saves the patient is always better than a sugar-coated poison.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

As the old joke says: capitalism’s centuries are numbered. Everybody knows that Marx’s millenarian predictions went wrong: the New Man didn’t come, and we are still here in a world divided between the haves and have nots, as Hemingway titled his most social novel. But the Western economy’s contradictions are indeed stronger than ever. Take the recent World Economic Forum Global Risks Report. It draws on the views of over 12000 country-level leaders: after two years of the pandemic, the most perceived medium-term risk for societies are “social cohesion erosion“, “livelihood crisis”, and “mental health deterioration”.

Notably, “Social cohesion erosion is a top short-term threat in 31 countries — including Argentina, France, Germany, Mexico and South Africa from the G20”. In the long term, the threat of “involuntary migration” lurks. The majority of the people interviewed judge the efforts to contain or regulate migration and refugee waves as absolutely inconsistent.

You can argue that Davos is “about rich men arriving on private planes to discuss climate change, sexism and inequality” and “most of its predictions are worthless”, as Simon Kuper wrote in the Financial Times. But the reality that our societies are crumbling away before of our eyes is difficult to deny. Instead, the Davos paradox is whether the very elites that create these problems are able or only willing to solve them.

WEF report says that by 2030, 51 more million people are projected to live in extreme poverty compared to the pre-pandemic trend. “Income disparities exacerbated by an uneven economic recovery risk increasing polarisation and resentment within societies”. In the U.S., these divisions are taking a unique and disruptive form. A recent poll in the United States found “division in the country” to be voters’ top concern: they expected it to worsen in 2022. The attack on the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 was one clear sign of the instability that political polarisation risks may create.

You can call it a democracy’s crisis. The Western system, largely symbolic and confined to the theatrical moment of the ballots, seems no more capable of answering the people’s fears. The impact of migration on Western countries is fated to grow dramatically. Davos’ gurus are not reassuring. In the following years: “A bifurcated recovery is likely to prompt an upsurge in economic migration. At the same time, worsening extreme weather and rise in political instability, state fragility and civil conflict, are likely to further swell refugees numbers”.

While in the West, ordinary people were receiving the vaccine booster against COVID-19, the super-rich’s richness was boosted by the circumstances created by the same virus. It is the conclusion of the recent Oxfam report “Inequality Kills: the unparalleled action needed to combat unprecedented inequality in the wake of COVID-19”. “A new billionaire has been created every 26 hours since the pandemic began — the document says — The world’s 10 richest men have doubled their fortunes, while over 160 million people are projected to have been pushed into poverty. Meanwhile, an estimated 17 million people have died from COVID-19—a scale of loss not seen since the Second World War. These issues are all part of the same, deeper malaise. It is that inequality is tearing our societies apart”.

Everywhere the same sad music. The perception of social decay is faced with mild desperation or the neoliberal choir’s same old song: “there is no alternative”. But, as Noam Chomsky said, in a 2021 interview on Jacobin Magazine, the corporate sector is “running scared”. “They’re concerned with what they call “reputational risks,” meaning “the peasants are coming with their pitchforks.” All across the corporate world — at Davos, and at the Business Roundtable — there are discussions of how “We have to confess to the public that we’ve done the wrong things. We haven’t paid enough attention to stakeholders, workforce, and community, but now we realise our errors. Now we’re becoming what, in the 1950s, was called ’soulful corporations,’ really dedicated to the common good.”

Indeed, the corporate world needs a new mammoth global PR campaign. The Green Economy is ready to be just another example of commodification of every life’s aspect and not the beginning of a more human business’ era. The electric automotive big new frontier rush is not bound to really reduce the global pollution but only to open a new market with many environmental unsolved questions. A ridiculous result of this neoliberal “Greenwashing” wave is the European plans to allow gas and nuclear to be labelled as “green” investments. You can see here Western democracies’ crisis in action: instead of confronting the challenges, they change the meaning of the words.

It is not a surprise that the Edelman Trust Barometer 2022 found a world “ensnared in a vicious cycle of distrust, fuelled by a growing lack of faith in media and government. Through disinformation and division, these two institutions are feeding the cycle and exploiting it for commercial and political gain”.

The Edelman’s Barometer has been polling the world’s nations for years on trust in their governments, media, business and NGO. Today it says that “anger wins the clicks”, creating a “government-media distrust spiral”.

“The public has become widely aware that the media does not play it straight”. “We really have a collapse of trust in democracies,” said Reuters Richard Edelman, whose communications group published the survey of over 36,000 respondents in 28 countries interviewed between Nov. 1-24 of last year. The biggest losers of trust over the previous year were institutions in Germany, down 7 points to 46, Australia at 53 (-6), the Netherlands at 57 (-6), South Korea at 42 (-5) and the United States at 43 (-5). Russia wins the palm of the more sceptical nation. The very fact that countries not famous for their democracy, like China, United Arab Emirates and Thailand, are at the top of the trust’s index may show that their citizens do not share so much the faith in Western’s democratic ideals. They value more a “sense of predictability about policy” a “coherence” among the national leaders that the Western public seems to lack at all. China shows a staggering 83% public trust in institutions. Definitely, optimism about the future lies more in the East than in the West.

