“The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects.” ~ Rudolph Rummel
Government and death go hand in hand, and death by government is the mainstay of power and control by the State. It should be noted that in today’s world, wars should not be considered defensive, as most all wars and conflicts are planned in advance, fraudulently structured, conspired by the major players involved, economically fashioned, and used in order to enrich the rich, advance nefarious agendas, all at the expense of the people on all sides. This is ‘modern’ war; psychological manipulation, psychological operations, universal oppression, persecution, and depopulation efforts meant to solidify global rule.
‘Modern’ war is not only about fighting off and destroying (killing) enemies, as most so-called ‘enemies’ (those at the top at least) are working together at this stage of the game in order to build out a one world government technocracy, vastly enriching those at the top of the pyramid, and capable of having regional control over populations by multiple technates. The Ukraine/Russia ‘war’ is an example of this dynamic, as nothing is as it seems. Putin wrote an essay in July of 2021 titled: “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” He stated:
“First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy.”
“The formula they (the West) apply has been known from time immemorial – divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.”
“We are one people. Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine.” And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.”
This is quite a contrast considering what is actually happening, but how real is it, and what is Putin’s real agenda? While horrible drone (machine) warfare is destroying both countries, Russia is shipping oil and gas through Ukrainian pipelines to the European Union unimpeded. This exposes the fraudulent nature of this proxy war between the players in Russia, Ukraine, and the West. Obviously this is not organic, but staged so that the real agendas can be solidified in the midst of this manufactured conflict.
The U.S. and Zionist Israeli war with Iran is no different. It is staged and likely fake as well, even though there are certainly deaths in the process. While the U.S. Israel, and Iran are trading missile attacks, they are destroying energy infrastructure purposely, which can only harm the people in all these countries and more around the world. Why would this outcome be sought unless that was the goal all along? Food, energy, and water have been horribly affected, this being used to harm the masses, but enrich the warmongers as they attempt to reset the world governing structure into a monstrous technocratic new world order.
In the meantime, the evil Zionists in Israel are continuing to genocide the entire Palestinian culture, a true holocaust, all with the help of the U.S., Europe, and the rest of the West. All of this seems clearly to be orchestrated among all these players, with the exception of Gaza and possibly Jordon, and not defensive at any level whatsoever. This means it was all planned in advance, is conspiratorial, and is meant to achieve specific ends advantageous to the ruling elements of the collusive war States involved.
All is headed in the same direction, just as was the case during the fake ‘covid’ pandemic farce. What seems to be the final push toward global technocracy, is well underway, and the lowly and brainwashed masses are running in every direction, looking for the next bogeyman or distraction, as defined by the mainstream narrative machine.
I consider this akin to the insanity of World War I, where men were told to occupy mud trenches, and to line up to charge machine gun strongholds in waves, one after another until they were mowed down. It was a slaughter of humanity at the whim of the rulers, and an exercise of using all the order followers as pure cannon fodder. Now, the slaughter in the future will be due to machine warfare using armed autonomous drones to wipe out much of humanity. Whether dumbed-down Americans accept it or not, this is all coming to this country soon. The U.S. is not immune to the heinous eradication methods being employed around the Middle East and eastern Europe today. It will eventually, and likely in the near future, be at your doorstep in one form or another; whether by domestic threat or other, due to government antagonism and plotted schemes meant to harm.
Already, your energy, food supply, and water are increasingly threatened, and this I believe will get worse. The destruction of infrastructure will not continue to only be in foreign lands, and the depopulation efforts will most certainly accelerate as things worsen in this environment of aggression, theft, murder, and control.
Remember, all that is happening is not accidental, it is not organic, and it is not defensive; it is intentional and meant to achieve a particular agenda of monetary upheaval, shortages of life-sustaining needs, all-consuming surveillance, and massive restrictive measures used to control this population. Wealth transfers to the rich and powerful will continue, while poverty and possibly famine among the general population will become more evident.
Wars in one form or another, whether hot, warm, or cold, will not subside, as the real ruling class continues its drive toward globalization. Psychological warfare will increase as well, as fear will be used as a weapon more and more as time passes. This can come from multiple fronts, as single events, or in waves of terroristic narratives meant to divide even more this already fully divided and pathetic proletariat class.
Man is the only animal in nature that seeks out non-self-governance. This to me appears to be entirely foreign, and completely unnatural. Maybe it is time for man to catch up with the rest of the animal kingdom, and rely on self- governance and self-preservation, instead of voluntarily seeking rule and false authority from those who would choose to rule and control their fellow men. That which is necessary for a natural and free existence is to abolish government!
“During the first eighty-eight years of [the 20th] century, almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs.”~ R. J. Rummel (Death by Government)
Exposing the Darkness | Lioness of Judah Ministry | lionessofjudah.substack.com
The Pentagon’s BODY COUNT: Theresa Long’s Bombshell Affidavit Shatters the Official Narrative on FORCED COVID Vax Injuries
Thousands dead, 55,000 adverse events, and a 151% spike in military myocarditis. A senior medical officer breaks ranks under oath to expose the devastation wrought on our armed forces.
The walls are finally cracking on the institutional cover-up of mRNA vaccine harms. In a landmark sworn affidavit filed on September 17, 2026, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Dr. Theresa Long lifts the lid on what truly happened to America’s armed forces under the forced-injection mandates.
Tasked with investigating over 55,000 adverse event reports and 2,544 deaths filed in VAERS for service members, Dr. Long’s explosive testimony exposes staggering DMED database surges, including a 151% spike in myocarditis, 43.6% in pulmonary embolisms, and 34.9% in ovarian dysfunction, alongside direct personal knowledge of over 29 post-injection deaths and the tragic case of a student pilot who died at the controls.
This is the smoking gun the establishment tried to bury.
INVESTIGATION INTO COVID VAX ADVERSE EVENTS AND DEATHS IN USA MILITARY, COMMENCES
Dr Theresa Long, Lt Colonel, US Army Medical Corp, Senior Medical Military Advisor to the Secretary of the Dept of Health and Human Services.
You really have to read Dr. Long's sworn affidavit filed on 17th September 2026.
Dr Long was in active medical duty during the roll out of the MANDATED Covid injectables to USA troops.
In her sworn affidavit she attests:
*8,400 US military personnel were mandated out as a result of refusal of Covid injectables (pg18)
*DMed data confirmed the following % increases in medical events reported to the military DMed system:
myocarditis/pericarditis - 151% hypertension - 22.9% ovarian dysfunction - 34.9% pulmonary embolism - 43.6% cancer of digestive organs - 18.3% (and many more increases)
Dr Long has personal knowledge of over 29 DEATHS of servicemembers following their Covid 19 injection
*Dr Long has now been tasked with investigating the 55,000 ADVERSE EVENT reports for servicemembers, filed with VAERS AND 2,544 DEATHS
Dr. Long’s sworn affidavit filed on 17th September 2026
Half, yes, half, of our vaccinated troops are suffering from silent heart damage—a lethal betrayal of the men and women who took an oath to protect our people.
“What adjective can be used for a nation who is consistently fooled, recurrently deceived by the crafty politicians? Goofy? Very light! Fool? Not enough! Brainless? Yes, that is the very adjective!” ~ Mehmet Murat ildan
In a word, the answer to the title question is none. By now, most of you know how I feel about politics, politicians, and government; this includes all voting and ignorant rants about being ‘free’ under any government. Recently, I have seen more articles being published defending ‘conservatism’ (republicans) by using the “lesser of evils” argument. Once again, this is not a valid argument, and in fact is simply the opposite. This is only an attempt to prop up the so-called ‘conservative’ position by announcing that the leftist socialists are so much worse. One article in particular caught my attention, but I will not mention the particular author here.
In my opinion, all parties can be lumped into one, and little difference will be evident when the results shake out in the end. Whether republican, democrat, libertarian, independent, green, or any other, the big picture, the only thing that counts, never changes. To disagree with this conclusion is to admit being asleep for the past century or more. One of the points being pursued is that the ‘concept’ that the left and right were working as one at the top, and therefore causing intentional division, is now not accurate. My take is that it is even more apparent, and worse than that, the entirety of politics worldwide, regardless of which flavor, is attempting to achieve the exact same outcome, and this is collusion by all the dark underbelly of the actual ruling class, who also rule over the subordinate political class.
As another irrelevant and worthless selection cycle is just around the corner, each camp is attempting to separate from the other, and this separation, while completely fraudulent, will attempt to take alternate core positions, and at this point, the socialist angle is apparently more cherished by the doltish crowd than any other. Is it any wonder considering the atrocious Trump years.? The rub here, is that there is absolutely no ‘winning’ by attempting to choose either of these evil and insane sides. The primary agenda being sought is globalism in a new world order in a fully digitized society; universal biometrics, totally surveilled populations, physical and monetary controlled economies, social credit systems, depopulation; all in order to build a universal technocracy.
The U.S., regardless of party position, is a practicing example of ‘democratic’ socialism, communism, Marxism, extreme fascism, and global compartmentalized oligarchical rule, all based on a master/slave environment. Any feigned differences, as suggested by many fake ‘alternative’ writers (controlled opposition sorts) as of late, are only at the margin, and actually become irrelevant considering that the results sought by all political sides are nearly identical. The division amongst the mass horde of serfs must sustain in order for top-down control to survive. Those pursuing their side over the other based on political or so-called ‘moral’ grounds, are simply liars playing the game of pitting one against the other, while avoiding the reality that all is going downhill, and has been for many decades, regardless of which set of whores was in power. They are all one and the same, and those with political power fully understand this fact.
Actually, this tyrannical and evil political system could not exist unless those in power on all sides were working together as one to achieve their ultimate goal of universal control. One aspect of this totalitarian horror we are living through that is rarely discussed, is the fact that most in this country actually believe everything should be based on “following the Constitution,’ that so-called single set of ruling instructions. If that were so, there would be no argument amongst the opposing parties; actually opposing parties could not exist if the goal of government was based on this one deceptive and dishonest document. The very idea of parties eliminates any sanity whatsoever, as the creation of parties was meant only to cause division from minute one. This was intentional.
Consider the heinous and completely corrupt Supreme Court; those nine criminals individually selected by the slime on both sides of the political spectrum, who tend to nearly always vote equally split. How could that be, if the rules in the same heinous Constitution are being considered by all the sitting ‘black’ robes? It could not! Parties you see, were invented for the single purpose of creating constant staged division. All the courts do is perpetuate that division, as is by design. To not see this is to be blind to reality, or consumed by cowardly indifference.
One example evident today (one of hundreds) is the ‘conservative’s’ convenient position taken against the murder of three children by the certainly evil Lindsay Clancy, while at the same time fully supporting the genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocent children in Gaza, just as they did in Iraq and around the world. This while many on the left are supporting a woman who murdered her children in cold blood. All these murderous acts are heinous of course, but the hypocrisy and stupidity on both sides is horrendous. The contrived sympathy in this case by the ‘conservatives’ is an obvious example of using a horrible event in order to market right-wing ‘morality’ in order to gain separation and votes. Both sides continually practice these kind of deceptive ploys in order to gain favor in the moment, but both sides are willing to sacrifice the lives of others if it suits their needs.
Examples of the dishonest, lying, and deceit practiced by all parties abound, and could fill the pages of multiple books, but the bottom line is that there is no difference between one political class or another. They want money, power, and control, or they would not pursue rule over all others, the single common thread of all in the political realm. When one side or the other makes claims that they are the superior ruler, that they possess moral supremacy, expose their arrogance by claiming dominance of virtue, and insist that you trust them alone, it is duplicitous nonsense.
Both the right and left seek total globalism, technocratic rule, and power. Both seek war at every turn, which has been the mainstay of this empire since its inception. Both seek unlimited control over the people. Both seek fascist cooperation. Both seek biometric labeling, digital currency, and AI advancement through extreme debt to society. Both seek mandates of poisonous injections, lockdowns, and medical supremacy. Both seek to protect pedophiles, rapists, molesters, and murderers among their ranks. Both have kept covered up every corruption, assassination, financial crime, and false flag no matter which one is the majority in power.
All one has to do in order to come to the conclusion that all politics are evil and one and the same, is to consider the fraud and hoax of the ‘covid’ scam. Every party, every country on earth, all acted in exact oneness, and simultaneously. How could that be possible unless conspiracy and total collusion among the so-called enemy rulers was openly evident? They all wanted to poison you, they all wanted you locked in home prisons, they all wanted you masked, they all wanted you to abandon your friends and families. How much more evidence do you need?
Beware any State or alternative narrative, and beware those in the now pretend alternative space who support one side or the other, who aim to influence by deceit. The mainstream media was corrupted long, long ago, but there are only a very few left in alt-media who are genuine, honest, and attempting to bring truth into the mix of madness. Question everything, scrutinize everything, believe almost nothing and do your own research. If you honestly want freedom, then by all means, abandon all government and all rule. Do not get caught in the Matrix, where your mind is taken from you, and programmed to obey.
“Between the government which does evil and the people who accept it – there is a certain shameful solidarity.” Victor Hugo
Donald Jeffries | I Protest |donaldjeffries.substack.com
The 25th anniversary of 9/11 has really brought out the trolls. I don’t know how many of them are paid, but X has been invaded by illogic, as an army of shills attempts lamely to prop up one of their most important lies. It’s the same insidious hivemind mentality that insists we ignore every giant cultural elephant destroying the room.
In September, 1976, as a result of the new Freedom of Information Act, a revealing April 1, 1967 CIA memo was released, titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report.” April 1? Was this one of their inside jokes? At any rate, the memo begins by stating “Our concern,” which revolves around the majority of the public disbelieving the ridiculous conclusions of the Warren Commission. Now why would the CIA be “concerned” about people failing to accept the government’s conclusions? A key passage notes: “Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.” Bingo, as my wife might say. This is the crux of the biscuit, and why “conspiracy theorists” are continuously demonized. Thought Criminals like me do indeed seek to “cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.” They whine about allegations that Oswald worked for the Agency. He did. He had a 201 file.
In the section headlined “Action,” the CIA helpfully advises that the subject of the assassination not be brought up. You know, like a young Don Jeffries was doing at every possible public gathering. In a tip of the hat to Operation Mockingbird, the Agency suggests that Conspiracy Deniers “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation…Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose…” We’d have to update the language here. Circa 2026, this would mean employing propaganda assets on late night talk shows, comedians, and social media “influencers” with lots of followers.
The sentiments there are universal, and apply to everything in the same sphere as the assassination. I’m culturally appropriating “Denier” from them. The majority of our fellow human beings are Conspiracy Deniers. This means essentially that they are capable of denying their own senses. As Winston Smith told us in 1984, “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” That is exactly what these Conspiracy Deniers are doing every day. Rejecting the evidence of their eyes and ears. From denying the racial reality of ghetto culture, and the wildly disproportionate power of the non-Irish, to swallowing every incredibly stupid and impossible theory from single-bullet to trickle-down. From saluting a flag that now stands for foreign misbehavior and a domestic police state, to trudging to the polls, in rain, or sleet, or snow, to vote for the worst people on earth to not represent them. Voting harder. Mistaken at the top of their lungs.
Although the ones we’re saddled with today are especially obtuse and unreasoning, they’ve always comprised most of the public. Orwell again characterized them perfectly with his sheep in Animal Farm. That’s another term we owe Orwell for. The Sheeple. They’re the unwitting, unthinking army of the conspirators. They refused to join the courageous Daniel Shays just after our War for Independence, when he started a rebellion over the mistreatment, and nonpayment of colonial soldiers. They were the ones reporting their neighbors to Lincoln’s goons during the War Between the States, resulting in them being thrown into makeshift prisons, without any due process. They bought all the false flags, from “Remember the Maine” to “Remember Pearl Harbor,” and their voices were always the loudest. They cheered on the Gulf War, in defense of a tiny oligarchy (Kuwait) none of them had even heard of before. They didn’t care that the government killed the Branch Davidians. They were “crazy.”