The Davos report rightly stresses that our world needs more than ever a “global governance and a more effective international risk mitigation” not only for the Covid’s threat but also to cope with “geo-economic confrontation”. Unfortunately, the numbers are telling a different story. The main characters of the global game are dealing mostly unprepared with the contradictions of the future world. Weak governments of divided European countries face geopolitical crises, as the Ukrainian one, trapped in the old American imperial scheme, entirely against their national interest. The West needs a “colour” revolution, not the East.

This is fairly trivial, but it is such an excellent example of how wokeness has conquered the collective brain of the Left that I can’t pass it by. It was flagged on N.S. Lyons’s excellent Substack newsletter, The Upheaval.

It’s a call for grant proposals by the Ploughshares Fund, a major philanthropy funding projects that combat nuclear weapons proliferation, and advance the goals of peace. Nothing wrong with that. But look at what the San Francisco-based philanthropy is after in the 2022 funding cycle:

“Challenging racism and white supremacy in nuclear policies and institutions”? Like, I dunno, the fact that nuclear-armed powers don’t have their missiles pointed at African countries, thus othering them? What about Chinese nukes? Are they problematic? Should we send nuclear weapons to Africa and Latin America for the sake of equity? Are we trying to avoid a future headline: “US-Russia Nuclear Exchange Causes Global Apocalypse; BIPOCs, LGBTQQIA+ Worst Affected”?

More:

Wow. You can get up to $75,000 if you can figure out how to extend the woke grift to (checks notes) the nuclear proliferation cause. You don’t even have to have experience in the field! Just be a BIPOC or LGBTQQIA+, and be able to string intersectional jargon together, and these agonized woke philanthropists will open their purse and throw money at you.

In case it isn’t clear to you yet that this is a scam to separate wealthy leftie do-gooders from their money, and redistribute it to wokedom’s Chosen People:

What’s funny about this is that Ploughshares signals that it is not serious about spending its resources to figure out ways to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war, which is says is its reason for being. It is more concerned with appeasing its own woke conscience by buying indulgences with woke constituencies. Are the donors — both individuals and philanthropies — cool with that? Look, Ploughshares can do whatever it wants to with its money, but it means something when the purpose for which the organization exists takes a back seat to advancing woke goals. They would rather throw cash behind a third-rate grant proposal that ticked all the right intersectional boxes than actually advance the work of nuclear non-proliferation.

In this, though, they are no different than Woke Capitalists, who are less interested in their theoretical prime directive — making money by providing top-quality goods and services — than they are in feeling virtuous about themselves. It’s fun and easy to laugh at these ideologues for wasting their money on virtue signaling, but the loss of a sense of mission within companies, institutions, and organizations, all led by people who have gone crazy for ideology, is yet another sign of decadence.

theamericanconservative.com

Three years ago, I said to an American Professor from the US Army War College in Washington, in respect to the campaign to return American lost Blue Collar jobs to Asia, that these jobs would never return.  They were gone for good.

He retorted that that was precisely so, but I was missing the point, he said. America did not expect, or want, the majority of those humdrum manufacturing jobs back. They should stay in Asia. The Élites, he said, wanted only the commanding heights of Tech. They wanted the intellectual property, the protocols, the metrics, the regulatory framework that would allow America to define and expand across the next two decades of global technological evolution.

The real dilemma however, he said was, “What is to be done with the 20% of the American workforce that would be no longer needed: that was no longer necessary to the functioning of a tech-led US economy?”

In fact, what the Professor said was but one facet of a fundamental economic dilemma. From the seventies and eighties onwards, US corporations were busy offshoring their labour costs to Asia. Partly, this was to cut costs and increase profitability (which it did) — but it also represented something deeper. 

From the outset, the US has been an expansionary empire ever digesting new lands, new peoples, and their human and material resources. Forward motion, the continuous military, commercial, and cultural expansion became the lifeblood of Wall Street and of its foreign polity. For, absent this relentless expansion, the civic bonds of American unity fall into question.  An America not in motion is not America.  This forms the very essence of US leitkultur.

Yet it only added further to the dilemma highlighted by my friend above. The expansion was accompanied by a flood of Wall Street credit expansion across the globe.  The debt burden exploded, and has become top heavy, balancing unsteadily on a pinhead of genuine underlying collateral.

It is only now – for the first time since WW2 – that this relentless US strategic expansionary impulse has been challenged by the Russia-China axis.  They have declared ‘enough’.

Yet, there was always another side to this dynamic of western structural transition. Its foundations, as the Professor suggested, no longer lay with the socially necessary labour contained in manufacturing drab products such as cars, telephones, or toothpaste. But rather, the core of it largely has come to reside in highly flammable debt-leveraged speculations on financial assets like stocks, bonds, futures, and especially derivatives, whose value is securitised indefinitely.  In this context, the 20% (or more likely 40%) of the workforce, simply becomes redundant to this highly complex, hyper-financialised, networked economy.

So, here we have the second dilemma: Whilst the structural shrinking of the work-based economy inflates the financial sector, the latter’s complex volatility can only be contained through a logic of perpetual monetary doping (perpetual liquidity injections), justified by global emergencies, requiring ever greater stimulus.