As you can see by the illustration above, we are still vastly outnumbered. The fact that this source claims only 47 percent of Americans believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy is astounding. It may be just one of their countless lies, but there is at least some truth in it. In the 1970s, polls showed close to 90 percent of people believed in a JFK conspiracy. Only 19 percent believe in chemtrails? Are they refusing to look up at the sky? Only 23 percent think 9/11 was an Inside Job? If these numbers are remotely accurate, then we have an even more monumental task in front of us. With an increasing reliance on the internet, and not the state controlled television networks, for news and information, how can it be possible that so many continue to be Conspiracy Deniers? Just how obvious do the conspiracies have to be? The coverups are purposefully transparent; they want you to know. They enjoy toying with us. And yet, no matter how obvious they make it, the masses absolutely refuse to think.
When DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s little black book of important political persons was revealed, she went on Alex Jones and publicly proclaimed she would never kill herself. And then she was found hanged. The Conspiracy Deniers believed she took her own life. Virginia Giuffre said the same thing. You know, the girl who was ignored by everyone for years, and then suddenly became a martyr for the ones who survived being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. The Conspiracy Deniers don’t think she was murdered, either. They don’t think anyone connected to anything politically significant has ever been murdered. As the authorities always quickly determine, “no evidence of foul play.” John Hinckley shot Reagan to impress underage nymphet Jodie Foster. Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk because he was a transgender in love. Or was it a “Furry” in love? They really don’t even need the “friendly assets” the CIA talked about in 1967. The Conspiracy Deniers handle things perfectly fine on their own.
Most of you have heard me talk about the overriding narrative that rules us; the conspiracy to deny any significance, any spiritual reason for our existence. A conspiracy against the supernatural. A conspiracy against God. They push randomness relentlessly. We are just a mere speck, on a slightly larger speck, in an endless universe. Black Holes. Quasars. Primordial soup. Lots of empty “scientific” mumbo jumbo, which somehow impresses the Conspiracy Deniers. Just don’t mention miracles. Or morality. Or eternal redemption. Or utter the name Jesus Christ, unless it’s in vain and you’re not a believer. Then it’s really, really cool. But worship Einstein all you want. A half illiterate who never learned to tie his shoes. But a non-Irish icon. Ask a real genius, Nikola Tesla, what he thought of him. The Conspiracy Deniers have no problem with the missing Tesla files, confiscated by Donald Trump’s uncle for the government. Sure, many of them have TDS themselves, but that is irrelevant.
Some “conspiracy theories” are absurd. The Black “community” believes in many of them. They have basically nailed the larger truth that our leaders are at war with us, but they think they’re only at war with Black people. They believe that random “White Supremacists” are kidnapping random Blacks off the streets and lynching them. And that the police are involved in covering this up. Now, the police are usually involved in covering up something, most frequently the actions of their out of control officers. But no one is lynching Blacks. No one is even lynching Thought Criminals, as far as I know. They knock some of us off, every so often, just as a reminder. I also confess to being confused by the Mandela Effect thing. Some Millennials contend that Nelson Mandela actually died before he did, and this somehow has resulted in other “truths” being changed. Like the Berenstain Bears books, for example. I don’t pretend to understand. But then again, I don’t think Mandela was any kind of hero, either.
It’s always been easier to just call names. Debate is difficult, especially when you have no facts on your side. This is the dilemma the average Conspiracy Denier must deal with. So they scoff at us “nut jobs.” Or “wackos.” Or their favorite, “retards.” During the COVID psyop, “dangerous” became a popular term of derision. Lots of people called me that. The more conventionally educated ones will fall back upon appeals to authority. They will invariably mention the “someone would have talked” nonsense. “Do you now how many people would have had to be involved” in faking the moon landing, or covering up 9/11? “You can’t keep a secret in Washington, D.C.” is another chestnut. Actually, D.C. is full of secrets, official and otherwise. Every still classified JFK assassination document attests to that. The redactions on every begrudgingly released file attests to that. All the dead whistleblowers, who were obviously “talking,” attest to that. Someone has always talked, but they’ve been murdered or ignored.
Russia! Russia! Russia! China! China! China! Islam did it! The sheep in Animal Farm chanted “Four legs good, two legs better.” They bleated out the naysayers. The critical thinkers. That’s what our Sheeple do. They chant “USA! USA!” to drown out any discouraging words. Maybe they’ll break into an impromptu version of Proud to be an American or Lift Every Voice and Sing, the so-called Black national anthem, depending upon the crowd. They both serve the same purpose. Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise. Trumpenstein is now promising a $5,000 check to every American if the Republicans win the midterm elections. Only his cult believes he will actually do this. There are Conspiracy Deniers on the Left, and an increasing number on the Right as well. These would be the ones cheering on Trumpenstein’s dismissal of the Epstein Files as a “Democrat hoax.” The files that reveal our illustrious leaders are in fact barbaric cannibals. Try trotting that one out at a party in front of Conspiracy Deniers.
To be a Conspiracy Denier, you have to endure political speeches. All political speeches. And consider that the empty rhetoric about “getting the country moving,” or “making it great” is innocent, standard political boiler plate. Which we should accept with a shrug and a smile. Sure, they never keep their promises. Sure, they never do anything which helps those who actually need help. Sure, they serve AIPAC and other shadowy special interests. Sure, you “can’t vote them out.” And besides, every one either party picks to run is the same. Never independent. Never principled. Always pro-Zionist. And always anti-”conspiracy theories.” Where’s the randomness of at least one honest leader every few decades or so? Because there’s no conspiracy to stop them, right? Wouldn’t the law of averages dictate that once in a while, we’d have someone in power who actually wanted to do good things? But we’ve accepted that, on those rare occasions, they simply eliminate the Huey Longs and John F. Kennedys.
Conspiracy Deniers believe that the Air Force “mistakenly” identified a weather balloon as a “Flying Saucer” at Roswell. They believe the Dallas deputies who found a rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963 both “mistakenly” misidentified it as a German Mauser. They believe the BATF had to launch a massive raid on the Branch Davidians, when they could have confronted leader David Koresh at any time in a local store. They believe all those witnesses- every one who identified Timothy McVeigh- was “mistaken” about him being in the company of “John Doe #2” in Oklahoma City. They believe that it was a coincidence that dictionaries changed the definition of “vaccine” in the wake of the warp speed vax that didn’t prevent “COVID.” They think millions died from this phantom disease, but no one died from the deadly vaccine. They believe JFK, Jr. and all the other dead Kennedys were “reckless.” They believe the people “won” when Nixon resigned.
I often feel like the little boy in the old fairy tale, who is the only one willing to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. We often forget that, like all whistleblowers and truthtellers, he was overruled by the crowd, who continued to ignore that the emperor was naked. Those of us who are trying to awaken the Conspiracy Deniers have to understand that we’re fighting centuries of “normie” conditioning. Especially for the last 100 years or so, we’re competing with intense propaganda the likes of which the world has never seen. Security cameras, which are everywhere, always malfunctioning whenever something important happens. Or allegedly happens, because an increasing number of doubters believe it’s all fake and scripted. Cell phone cameras, which oddly are never deployed during mass shootings, or supposed “anti-Semitic” behavior. You have your “Holocaust Deniers.” Your “COVID Deniers.” Your “Climate Change Deniers.” Your “Election Deniers.”
Well, I can have my Conspiracy Deniers. I don’t care if someone calls me a “conspiracy theorist.” Sticks and stones, and all that. But I have no “theory.” Building 7 isn’t a “theory.” The massive disparity of wealth isn’t a “theory.” No one in the Deep State being prosecuted isn’t a “theory.” The disclosures from the very limited DOGE program weren’t a “theory.” There is massive waste, fraud and abuse in our government. And those who run the government, the business world, and society at large are massively corrupt criminals. We’ve been vindicated, although they won’t admit it. Our friends owe us an apology. Our family members own us an apology. The world owes us an apology. Most humans can’t apologize, however. They’re too proud. In this case, an apology would mean they were wrong to trust those in charge. Wrong to ridicule and sneer at those who tried to enlighten them. To paraphrase the syrupy sentiment from Love Story: slavery means never having to say you’re sorry.
Something shifts beneath the surface of ordinary life. Not with announcements or spectacle, but through the quiet consolidation of systems that now track, verify, and gatekeep nearly every exchange between citizens and the institutions they rely upon. By 2028, according to timelines established by international bodies and echoed in domestic policy papers, Americans will face a choice that is not really a choice at all: accept a federally standardized Digital ID or find yourself locked out of the economy you helped build.