How to face this dilemma?  Well, there’s no going back.  That’s not an option.

In this context, the Pandemic regimen becomes symptom of a world so far removed from any real economic self-sufficiency – adequate to sustain its existing workforce – that the dilemma may only be resolved (in the view of the élites) through facilitating the continuing attenuation of the old economy, whilst financial assets must be replenished with regular additions of liquidity.

How to manage it? With the gradual abolishing of the traditional labour content to commodities (either from automation, or off-shoring), corporations have used the woke ideology to reinvent themselves. No longer do they produce just ‘things’ – they manufacture social output. They are stakeholders in society, ‘manufacturing’ socially desirable outcomes: diversity, social inclusivity, gender balance and climate responsible governance. Already, this transition has produced a cornucopia of new ESG liquidity flowing through calcified economic arteries.

And the Pandemic, of course, justifies the monetary stimulus, whilst the follow-on climate ‘health’ emergency is prepared in order to legitimise further debt expansion, for the future.

Financial analyst Mauro Bottarelli summarised the logic of this as follows: “A state of semi-permanent health emergency is preferable to a vertical market crash that would turn the memory of 2008 into a walk in the park.” 

Professor of Critical Theory and Italian at Cardiff University, Fabio Vighi, has noted too the “Incurability” of what he calls “the Central Banker’s Long-Covid” condition” — that the injection of such a huge monetary stimulus as we have seen, was only possible by turning the engine of Main Street ‘off’, as such a cascade of liquidity ($6 Trillion) could not be allowed to flow willy-nilly into the Main Street economy (in the view of the Central Bankers), as this would cause an inflationary tsunami à la Weimar Republic. Rather, its’ main thrust has served to further inflate the virtual world of ever more complex financial instruments.

Inevitably however, coupled with supply-chain bottlenecks, the gush of liquidity has caused Main Street inflation to rise, and hence imposed further hurt on the ground.  The aim of managing the manufacturing attenuation on the one hand (small business ‘lockdown’), whilst liquidity flowed freely to the financialised sphere (to postpone a market crash) has failed.  Inflation is accelerating, interest rates will rise, and this will bring adverse social and political consequences in its wake: i.e. anger, rather than compliance.

At the heart of the predicament for those who run the system is that, should they to lose control of liquidity creation – either as a result of interest rate rises, or from increasing political dissent – the ensuing recession would take-down the entire socio-economic fabric below.

And any severe recession would likely wreak havoc on the western political leadership, too.

They have opted therefore instead, to sacrifice the democratic framework, in order to roll out a monetary regime rooted in a cult of corporate-owned science & technology, media propaganda, and disaster narratives – as the means to progress towards a technocratic ‘aristocratic’ takeover over the heads of the people. (Yes, in certain ‘circles’, it is thought of as a newly rising aristocracy of money).

Professor Vighi again:

“The consequences of emergency capitalism are emphatically biopolitical. They concern the administration of a human surplus that is growing superfluous for a largely automated, highly financialised, and implosive reproductive model. This is why Virus, Vaccine and Covid Pass are the Holy Trinity of social engineering.

‘Virus passports’ are meant to train the multitudes in the use of electronic wallets controlling access to public services and personal livelihood. The dispossessed and redundant masses, together with the non-compliant, are the first in line to be disciplined by digitalised poverty management systems directly overseen by monopoly capital. The plan is to tokenise human behaviour and place it on blockchain ledgers run by algorithms. And the spreading of global fear is the perfect ideological stick to herd us toward this outcome”.

Professor Vighi’s point is clear. The vaccine campaign and the Green Pass system are no stand-alone health disciplines.  They are not about ‘the Science’, nor are they intended to make sense.  They are primordially connected to the élites’ economic dilemma, and serve as a political tool too, by which a new monetary dispensation can displace democracy.  President Macron spoke the unstated out loud, when he said: “As for the non-vaccinated, I really want to piss them off. And we will continue to do this, to the end. This is the strategy”.

Italian PM Draghi similarly has escalated attacks on the unvaxxed, making vaccines mandatory for all the over 50s, and imposing significant restrictions on anyone over 12. Again, though ‘following the science’ is the mantra, these measures make no sense: the Omicron variant predominantly infects the double vaxxed, not the unvaxxed. 

” … mandating a vaccine to stop the spread of a disease requires evidence that the vaccines will prevent infection or transmission (rather than efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization or death). As the World Health Organization puts it, “if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.” For Omicron, there is as yet no such evidence. 

The little data we have suggest the opposite. One preprint study found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection, and after 90 days, their effect went negative—i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection. Confirming this negative efficacy finding, data from Denmark and the Canadian province of Ontario indicate that vaccinated people have higher rates of Omicron infection than unvaccinated people”.

This is rarely, if ever, admitted. Both Macron and Draghi are desperate: They need to ‘liquify’ their economies – and soon.

Indeed, Dr Malone, leading US the father of the mRNA vaccines, wrote of those who point out such inconsistencies and illogicalities – just two months before his Twitter account was suspended – in a rather prophetic Twitter post:

“I am going to speak bluntly,” he wrote.

“Physicians who speak out are being actively hunted via medical boards and the press. They are trying to delegitimize us and pick us off, one by one.”

He finished by warning that this is “not a conspiracy theory” but “a fact.” He urged us all to “wake up.”

As the Telegraph has noted, British Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”. The scientists warned in March 2021 that ministers in the UK needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19, because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”. Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism”.

Another SPI-B member said: “You could call [it] psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do … clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past”. Another colleague cautioned that “people use the pandemic to grab power, and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise … We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in”.

The problem goes deeper than a little ‘nudge psychology’ however. In 2019, the BBC established the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), a partnership that now includes many main-stream media. TNI was ostensibly designed to counter foreign narrative influence during election times, but it has expanded to synchronise all elements of messaging, and to eliminate deviation across the broad realm of media and tech platforms.

These synchronised ‘talking-points’ are more powerful (and insidious) than any ideology, as it functions not as a belief system or ethos, but rather, as objective ‘science’. You cannot argue with, or oppose, Science (with a capital ‘S’). Science has no political opponents. Those who challenge it are labelled “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “Covid deniers,” “extremists,” etc. And, thus the pathologized New Normal narrative also pathologizes its political opponents: stripping them of all political legitimacy. The aim obviously, is their forced compliance. Macron made that plain.

Separating the population on the basis of vaccination status is an epoch-making event. If resistance is quashed, a compulsory digital ID can be introduced to record the ‘correctness’ of our behaviour and regulate access to society. Covid was the ideal Trojan horse for this breakthrough. A global system of digital identification based on blockchain technology has long been planned by the ID2020 Alliance, backed by such giants as Accenture, Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation, MasterCard, IBM, Facebook, and Bill Gates’ ubiquitous GAVI. From here, the transition to monetary control is likely to be relatively smooth. CBDCs would allow central bankers not only to track every transaction, but especially to turn off access to liquidity, for any reason deemed legitimate.

The Achilles’ heel to all this however, is the evidence of genuine popular resistance to the suppression by the tech platforms of all dissenting opinion (however well-qualified its source); by the refusal to allow people informed choice about their medical treatment; and by arbitrary restrictions that may involve loss of livelihood being imposed by decree, and underpinned by emergency laws, restricting popular protest.

But more significantly and paradoxically, the Omricon variant may cut the legs from under those political leaders intent on doubling-down.  It is quite possible that this mild (barely lethal), yet highly contagious variant, may prove to be Nature’s ‘vaccine’, giving us a wide measure of immunity – ostensibly better than that offered by the ‘vaccines’ from Science! 

Already, we observe European states are confused and at odds with each other – taking diametrically opposed policy lines: some ending restrictions, and some decreeing more and more. Other countries, like Israel, are reducing restrictions and shifting to a herd immunity policy.

Of course, the corollary to the collapse of the technocratic initiative to liquify the over-leveraged economy might well be recession.  That unfortunately, is the logic of the situation.

A miracle appears to be happening, as the multibillionaires of the World Economic Forum (WEF) appear to have grown consciences.

As if by magic, it appears that these gold collar elites no longer yearn for profit and power as they once had. As COP26 closes up its 12 day annual ceremonies, leading WEF-connected figures like Prince Charles, Jeff Bezos, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney and Klaus Schwab have announced a new system of economics that is based on virtue over profit!

According to the COP26 website, “95 high profile companies from a range of sectors commit to being ‘Nature Positive,’ agreeing to work towards halting and reversing the decline of nature by 2030.”

Prince Charles has boasted that he has coordinated 300 companies representing over $60 trillion to get on board with a global green transition, and after meeting with the Prince on November 2, Jeff Bezos announced his new $2 billion Earth Fund to protect nature’s ecosystems with a focus on Africa. Even Prime Minister Mario Draghi has joined Mark Carney on this new green path, as both men have moved beyond their old Goldman Sachs money worshipping days and embraced a better destiny. At the Nov 1 G20 Summit, Draghi embraced Prince Charles’ Green Markets Initiative and threw Italy’s full support behind the de-carbonization initiative.

The Prince himself (who also happens to be the nominal creator of the Great Reset Agenda launched in 2020), spoke as an enlightened statesman saying to the world’s leaders “as the enormity of the climate challenge dominates peoples’ conversations, from news rooms to living rooms, and as the future of humanity and Nature herself are at stake, it is surely time to set aside our differences and grasp this unique opportunity to launch a substantial green recovery by putting the global economy on a confident, sustainable trajectory and, thus, save our planet.”

Among the new array of financial mechanisms which we see being brought online in this war against humanity involve Bezos’ new Earth Fund, and Sir Robert Watson’s Living Planet Index (unveiled in 2018 at the World Economic Forum) and the new Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG) which seeks to turn global ecosystems worth an estimated $4 quadrillion into financial equity controllable by new private corporations (dubbed “natural asset companies”).

On its website, the IEG stated: “In partnership with the New York Stock Exchange, IEG is providing a word-class platform to list these companies for trading, enabling the conversion of natural assets into financial capital. The NAC’s equity captures the intrinsic and productive value of nature and provides a store of value based on the vital assets that underpin our entire economy and make life on earth possible… In 2021, we began seeking regulatory approval to bring the first natural asset transactions to the capital markets. Our vision is to bring to market hundreds of Natural Asset Companies representing several trillion dollars’ worth of natural assets.”