This deadline is not speculative. The World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, and the World Economic Forum have all converged on 2028 as the target for universal digital identity implementation. Within the United States, federal agencies have accelerated pilot programs linking biometric data to financial access, travel privileges, and social services. What appears as technological modernization is, upon closer inspection, the construction of a comprehensive control system—one where participation in society requires continuous verification, and where verification can be revoked without appeal.
The warning signs have accumulated for years, visible to anyone willing to look past the marketing language of convenience and security. Contactless payments normalized the idea that physical currency is suspicious. Vaccine passports established the precedent that health data serves as an access credential. Banking apps demonstrated that accounts can freeze instantly based on algorithmic risk assessments or political criteria. Each precedent seemed isolated. Taken together, they form a clear trajectory toward a society where identity itself becomes a conditional privilege rather than a fixed right.
We are not discussing a distant dystopia. The infrastructure is being built now, in real time, through partnerships between government agencies and technology firms that operate with minimal public scrutiny. The consequences of this transition will not be temporary adjustments but permanent alterations to the conditions of freedom itself. To understand what is at stake requires looking honestly at the mechanisms being assembled, the dependencies being engineered, and the alternatives that are rapidly disappearing.
How Digital ID Actually Works
Digital ID functions as a gateway mechanism rather than mere identification—a switch that can be toggled to sever individuals from essential services without judicial oversight or evidentiary standards.
Biometric integration, including facial recognition, retinal scanning, and behavioral analysis, creates immutable identifiers that cannot be discarded or temporarily borrowed, eliminating the anonymity that cash transactions and informal economies once preserved.
Cross-referencing capabilities allow real-time correlation of location data, purchasing patterns, social associations, and digital communications, constructing predictive behavioral models that anticipate dissent before it materializes into action.
Technical architecture relies on blockchain and distributed ledger technologies that claim immutability as a feature, meaning erroneous data entries or punitive designations become permanent elements of one’s digital record.
Private sector participation ensures that compliance extends beyond government mandates into corporate policy, where exclusion from banking, housing, and employment can be enforced through Terms of Service rather than legislative action.
The implementation proceeds through incremental acclimatization. Initially, Digital ID emerges as optional convenience—a faster lane through airport security, a streamlined method for tax filing. Early adopters receive minor privileges that validate the system for skeptics. Then comes soft mandate: certain services become available exclusively through digital verification, justified through appeals to security or fraud prevention. Finally, the hard deadline arrives, the 2028 threshold where non-participation becomes synonymous with non-existence within the formal economy.
Biometric capture represents the most irreversible aspect of this transition. Unlike passwords, biological characteristics cannot be changed if compromised. Once your iris pattern or facial geometry enters centralized databases, it persists indefinitely, accessible to systems and actors you never authorized. The convenience of unlocking your phone with a glance extends seamlessly into accessing your funds, your transportation, your medical care. Each verification provides data. Each glance refines the model of who you are, what you want, where you go.
Recent years have demonstrated how these systems function in practice. Canadian authorities froze the bank accounts of protesting truckers without judicial process. British citizens discovered that certain political donations triggered financial surveillance. American businesses learned that ideological deviation from prevailing narratives could result in debanking and commercial exclusion. These were not aberrations. They were rehearsals for systematic financial control through Digital ID infrastructure.
Cash Is Disappearing, and Taking Privacy With It
Paper currency and metal coinage represent the final domain of transactional privacy—the last space where exchange occurs without intermediaries, surveillance, or permission. Its elimination constitutes not merely logistical change but a fundamental redefinition of money itself, from tangible asset to conditional privilege.
Physical cash carries properties that digital systems cannot replicate: immediacy, finality, anonymity. When you hand a twenty-dollar bill to a merchant, the transaction completes without third-party verification. No bank records the exchange. No algorithm flags the purchase for analysis. No institution maintains the capacity to reverse the transfer or freeze the funds. This directness offends control systems because it escapes monitoring.
The campaign against cash proceeds through multiple vectors. Banks cite storage costs. Governments cite tax evasion concerns. Economists cite inefficiency. Each argument contains partial truth, sufficient to mask the deeper agenda: the elimination of economic activity that escapes surveillance, taxation, and administrative oversight.
When money exists only as database entries, you possess not wealth but conditional access. The distinction matters. True ownership implies control—your property remains yours regardless of external opinion. Conditional access implies permission—your resources remain available only so long as you maintain favorable standing with gatekeepers.
Consider the implications of total digitization. Every transaction becomes data. Every purchase enters your behavioral profile. The books you buy, the medications you need, the establishments you frequent, the hours you keep—all recorded, categorized, analyzed. Patterns emerge. Predictions form. And predictions enable preemptive intervention. The system need not wait for you to commit a crime; it can identify statistical probability and adjust your access accordingly.
The elimination of cash also destroys the informal economy that has sustained communities through turbulence. Side jobs paid in cash. Yard sales conducted with neighbors. Charitable giving that leaves no paper trail. Emergency reserves hidden in homes. These practices, essential to resilience and independence, become impossible when all value flows through monitored channels. The grandmother who slips cash to a struggling grandchild, the neighbor who pays for informal childcare, the teenager who earns under-the-table wages for yard work—all these transactions enter the light of surveillance, taxed and tracked and stripped of human immediacy.
Artificial Intelligence Is Now the Gatekeeper
Machine learning algorithms do not merely process data; they generate reality. They classify, categorize, and condemn through statistical correlation that requires neither evidence nor explanation. When integrated with Digital ID systems, AI becomes the invisible arbiter of social participation, rendering judgments in milliseconds that human bureaucrats could never process.
The marriage of Digital ID and AI creates automated social sorting at scale. Your digital identity feeds data to algorithms that assess your creditworthiness, employability, insurability, trustworthiness as a tenant or traveler. These assessments occur constantly, invisibly, without your knowledge or consent. You do not apply for exclusion; it finds you through accumulated flagged behaviors and statistical anomalies.
Historical patterns of discrimination, embedded in decades of banking and criminal justice records, become encoded as algorithmic neutrality. The AI does not hate; it recognizes patterns. If certain zip codes correlate with loan defaults, the algorithm avoids those zip codes. If certain political affiliations correlate with chargebacks, the algorithm flags those affiliations. The result is discrimination without discriminatory intent, exclusion without explicit policy.
The speed of AI decision-making outpaces human comprehension and recourse. By the time you discover that your Digital ID has been flagged, that your access has been restricted, that your transactions have been blocked, the algorithm has already assessed thousands of other subjects. Appeals processes, where they exist, require you to prove your innocence to systems that presume algorithmic infallibility. The burden of proof inverts: you must demonstrate why you should not be excluded.
Predictive algorithms introduce temporal tyranny—the punishment of future crimes that have not occurred. If your purchasing patterns resemble those of previous criminals, if your social network includes flagged individuals, if your travel patterns suggest suspicious intent, the system can restrict your access preemptively. You are punished not for what you have done but for what you might do, according to statistical models you cannot examine.
Social Credit Arrives Without the Name
The Chinese social credit system, once viewed with Western condescension as authoritarian overreach, now serves as the template for behavioral modification through infrastructure. Its principles—rewarding compliance, punishing dissent, gamifying obedience—translate seamlessly into democratic contexts when wrapped in the language of convenience, security, and public health.
Digital ID enables the construction of citizen scores that amalgamate financial responsibility, social conformity, political reliability, and lifestyle compliance. These scores determine not merely access to loans but access to transportation, housing, education, and healthcare. They create a caste system more rigid than hereditary hierarchy because it claims the legitimacy of data and the neutrality of algorithmic assessment.
The architecture of obedience relies on visibility. When citizens know they are watched, they watch themselves. When they know their transactions are analyzed, they self-censor their purchases. When they know their movements are tracked, they restrict their associations. This internalized surveillance proves more efficient than external enforcement because it operates continuously, automatically, without cost.