These new companies will become the stewards of new protected zones across the globe which the UN demands encapsulate 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 and much more by 2050.

Is this time to rejoice, or is something darker at play?

To answer this question it is worth asking: Does this new virtue-driven order have anything to do with lifting people out of poverty or ending economic injustice?

Sadly, it is designed to do very much the opposite.

As we are coming to see, and as statesmen around the world are beginning to point out, this new order has more in common with oligarchical obsessions with controlling human cattle, and less to do with actually preserving the environment. The thousands of tons of CO2 emitted by private jets at Davos and COP26 represents on small aspect of this disingenuity.

Obrador Calls out the Game

On October 30, Mexico’s President Lopez Obrador called out this new virulent form of colonialism while presiding over a ceremony in celebration of the ongoing construction of the $6.7 billion high-speed Maya Train now being built in the southern regions of Mexico. The project which would dramatically uplift living standards in Mexico by driving the growth of industrial and infrastructure production has fallen far behind schedule due in large part to vast legal battles led by indigenous groups who have been used as proxies by foreign interests to defend Mexico’s ecosystems. In many of the legal cases opposing the project, the argument has made that since several species of insect, fauna and even some leopards will be affected by the new railways, then the project must be ground to a halt and buried.

In his remarks to a journalist inquiring into the rail project, Obrador said:

“One of the things which they [the neoliberals] promoted in the world, in order to loot at ease, was the creation or promotion of the so-called new rights. So, feminism, ecologism, the defense of human rights, the protection of animals was much promoted, including by them. All these causes are very noble, but the intent was to create or boost all these new causes so that we don’t remedy—so that we don’t turn around and see that they were looting the world, so the subject of economic and social inequality would be kept out of the center of debate….The international agencies which supported the neoliberal model, which is a model of pillage where corporations grab national property, the property of the people—these same corporations financed, and continue to finance, environmentalist groups, defenders of ‘liberty.’ ”

Many people have been confused over these remarks since they cannot conceptualize how neoliberal monetarists that have parasitically driven the new age of pillage under globalization would also support such ‘new rights’ groups outlined by Obrador.

For nations of the global south who feel resentment that their rights to support their people by having their lands and resources kept off limits, they are told not to worry, since streams of money will be showered upon them from on high. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of monopoly money will be sprayed onto the developing sector as rewards for remaining undeveloped. If that isn’t sufficient, then carbon exchange markets will be set up so that poor nations can sell their un-used carbon quotas to private polluting companies (perhaps the same companies controlling the African cobalt mines which seek a monopoly in controlling the renewable energy sector). That is another way they can make money which at least can keep them warm at night as kindling since the world’s poor will not have to worry about having nature-killing hydro electric dams mucking up their pristine environments.

Even in the west where Biden’s 30×30 executive order has been signed into action, farmers will be offered money to stop grazing on soon-to-be protected lands, while a supposedly grassroots-based WWF-connected American Prairie Reserve (with a $160 million endowment) can be seen pushing a program designed to take 5000 square miles of grazing land in Montana out of use and converted into a pure ecosystem.

As President Obrador has alluded to, today’s billionaire-funded conservation movement simply seeks to take earth’s ecosystems out of bounds of any human economic activity under a new global feudal system of controls.

Even the indigenous populations which such billionaires profess to admire as role models for global “good behavior” are being monetized by these new green indices, with monetary values being placed not only on keeping land and water untouched, but also the very cultural ecosystems of indigenous groups around the world receiving dollar values which wealthy green financiers will somehow be able to invest into. To the degree that such immutably fixed patterns of indigenous lifestyles remain unchanged by the toxic pollution of modern technology or infrastructure, the more these eco-assets will be worth for whomever professes to invest in them. This may not be scientific but it is sick.

The term ‘feudal’ is in no way used for hyperbolic purposes, as we can see a stark parallel to the 12^th century Europe, except that today’s aspiring feudal lords manage such companies as Blackrock, Vanguard, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and State Street and seek to punish all serfs from infringing on properties which only the nobility may control. Blackrock alone manages over $9 trillion in assets and $21.6 trillion in technology platforms and along with Vanguard is fast becoming one of the largest real estate owners in the USA with Bill Gates having recently become the largest owner of American farmland.

The Deeper Imperial Roots of Conservationism

With this vast imperial landgrab in mind, one should not be surprised to discover that the modern conservation movement actually finds its origins not in Greenpeace activists fighting poachers as mythmakers have cooked up, but rather in the bowels of the British Empire. It was this empire that innovated “nature conservation” regions in India during the late 19^th century specifically to keep the poor of India under control after having destroyed India’s once powerful textile sector. The practice was applied across India during the greatest density of famines struck southern India in 1876 killing tens of millions. It was amidst this darkness that British Imperial overlords took the opportunity to create “The Imperial Forestry Department’ in 1876 putting two fifths of India’s lands under “protection” and off limits to humans. This ensured no starving subject could use the protected zones which they had relied upon for survival for decades for food, or water.

The Nazi embrace of both Anglo-American funded science of eugenics on the one side and the Reich’s embrace of nature conservationism were also not unconnected. Herman Goring, who served as Minister for German Forests believed in a poisonous worldview that held that: 1) nature is pure and thus good due to its pure unchanging natural order while 2) humanity is impure and thus un-natural due to our aspirations for progress. This dangerous equation resulted in seemingly innocent programs launched by the Fuhrer and Goring to cleans the German ecosystems of all foreign and thus un-natural fauna and flora in order to return the forests of Germany to their supposedly pure pre-industrial states. The worship of nature was an integral part of the new master race and the weeding out of impurities extended itself to human genetics following racial theories advanced by British eugenicists and anthropologists.

Julian Huxley’s New Eugenics Revolution

Upon Hitler’s defeat, the repackaging of eugenics took the form of British Eugenics Society Vice President Julian Huxley’s outline in the founding Manifesto for UNESCO where he said:

“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic, and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and disease proneness, which already exist in the human species will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Putting this new eugenics into practical action took on many heads of a hydra in the post WWII years. The particular hydra head most relevant to the thrust of this article took the form of another project Julian created in 1948 called the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) followed soon thereafter by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961 which he co-founded alongside two misanthropic princes named Philip Mountbatten and Bernhardt of the Netherlands.

Between 1959 and 1962 Julian had risen to become president of the British Eugenics Society and had put the finishing gloss on a new field of scientific misanthropic theology which he dubbed ‘Transhumanism’ alongside a Jesuit collaborator named Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

If you haven’t guessed, Transhumanism was merely another form of re-packaged eugenics serving the spiritual needs of a new priesthood of elitist social engineers that would be expected to manage the gears of a new technocratic feudal machine. This neo-paganism is not intrinsically different from the cultish beliefs of the Nazi Thule society of the past which gave spiritual direction to the members of Hitler’s government.

The neo-Malthusian revival that these eugenicists would spearhead through the end of the 1960s took the form of a new array of international organizations which incorporated systems analysis, and cybernetics, which aimed to control nation states and ecosystems alike. This took the form of the World Economic Forum’s early embrace of the Club of Rome’s computer models outlined by Aurelio Peccei (and incorporated into Schwab’s second official Davos meeting in 1973). These new models aimed to impose fixed immutable limits to humanity’s growth potential beyond which no technology or scientific discovery could ever penetrate. The fact that these same multibillionaires managing the overhaul of the world economy as it transitioned into a neo-liberal looting operation were simultaneously funding the growth of this new array of “new rights” groups led by a growing armada of non-governmental organizations, ecology protection and human rights groups is not a coincidence.

Today’s involvement of both Julian Huxley’s WWF and IUCN (no renamed Conservation International) as partners with the Intrinsic Exchange Group should not make any honest lover of nature in any way comfortable.

Much more obviously remains to be said both about the history of conservationism, and how it is being used once again to conduct a new age of population control, or how it has been used to disrupt large scale infrastructure projects across the world for over 120 years, or how nature reserves across the global south have supported narco terrorist groups.

However, for the time being, it is sufficient to note that the world’s developing sector is generally not going to accept being sacrificed on the altar of a new Gaia cult managed by a priesthood of Davos billionaires. Based on the momentum we see being driven by the Greater Eurasian Partnership, the Belt and Road Initiative and ambitions from Latin American and African leaders to finally break free of centuries of imperial manipulation, it is becoming increasingly obvious that COP26’s utopic computer models are increasingly breaking down when confronted with the reality of humanity’s creative power to leap outside of the fixed rules of imperial games when a true crisis moves us into action.

The author delivered a presentation on this topic which can be viewed here.

The failure of the UN’s COP26 conference in Glasgow was spectacle of hypocrisy befitting of a moribund ruling class. These kinds of antics harken back to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, where its decadent ruling class was deadly out of touch with the causes of growing decentralization and dissatisfaction in the periphery. And so taking our historical analogy further, we may begin to unwrap an epochal catastrophe which today’s elite now faces.

The transition from the Roman imperial system, through the Carolingian period, into to the system of medieval Europe, saw a continual decentralization of power, and the evolution of slaves and serfs into land-owning peasants.

Boris Johnson arrives at COP26 by private jumbo jet ready to tackle other leaders on emissions

This economic decentralization was connected to localized power structures. Roman forts thereby formed the basis of the medieval system of castles, and the relative weakness of these lords and little kings correlated to an improvement in the rights and economic power of what became the small land-owning peasantry.

Therefore a method of re-introducing an element of centralization to these structures, to the Vatican in Rome, was the development of the Church and the refinement of its system of tithing from individual offering to an imposed and required tax, enforced by law and collectively. Significant theological and metaphysical questions and dissimilarities aside, here’s what’s critical:

The carbon tax system is a mystical system that cannot be justified by material sciences or concerns, and instead sits as a type of ‘new religion’ that the historical centres of capital have rolled out to justify a type of tithing upon increasingly sovereign and decentralized corners of the world.

Payment of tithing, like the carbon tax system, is an ideological project to maintain powers of a moribund economic system, after the decline of the physical structures of imperialism that held together the old empire.

The various carbon tax systems, (cap and trade CAP/ETS, etc.) are little more than a rehashing of a tithing system.