Social credit systems also weaponize social relationships. Your score affects those with whom you associate; their scores affect yours. This creates powerful incentives for exclusionary behavior, for cutting ties with controversial figures, for policing the behavior of friends and family. The system externalizes its enforcement costs onto the population itself, transforming citizens into informants of their own subjugation.
The normalization of public shaming through digital platforms has prepared the ground for social credit implementation. We have already accepted that individuals can be deplatformed, debanked, and demonetized based on public opinion or algorithmic assessment. We have grown accustomed to the destruction of livelihoods through viral campaigns and corporate compliance. Social credit merely formalizes these practices and renders them systematic.
The End of Work Means the Beginning of Dependency
Artificial intelligence and automation threaten not merely employment but the concept of productive citizenship itself. As algorithms replace white-collar analysis and robotics replace blue-collar labor, the relationship between effort and survival severs. The proposed solution—Universal Basic Income—represents not generosity but the final consolidation of control through dependency.
UBI transforms citizens from producers into recipients, from contributors into supplicants. The income is unconditional only in rhetoric; in practice, it flows through the same Digital ID infrastructure that monitors all other aspects of existence. Acceptance of payment constitutes acceptance of the system, the infrastructure, the terms. Those who refuse Digital ID find themselves without income not through punishment but through exclusion from the distribution mechanism.
The amount provided always hovers at subsistence level, sufficient to prevent destitution but insufficient to accumulate independence. Recipients remain perpetually precarious, aware that non-compliance risks withdrawal. This creates a population easier to manage than any previous arrangement because it lacks both the resources for resistance and the productive independence that might sustain alternative communities.
The elimination of work destroys more than income; it destroys meaning, community, and the social fabric that binds individuals through mutual dependency. The barber, the mechanic, the local shopkeeper—these figures provided not merely services but social connection, neighborhood knowledge, informal support. Their replacement by automated systems and centralized distribution eliminates these nodes of community, leaving isolated recipients connected only to administrative apparatus.
The transition to UBI also facilitates the elimination of cash. When all income arrives digitally and all expenditure occurs through monitored channels, the informal economy vanishes. No under-the-table work supplements the official payment. No cash transactions escape the net. Complete visibility of economic life enables complete control, with restrictions applied seamlessly to those who deviate from prescribed behaviors.
When Food Becomes a Leverage Point
Agricultural land disappears beneath solar arrays while data centers consume energy equivalent to small nations. Farmland is purchased by institutional investors and converted to conservation easements that prohibit cultivation. Supply chain disruptions create the perception of permanent shortage. These developments converge toward a specific objective: the control of food as a mechanism of population management.
Digital ID enables rationing with precision impossible under previous systems. Your dietary allowances can be calibrated to your health data, your carbon footprint, your social score. Certain foods become available only to certain categories of citizens. Meat consumption is restricted based on environmental impact calculations. The carbon content of every meal becomes part of your permanent record.
The promotion of alternative proteins—insect-based foods, lab-grown meats, synthetic substitutes—proceeds not merely through marketing but through the elimination of alternatives. When traditional agriculture becomes economically unviable through regulation, when distribution networks prioritize approved products, when Digital ID systems restrict purchases of high-impact foods, the population transitions to substitutes not by choice but by necessity.
Food control represents the ultimate leverage because hunger admits no ideology. The individual who might resist surveillance for principle will compromise when children require nutrition. The system recognizes this asymmetry and exploits it ruthlessly. Compliance with Digital ID, with carbon tracking, with behavioral requirements becomes the condition for access to sustenance itself.
The rhetoric of sustainability masks the reality of control. Environmental concerns are genuine, but their exploitation for authoritarian ends does not address ecological crisis; it merely weaponizes it. The same systems that claim to reduce carbon footprints through dietary control maintain the industrial infrastructure of surveillance, the energy consumption of data centers, the elite consumption patterns of the managerial class. Restrictions apply downward, never upward.
Why This Cannot Be Undone
Physical infrastructure can be dismantled. Laws can be repealed. But digital systems, once established, develop path dependencies that make their removal nearly impossible. The databases exist. The algorithms are trained. The population has adapted. Reversion to previous arrangements becomes unthinkable not because it is technically impossible but because the social and technical infrastructure for alternatives has been destroyed.
Cash elimination illustrates this irreversibility. Once physical currency ceases circulation, the knowledge of its use atrophies. Young people raised on digital transactions cannot conceptualize economic life outside monitored channels. The physical infrastructure of cash—printing presses, distribution networks, retail cash handling—deteriorates or repurposes. Reintroduction becomes a massive undertaking that few politicians will attempt.
Similarly, the skills of anonymous living—navigating without GPS, communicating without digital trails, transacting without records—atrophy through disuse. Each generation becomes less capable of independence from digital systems than the last. By 2028, the cohort that remembers genuine privacy will have aged, diminished, lost influence. Digital natives will accept their condition as natural, as the only reality they have known.
Institutional capture ensures that no electoral victory suffices to reverse these trends. The bureaucracies implementing Digital ID transcend political cycles. Corporate partners maintain influence across administrations. International agreements commit nations to implementation regardless of domestic political shifts. Even sincere opposition confronts machinery too vast, too entrenched, too essential to daily functioning to dismantle within constitutional timeframes.
Why People Will Accept This
Populations do not resist comprehensive control because it arrives not as catastrophe but as convenience. Each step toward Digital ID is rationalized, justified, made appealing. The public accepts surveillance because it is packaged as security. They surrender privacy because privacy is framed as suspicious. They embrace dependency because dependency is marketed as freedom from want.
The human capacity for adaptation proves fatal to liberty. We normalize what should horrify. The frog boils not because it lacks the sense to leap but because the temperature rises gradually, each degree feeling like the previous. By the time the water scalds, the capacity for escape has atrophied. We tell ourselves that we will resist when the line is crossed, failing to recognize that the line moves continuously, that we have already crossed dozens of lines our ancestors would have defended.
The mythology of resistance sustains complacency. We imagine that when tyranny becomes obvious, we will act. We will opt out. We will go off-grid. We will resist. But the infrastructure for resistance requires preparation that few undertake. The skills, the networks, the alternative systems—these require years of cultivation that digital convenience discourages. When realization arrives, the capacity for effective resistance has already been dismantled.
Digital ID exploits the human desire for belonging. Exclusion from the system is not merely inconvenient; it is social death. The individual without Digital ID cannot participate in the economy, cannot travel, cannot access healthcare, cannot maintain normal social relationships. The cost of resistance is total, immediate, and visible, while the cost of compliance is gradual, deferred, and abstract. This asymmetry ensures that most will comply, that resistance will remain the province of those with unusual resources or unusual conviction.
The normalization of surveillance has already occurred. We carry tracking devices voluntarily. We share our locations, our preferences, our relationships with platforms that monetize this data. We accept facial recognition at airports, fingerprint scanning for phones, voice analysis for assistants. Each acceptance trains us for the next, larger surrender. Digital ID merely consolidates these separate acquiescences into unified control.
The 2028 Horizon
International organizations have established 2028 as the target for universal digital identity implementation. The World Bank, the UN, the WEF—all coordinate toward this deadline. National governments align their policies accordingly. The infrastructure is built, the legislation drafted, the populations prepared through incremental conditioning.
This timeline allows sufficient years for normalization, for the retirement of resistant populations, for the maturation of technical infrastructure, for the resolution of competing systems into unified standards. It represents the culmination of decades of preparation, the final phase of a transformation that began with credit cards and accelerated through smartphones.
The window for effective opposition narrows daily. Each new pilot program, each new banking regulation, each new digital service that requires verified identity—these build the scaffolding of the control system. Opposition becomes more difficult as the system becomes more comprehensive. The individual who refuses participation finds not a community of resistance but isolation, as the digital majority cannot comprehend or accommodate analog existence.
By 2028, the question will be settled not through debate but through fait accompli. The infrastructure will exist. The population will be enrolled. The exceptions will be marginalized, impoverished, forgotten. The warnings issued today will be dismissed as paranoid speculation, even as the reality they described becomes the water in which everyone swims, invisible because ubiquitous.
The Last Years of Analog Existence
We stand at the terminus of an era. The decades ahead will be defined by the struggle between digital totalitarianism and the remnants of human autonomy. The outcome is not predetermined; the machinery of control, however advanced, requires human compliance to function. But the trajectory favors the controllers because they act with coordination, resources, and long-term planning while the population sleeps, distracted by spectacle and comfort.