Like with the Church’s control over the scribes and monasteries, the new carbon cult relies upon its monopoly over the inherited centers of knowledge creation and distribution, to create a parallel reality which requires a payment into something which cannot be rationalized in either scientific or economic terms.

Likewise, one could argue that the influence of abstracted aims of the Church lent towards the management of high unemployment and inflation caused by this tithing tax, through the calling of crusades and counter-rational measures for dealing with plagues, which tended to account for the premature deaths of countless ‘worthless eaters’.

This very much parallels the gross neo-Malthusian solutions proffered by the elites in our day and age.

The amazing part of this? The entire catastrophe today can be avoided if planned obsolescence was eliminated as an economic practice.

It doesn’t matter where one stands on climate science – even a true believer would be forced to see the logic in eradicating planned obsolescence if the aim was carbon neutrality.

Paying tithe from Bishop Roderik’s work ‘The Mirror of Human Life’ – wood cut, 15th century Varga Domokos: Magyarország virágzása és romlása. Móra, Budapest, 197 , p 58

Carbon Reduction as Cover for a Sinister Depopulation Agenda

The fundamental issue driving the COP26 population reduction scheme which parades as ‘carbon reduction’, therefore, is the hard problem of overcoming planned obsolescence. This single issue, almost more than any other, is definitive proof that there is no real concern for the environment, and that the ruling class is purely focused on population reduction and the suppression of actual 3D printing and eradicating a real Fourth Industrial Revolution.

That last point may come as a surprise to many, who are following the talking points of Klaus Schwab and company, at the World Economic Forum, who have incorporated these terms into their neo-Malthusian agenda.

They use these words so that we cannot understand them, so we will not look right where they are hiding their real meanings and implications – in their mouths.

So in place, they use the words and phrases – 4IR, 3D printing, IoT – but in actuality they are trying to subvert these while other technologies, entirely coercive and centralizing in nature, are rolled out onto the suffering faces of the masses.

As we have shown in our work on planned obsolescence, nowhere is the subject of planned obsolescence directly confronted – either in Schwab’s “Covid-19: The Great Reset” (in fact the opposite is proposed), nor is it confronted in the SDG Agenda. There is an oblique reference to repairable products and longer product lifespans only on page 62 of the 250 page manifesto. This adds justification to our charge that among the points of the ‘Great Reset’ is a serious reduction in human population.

Global Fight-back – The UN and Beyond

The same technologies to create the three industrial revolutions in the imperial core, were later used by developing countries, to grow and improve their physical economy. But these efforts were conducted in fierce opposition to the centrally directed model of modernity; a centralism coming from the financiers of the City of London and conducted through the geopolitics of the so-called Washington Consensus.

While accurately understanding some of the mutually shared concerns among and between nations, the Agenda 2030 solutions offered stem from the same kind of thinking, and from the very same actors, which produced the problem itself. Why would anyone trust these solutions?

Again, there is nothing profound or rhetorical in that question. The right-thinking leadership of many developing countries entirely understands that point. They are frustrated by the gas-lighting that comes from this globalist institutions which enforce austerity measures which breed corruption and poverty, all while preaching that these same countries haven’t done enough to increase transparency and fight poverty.

Real sovereignty for the so-called global south is intimately tied to two related factors: import substitution industrialization using 3D printing, and a physical economy based in automated production of super-long life goods. This must up-end the present planned obsolescence paradigm with its intentionally shortened PLC (product life cycle). A functional bridge between here and there, is an increased focus on regional trade, which encourages regional cooperation and enlarges spatial conceptions of the sovereign towards a growing multipolarity.

Instead of focusing on this very obvious solution to a whole range of problems which are, generously speaking, fairly represented in the UN Agenda 2030 goals, we are being corralled down a path which unjustifiably focuses on climate change. But critics like Vance Packard in ‘The Waste Makers’ (1960) already saw the problem, and the solution.

We are therefore in a race towards next-generation productive technologies, like localized 3D printing (3DP) which ultimately work against globalized production, against interdependency, and the supply-line security problems, like war, that comes along with it.

The underlying rationale of globalized production, is the exploitation of low wage labor and the maintenance of endemic global inequalities. But as techniques of production improve, and more materials can be synthesized, the twin drivers of this paradigm – low-wage production and raw material extraction – are overcome together.

Ending planned obsolescence vs. ending climate change, represent two different paradigms. The first is connected to a forward looking paradigm reflective of a real and sustainable 4IR, and the second is a cynical ruse not only to limit the rational development of the physical economy, but also human horizons.

The synthesizing of materials eliminates the ‘carbon emissions’ produced by the entire present model of resource extraction, including those emitted by hundreds of millions of workers who generate otherwise unnecessary emissions upstream and downstream, globalized supply-lines, while the carbon footprint for material synthesis will ultimately be smaller. And this much matters only if a real problem is carbon emissions, which is arguable at best.

In other words, we can eliminate those emissions without eliminating the human beings, and moreover, without limiting the quality of life they enjoy. To the contrary, overcoming artificial scarcity in its present form would see a great improvement in quality of life and life expectancy.

And so the focus on improving hyper-efficient methods of globalized distribution is missing the point, if relatively equivalent investment into R&D can get better results in the arena of material synthesis. Synthetic materials are based on polymers which are stronger and longer-lasting than natural or regenerated materials, and lend towards longer lasting products.