The 2028 deadline is not merely a policy target. It is the closing of a door. After it, the world of cash transactions, anonymous movement, unmonitored communication, and unverified identity becomes inaccessible not through law but through infrastructure. The past becomes literally unreachable because the means of reaching it have been dismantled.
Those who recognize this moment have limited options. They can prepare alternative systems, cultivate analog skills, build communities of mutual support outside digital channels. They can resist enrollment as long as possible, accepting the costs of exclusion. They can document these developments, preserving knowledge of what freedom meant for future generations who will have known only conditional access.
But they cannot stop the tide alone. Effective resistance requires collective recognition that has not materialized and shows little sign of materializing. The seductions of digital convenience prove too powerful, the costs of non-compliance too severe, the capacity for denial too robust.
What remains is witness. The documentation of this transformation, this closing of the frontier of liberty, this assembly of comprehensive control. We write now so that future readers will know that warnings were issued, that alternatives existed, that submission was chosen rather than inevitable. We write so that the record will show that some saw clearly, that some refused the anesthesia of convenience, that some maintained their humanity when the system demanded its surrender.
The years between now and 2028 will determine whether humanity retains the capacity for unmonitored existence or surrenders finally to the administered life. The clock ticks. The door slowly closes. And most stand watching, wondering why they feel a draft, not yet understanding that the walls are moving inward, that the space for liberty contracts with each passing day, that the world they knew is being dismantled around them, replaced by something colder, more efficient, more total, and more permanent than anything previous generations could have imagined or feared.
The warning has been given. The deadline approaches. The choice, for now, remains yours. But the window narrows. And the machinery does not sleep.
The Fourth Amendment Does Not Have An Exception Saying Government May Watch Everyone If A Private Corporation Owns The Cameras
LewRockwell.com | Martin Armstrong
Welcome to America, where apparently standing around is now enough to have your movements searched through a nationwide surveillance network.
Records obtained from the Plano, Illinois Police Department reveal more than 1,200 searches involving the category “Curfew/Loitering/Vagrancy Violations.” That is from cameras controlled by ONE small police department, with law enforcement agencies elsewhere accessing those cameras as part of their searches. Additional audit records collected around the country show hundreds more searches under the same category. Flock has more than 120,000 cameras spread across 49 states, and its network has expanded into thousands of communities. This is no longer some camera sitting outside a convenience store recording a robbery. They have constructed the infrastructure to reconstruct where ordinary people travel, and police departments across jurisdictions can search that information.
This is precisely what I wrote about when I said, “Your Car Was Never the Target.” License plate readers were sold as a tool to find stolen vehicles and dangerous fugitives. Then the systems began recording the make, model, color, location, and movements of vehicles. Now Flock is developing AI systems capable of doing considerably more. Its newer investigative technology can combine camera information with police records, dispatch logs, and commercial identity databases, while other tools can search camera networks using written descriptions. Once you combine AI with a nationwide camera network, you are no longer investigating a crime after it occurs. You are constructing the machinery necessary to search the movements and associations of an entire population.
Flock’s newer AI tools can allow police to continuously search cameras in a defined area for someone matching a written description. A Texas deputy previously searched tens of thousands of cameras looking for a woman who had obtained an abortion. Officers have been accused of using Flock to track former romantic partners. Illinois discovered that federal immigration agents had gained access to state camera information despite restrictions. Now we learn the system is being searched for loitering and vagrancy. Yet they continue telling us not to worry because safeguards are coming. Flock has announced shorter default retention periods, case codes, auditing, and other controls. Fine. None of that changes the fundamental question: Why should government possess the ability to reconstruct the movements of millions of innocent people in the first place?
The Fourth Amendment was not written with an exception saying government may watch everyone so long as a private corporation owns the cameras. I wrote earlier this year about the FBI admitting that it purchases commercially available location information on Americans. This is the loophole they have discovered. Government does not always need to build the surveillance system itself anymore. Private corporations collect the information, construct the databases, and develop the technology. Government simply purchases access or contracts for the service. The private sector builds the cage and government gets the key.
People keep saying, “I have nothing to hide.” That is perhaps the most dangerous response imaginable. Liberty was never based upon proving to government that you have nothing to hide. Government was supposed to prove that it had probable cause to investigate YOU. We have turned that principle upside down. Everyone is monitored first, the information is stored, and government searches the database later when it decides somebody has become interesting. You do not need to commit murder. You do not need to rob a bank. You apparently do not even need to steal a car. You can be searched because somebody decided you were loitering.
We are all criminals now. That is where this mentality inevitably leads. Every citizen becomes a potential suspect because every citizen generates data that can be searched. Your car identifies where you travel, your phone identifies where you sleep, your credit card identifies what you buy, your bank identifies who you pay. Facial recognition identifies where you appear in real time. AI can connect information that once required hundreds of investigators and months of work in seconds. Governments of the past could only dream of possessing this kind of power.
This is how a surveillance state is created. There is no announcement from Washington declaring that privacy has ended. There is no single law abolishing the Fourth Amendment. It happens camera by camera, database by database, emergency by emergency, until one day people realize that anonymity in public has effectively disappeared. The government will insist that only criminals need to worry right up until the definition of “criminal” includes standing somewhere too long. [Or someone who refuses a deadly 'vaccine', or to wear a mask during a fake pandemic, or speaks against war, the government or their narratives...]
In this looming world of “regulated” AI, governments could be empowered to shut down access to sites, networks or even the internet as a whole in the event of alleged “rogue AIs” becoming a “threat to national security”.
This [the image above] is what 2031 looks like...unless we sign away some more of our rights.
Kit Knightly | Off-Guardian.org
I’ve been documenting the increasingly hysterical coverage of ‘rogue AI’ for the last six weeks, predicting a major psy-op or false flag.
Well, kids it looks like the psy-op part is here. So far no false flag…but with the greatest level of hysteria since the early days of Covid circulating, maybe they won’t need to DO anything.
Maybe insane claims about a phantom threat will be enough.
Oh yes, did you know Artificial Intelligence has a “10% chance of wiping out humanity before the end of the decade”?
That’s the headline on every single mainstream paper, the trending topic on every social media platform, the talking point on every news channel.
Yes, from the producers of long-running hit show “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL KILL US ALL!” and the international sensation “COVID WILL KILL US ALL!” comes the latest experience in fear everyone is talking about.
And this latest wave is already being used to push new “regulation”, which should alarm anyone.
It all started with a young man, apparently named Jacob Coxon, who is allegedly a former AI researcher for OpenAI and later Anthropic.
Yesterday he announced his resignation from the latter, citing ethical concerns about the danger of “unregulated” artificial intelligence.
And, as is usually the case when an obscure person resigns from his job for supposed ethical concerns, his resignation was the subject of an exclusive article in the Wall Street Journal,
Oh and a simultaneously published thread on Twitter/X – from what is allegedly Coxon’s own account that had – so far as can be seen – never been used before.
AMAZINGLY, within hours Coxon’s alarming claims had gone “viral”.
Now some old cynics out there will be thinking at this stage “hmmm correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t this look suspiciously like a narrative roll-out”?
But I’m sure the terminally gullible will hasten to reassure you that this is the way real life definitely works.
It’s just a coincidence that everyone across the entirety of the political punditry spectrum is engaged in amplifying one single message.
In another of those startling synchronicities which we don’t need to think about too much, at exactly the same time that Coxon was hitting the mainstream headlines, Joe Rogan – king of the mainstream alternative media – had another AI researcher on his show, spouting his own dire warnings.
AI experts have been crawling out of the woodwork, all keen to endorse Coxon’s position – or even call it an underestimate.
You must have seen Geoffrey “the godfather of AI” Hinton on the BBC, telling Victoria Derbyshire he agreed with Coxon’s risk assessment:
“You just said that 10% doesn’t seem an unreasonable estimate that AI could kill all humans”
“Yes”
“Wow… oh my God.”@vicderbyshire speaks to Nobel Prize Winner and so-called ‘Godfather of AI’ Geoffrey Hinton about predictions by an Anthropic researcher that there’s a more… pic.twitter.com/sGYQI57REF
Why, REGULATE of course. That’s what Coxon said in one of his MANY media interviews in the last twenty-four hours (and as someone who has been aware of Coxon’s existence since some time yesterday I can tell you I trust him absolutely):
The guy who helped train the models left Anthropic and said AI is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.
Jacob Coxon spent 3 years at OpenAI and Anthropic.
He says the labs think this could kill everyone by the end of the decade and they are still racing each other.
He floats an AI non-proliferation treaty “like we have for nuclear weapons” – as if it’s a wildly coincidental brand new idea, and not a paraphrase of the same talking point dozens of people – including Bill Gates – have been suggesting for months.
But what would a global AI treaty actually look like? And what would it achieve? And who will be in control of implementing it?
Well, for a potential taste here’s what US Congressman Bill Foster tweeted earlier today:
A “hardened” internet? Is that what we can expect?
No more “untraceable access” to AI facilities? Restrictions on “anonymous payments”? What exactly does that mean?
Last week, coincidentally, a group of Lords from the UK’s upper house was calling for “kill switches”, not just for AI programs, but for data centres in general [emphasis added]:
A group of peers is calling for the British government to be able to deactivate powerful AI systems and switch off the country’s data centres in the event of the tech posing a threat to national security
And who will have control of these kill switches and other control mechanisms? You? Or the usual suspects?
Of course if you’ve already allowed yourself to be manipulated into believing data centers are the Spawn of Satan, you’ll probably think a kill switch is a great idea – and happily overlook that it’s just putting yet more control into the hands of institutions that already brought you the ‘covid’ scam and 9/11.
If any such people are reading this – does it occur to you yet that THIS was always the end point of those panic memes you hoovered up so uncritically?
Be careful what you wish for.
In this looming world of “regulated” AI, governments could be empowered to shut down access to sites, networks or even the internet as a whole in the event of alleged “rogue AIs” becoming a “threat to national security”.
And if YOU or your output or you interactions get labelled as potential AI, or you have your access restricted purely based on your location or IP address?
Well, good luck telling anyone as you scream inside your soundproof bubble.
This can go further – and we’d be fools to just assume it won’t.
In the name of preventing the spread of “rogue AI” (or “rouge AI” according to half the hysterics on social media), the internet can have information bulkheads which can be used to quarantine sections, nations, networks or individual sites “infected” with digital these digital “invasive species”.
You may have to prove your humanity with face scans or similar, and there may be strict limitations on what regions and/or databases you can reach, how much of your money you can spend without additional checks, etc.
Even the restricted internet of today might look like freedom compared to the’ post-AI-Regulation’ revised world wide web.
And today’s security state might be something to look back on with nostalgia when the ‘post-AI-Regulation’ revised worldwide surveillance and supply line controls kick in.
But don’t think about any of that – that nice guy Jacob you never heard of a week ago is warning you.
Listen to him on the mainstream media platform they gave him.
This is the day when I realized the truth needed to be told by independent journalists because the mainstream media was completely full of shit. This is when my career changed from stock broker to independent journalist. I hung up the phone on clients calling me to try to profit from this event before the second building fell, and I started to research and write.
This day I saw first hand the lies of the government playing out in real time. From the live video feed of Bush at being told a "second plane" hit the twin towers in New York, while innocently reading a book to school children; the look on his face was that "It was done", not one of surprise.
This day showed for those with eyes to see, the "plane" truth that government lies. This day changed the course of history, not only for me, but for the world.
The official story was so blatantly a lie, completely full of holes and scientific impossibilities that it warped the minds of the masses - just like the covid scam (renaming the flu) did.
Buildings don't pancake collapse at free fall speed.
Bad CGI was the only evidence of any plane hitting any building.
Raw uncut footage shows the building explosions with no planes present.
News crews were announcing buildings fell that had not fallen yet.
One on the spot reporter stated there was no visible plane debris at the pentagon.
The explosive nature of the buildings collapse was clearly a controlled demolition. Also cut columns are not caused by planes, they are caused by shape charges used in controlled demolitions.
The ridiculous official narrative that still stands today is a shining example of the satanic inversion theory; that using gaslighting and propaganda, lies can remain the official word, no matter how obvious.
What Did Happen On That Day?
For those who were not watching live, or for those who have not done research; 4 false flag attacks took place, planned by our own government, executed by our own government, and covered up by our own government.
This was done to further enable the war machine and totalitarian control of the masses.
A missile hit the pentagon, and 3 buildings were brought down by pre planned, controlled demolition that took weeks to physically set up. CGI was used to blame planes hitting the towers, but no planes were used at all on any building in reality.
See for yourself:
This footage shows an non edited timeline showing the second explosion without a plane.
Another video from a different angle:
No plane a the Pentagon either. It was a missile.
Here is building 7 falling by controlled demolition. No plane or fire. Clearly detonations.
For those who know the truth, this anniversary day each year serves as a reminder that the official lie still stands because the masses choose to live in denial and the traitor perpetrators who carried out these false flag events have not been brought to justice; pathetic.
For those just learning the truth, the events on this day show government complicity in a self inflicted deadly false flag attack on its own people, and should spark you to question all government actions and narratives.
For both, the status of the narrative lie, is and will continue to be, a barometer showing the current state of the nation.
Here are some of the 9/11 articles we have published on Truth11.com:
After being censorship attacked during the covid scamdemic and shut down on WordPress with 13,046 articles published on that platform; Truth11.com had to be rebuilt. On our new platform we have now published 6,000 articles, this is the 6,000th article posted!. We are truth warriors and will continue to fight, write and report to bring you the truth.
We still endure to this day massive censorship and algorithmic blacklisting. With your help we can reach more people. You can help Truth11.com by helping us fight censorship. Please Share Truth11.com with others, share our articles, share our Images + Memes, videos, documents and solutions pages.
You can also help us in our independent media mission by becoming a monthly subscriber. This is of great importance to us, as we are not funded by the government (obviously), also we do not allow any advertising or paid posts - to keep us independent and free to report the truth. It also keeps our site easy to read, free from distractions and sales pitches. Your monthly subscription for $3 or $11 (your choice) is our only ability to cover costs and we greatly appreciate the support from all of our subscribers!
You can also help us in our mission to report the truth by making a small one time donation.
Thank you Truth Warriors for being a person who wants the truth, for reading, sharing and caring.
If I was weak, I would ask to be forgiven for my brutal and accusatory candor, but I need not, and desire not, any forgiveness. It is my assumption that telling the truth regardless of any ill will or hurt feelings it may generate, is always literally my only intent. I will never compromise, or soften the truth in order to massage weakness, cowardice, or pathetic victimization attitudes. As anyone who knows or understands me is aware, I am no doomsdayer, nor am I cynical, I am strictly a teller of truth, regardless of how uncomfortable that may be to those who desire to hide, and do nothing to help or save themselves from this heinous State that has consumed and gained control over the minds of this obedient proletariat mass. I will accept no label of the idiotic term ‘black pill,’ as that is intentionally ad hominem, and therefore cheap and offensive to any honest thinking individual.
The fate that most of you have voluntarily accepted, is that of a slave, which means that the fault lies with any and all who have willingly allowed this system of rule to exist in any form, with the insane notion that ‘choosing’ a master to lord over you is somehow in your best interest. In this case, government, all government and anyone in it, plays the role of master, so acceptance of this government, voting to instil this government, support for this government and its murderous wars and military, and the failing of securing your own freedom, leaves all the blood on your hands. Without your support, obedience, and compliance of this fraudulent ‘authority,’ it would not exist, and therefore, you would be set free. The long quote below by Étienne de La Boétie in “The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude,” explains in explicit and exact detail why the people in this country have of their own doing been relegated to eternal servitude:
“Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as our own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. … Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows—to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labour in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not be taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.”