What is more efficient than the most efficient delivery system? Not having to distribute it at all.

Nations are not Bound to Agenda 2030 by Force of Treaty

Are most UN member states really ‘all in’ with the climate change game? The vast majority of countries tied into the IMF/UN system of neo-colonialism, are simply waiting out the clock, as alternatives such as BRICS grow against the petro dollar.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), known also as Agenda 2030, use the language of post-colonialism to reinforce a new kind of neo-colonialism. The system behind this push being so-called ‘sustainability’ is what is actually unsustainable, and so developing countries see they simply need to bear with it until it finally implodes.

A lot of unrelated environmental concerns have been collapsed into ‘climate change’. And climate change has been dogmatically tied to carbon emissions. The primary issue then deals with carbon emissions, therefore, even though it is just a single goal (goal 13) among the 17 goals of Agenda 2030.

Seeing the UN graphic below, we can see that the following goals are actually all important matters: 6 (Clean water and sanitation); 7 (Affordable and clean energy); 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure); 11 (Sustainable cities and communities); 12 (Responsible consumption and production); 14 (Life below water); 15 (Life on land).

And so it’s of peculiar interest that 13, climate action (which is merely carbon emissions), is the guiding logic behind all of these, when in fact it is failure to address goal 12 (Responsible consumption and production) which represents the entire economic, social, and environmental cancer of this age, a danger so clear and present and yet rooted so deeply in this paradigm, that the IMF cannot propose a solution that can tackle this.

Goal 12 – responsible consumption and production – is the foundation of all the other goals, if we are to take them seriously. Not goal 13 – climate action – as that in fact goes in the opposite direction. This point will be underscored.

All of this seems so terrible, so why did the majority of UN member states sign on? In fact, Agenda 2030 is not a treaty, it is non-binding and not a criteria for UN membership, and its provisions are not enforceable through the mechanism of treaties between sovereign states. Rather, it was reached ‘by consensus’, whatever that means. What has been constructed as Agenda 2030 presents an outline at best, using input from many UN member states, of what they ‘could’ agree to someday.

Therefore, many countries will make their own sovereign announcements about reaching this part, or that part, of the various goals. This will receive a lot of press, much of it misleading, because these were decisions these countries make on their own. Many of these already overlap with their own national agenda (poverty reduction, clean water, gender inclusiveness). But they do so on their own accord, and this point is critical.

Predatory multinationals like to use provisions on 2030 to place the spectre of global governance and shared goals as justification for policies which undermine the economic and sovereign foundation of developing countries.

But the 17 goals of Agenda 2030 (SDG) represent merely a ‘plan of action’, which countries are not obliged to separately from various accords and treaties which they might presently or later agree to, or which multinationals may attempt to unilaterally impose as a condition of trade, (often backed by the IMF) but which carry their own names and legal details.

Many of the concerns that these goals address are the right ones for countries to be focusing on, and therein lies the rub. Just like with the 4IR, Agenda 2030 turns these on their head, and cynically misdirects them towards a neo-Malthusian genocide.

The ugly truth about cap and trade, and all similar schemes to enforce this globally, is that they do not really reduce carbon emissions, if most other factors remain the same. Among the other factors required for this scheme to approximate ‘working’, is to reduce population size. Note that this is not to reduce the rate of population growth, but to reduce the total human population in absolute terms.

In other words, at the heart of the 17 SDG for 2030, the primary source of carbon footprints are human beings.

Overcoming this Paradigm’s Problem

Just like with the human development indexes, and broader economic concerns, Agenda 2030 seizes upon legitimate concerns for the environment, human exposure to carcinogenic materials, birth defects, and clean air and water.

But these become subsumed under the heading of global warming (or, in explaining cooling spells, ‘climate change’), in such an incoherent way that one cannot speak about the legitimate concerns without being forced to answer for climate change.

Innovations that potentiate a 4IR, like 3DP, contain much potential. But there are already existing solutions to the production/income and distribution/purchase cycle plaguing humanity in the face of the rapid automation process underway.

These solutions are as simple as using higher quality parts to substitute the ‘planned to break’ parts in already existing products, all other factors of production being left untouched.

Indeed, we hold that while there are hypothetically limits to growth, the biggest limitation at present is limited thinking about what growth looks like and what new possibilities and discoveries it holds.

Taken together, we can see that overcoming the wastefulness of economies of scale is not the problem which the elite’s conception of Agenda 2030 is aimed at. They want to preserve some type of system of subsidized commodity production, perhaps making products less sturdy, and commonly shared through a drone-delivery rental system.

This would decrease product lifespan while also requiring less goods to be produced, connected to the rental system and a lower total human population.

In some tenacious balance between population reduction and flimsy rental goods, the WEF proposes that this will result in a net decrease in carbon emissions. In looking at the second part of that balance, we can conclude that the population reduction must be significant in order to justify the net reduction claim.

Instead, we maintain that ‘two heads are better than one’, that the increase in human population has a multivariate, non-linear effect towards improvement not only of the human experience, but its positive interrelation with the entire noosphere.

The author can be reached at FindMeFlores@gmail.com