Let us pause for a moment and reflect on these words of wisdom. The ruling class and its state pawns in government cannot exist, cannot steal your wealth, cannot use and kill your children as fodder for their murderous wars, cannot surveil your every move, cannot steal your land and property, cannot destroy your family, cannot lock you in your own home prisons, and cannot control you unless you willingly allow that to happen. How simple is the solution then, if all you have to do individually and en masse, is to support this abominable government no more. The real rulers you see, those called the “deep state,” can only survive and control you if an accepted government middleman is in place to command and hold dominion over your lives. Without that conduit of assumed ‘authority,’ the ruling class could be banished, and the government made impotent.
This will never happen with any petitioning or collective protest of government. A slave does not petition his master to not be his master. Once a people are under the forceful ruling thumb of government, any petition of same government is in direct contradiction to sanity. Rulers do not give up their power to those it controls due to begging or vote. Political protest, especially violent protest, achieves nothing, and in fact strengthens the state, and causes abominable force, increased surveillance, strengthened bogus ‘laws’ and enforcement, and state violence against the people becomes more accepted by the rest of the timid crowd of cowardly sheep. Holding a sign, chanting, screaming slogans, marching, and harming private property and the liberty of others, cannot and will not bring any relief from tyranny, but it will certainly enhance it as has been evident for generations. When crowds gather, when collectivist swarms are present, all critical thinking ceases to exist. Only individuals retain intellect and control, while herds follow along trying to avoid individual dissent and social condemnation by staying in the crowd.
Everything of value concerning freedom of the individual is based on the concept of self-ownership.“Only you own your own life,” this the core of natural human rights. To give up this personal ownership is an acceptance that “another person has a higher claim to your life than you do.” Your life is yours and yours alone, so to allow any individual or ‘governing’ body to possess claim over you, means your life is not yours. Your life is your property alone, your property therefore, belongs to you alone. No one has any right to your life, and you have no right to another’s life; meaning that no one can delegate a right to rule you, because no one has any right to rule another. This fact alone means that no government claiming any right over any individual is legitimate, and in fact it is criminal.
Since you own your own life, it is your duty and right to defend your life against any who would aggress against you in any manner whatsoever. The initiation of force in self-defense is legitimate in this case, as no man and no government has any right to claim ownership of you or your property in any way. Because of this, each is fully responsible for himself, and has no right to the property of others. If you want freedom, claim ownership of your own life, and refrain from interference in the life of any other unless all is mutually voluntary and non-aggressive.
“The truth is, one who seeks to achieve freedom by petitioning those in power to give it to him has already failed, regardless of the response. To beg for the blessing of “authority” is to accept that the choice is the master’s alone to make, which means that the person is already, by definition, a slave.” ~ Larken Rose
Image Source: Original meme concept Ghibli styled using ChatGTP [Edited]
The show trial of a somewhat arbitrarily selected group of 21 surviving Nazis at Nuremberg during 1945-46 was US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson’s show. Jackson was the chief prosecutor. As a long-time admirer of Jackson, I always assumed that he did a good job.
My admiration for Jackson stems from his defense of law as a shield of the people rather than a weapon in the hands of government, and from his defense of the legal principle known as mens rea, that is, that crime requires intent. I often cite Jackson for his defense of these legal principles that are the very foundation of liberty. Indeed, I cited Jackson in my recent July 31 column. His defense of law as a check on government power plays a central role in the book that I wrote with Lawrence Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
In 1940 Jackson was US Attorney General. He addressed federal prosecutors and warned them against “picking the man and then putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense—that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views or being personally obnoxious to, or in the way of, the prosecutor himself.”
Later as a Supreme Court justice Jackson overturned a lower court conviction of a person who had no idea, or any reason to believe, that he had committed a crime.
Having just finished reading David Irving’s book Nuremberg (1996), I am devastated to learn that in his pursuit of another principle, at Nuremberg Jackson violated all of the legal principles for which I have so long admired him. To be clear, at Nuremberg Jackson was in pursuit of Nazis, but their conviction was the means to his end—the establishment of the international legal principle that the initiation of war, the commitment of military aggression, was a crime.
The main problem with the trials is that WW II was started by the British with their declaration of war against Germany, not by Germany.
Another problem was that at Nuremberg people were tried on the basis of ex post facto law—law that did not exist at the time of their actions for which they were convicted.
Moreover, the sentence—death by hanging—was decided prior to the trial and prior to the selection of defendants.
Moreover, the defendants were chosen and then a case was made against them.
Exculpatory evidence was withheld. Charges on which defendants were convicted turned out to be untrue.
The trials were so loaded in favor of the prosecution that defense was pro forma.
The defendants were abused and some were tortured.
The defendants were encouraged to give false witness against one another, which for the most part the defendants refused to do, with Albert Speer being the willing one. His reward was a prison sentence rather than death.
The defendants’ wives and children were arrested and imprisoned. To Jackson’s credit, this infuriated him.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, General Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill thought that surviving Nazis should be shot without trial. Roosevelt laughed about liquidating 50,000 German military officers. Eisenhower told Lord Halifax that Nazi leaders should be shot while trying to escape, the common euphemism for murder. Russians spoke of castrating German men and breeding German women to annihilate the German race. US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau wanted to reduce Germany to an agrarian society and send able-bodied Germans to Africa as slaves to work on “some big TVA project.”
Robert Jackson saw in these intentions not only rank criminality among the allied leadership but also a missed opportunity to create the legal principle that would criminalize war, thus removing the disaster of war from future history. Jackson’s end was admirable, but the means required bypassing Anglo-American legal principles.
Jackson got his chance, perhaps because Joseph Stalin vetoed execution without trial. First a show trial, Stalin said, to demonstrate their guilt so that we do not make martyrs out of Nazis.
Whom to select for the list of 21-22 persons to be charged? Well, whom did the allies have in custody? Not all those they desired. They had Reichsmarschall Herman Göring who headed the air force. Whatever the valid charges against Göring, they were not considered to be mitigated by the fact that under Göring the German air force was mainly used against enemy formations on the battleground and not, like the US and British air forces in saturation terror bombing of civilian cities, such as Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, or by the fact that in Hitler’s final days Hitler removed Göring from all his positions, expelled him from the party, and ordered his arrest.
The Nuremberg trials are paradoxical in that the law Jackson intended to establish applied to every country, not to Germany alone. The ex post facto law under which Germans were sentenced to death and to prison also criminalized the terror bombing of German and Japanese cities by the British and US air forces. Yet, the law was only applied to the Germans in the dock. In his book, Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden (1995), Irving quotes US General George C. McDonald’s dissent from the directive to bomb civilian cities such as Dresden. Gen. McDonald characterized the directive as the “extermination of populations and the razing of cities,” war crimes under the Nuremberg standard.
They had foreign minister Ribbentrop. They had field marshals Keitel and Jodl and the grand-admirals Raeder and Dönitz. They had a German banker, who was saved from sentencing by the intervention of the Bank of England. They had a journalist. They had Rudolf Hess who had been in a British prison since 1941 when he went to Britain on a peace mission to end the war. They wanted an industrialist, but Krupp was too old and ill. He was devoid of the persona of a foreboding evil. You can read the list in Irving’s book.
Göring knew from the beginning that the trial was a hoax and that his death sentence had already been decided. He had the means (a poison capsule) throughout his imprisonment to commit suicide, thus depriving his captors of their planned humiliation of him. Instead, he held the Germans together, and they stood their ground. Possessed of a high IQ, time and again he made fools of his captors. He made such a fool of Robert Jackson during his trial that the entire court burst out in laughter. Jackson never lived down being bested in the courtroom by Göring.
And Göring wasn’t through with making his captors look foolish and incompetent. He, the field marshalls and grand admiral requested that they be given a military execution by firing squad, but the pettiness of the Tribunal wanted them hung like dogs. Göring told his captors that he would allow them to shoot him, but not hang him, and a few minutes before he was to be marched to the gallows before the assembled press and cameras he took the poison capsule, throwing the execution propaganda show into chaos. To this injury he added insult leaving the prison commandant, US Col. Andrus a note telling him that he had had 3 capsules. One he had left for the Americans to find, thus causing them to think his means of escaping them had been removed. One he had taken minutes prior to his show execution, and he described where to find the third. He had easily defeated the continuous and thorough inspections inflicted upon him from fear that he would commit suicide and escape their intended propaganda use of his execution.
There was a time in Anglo-American law when the improprieties of the Nuremberg trials would have resulted in the cases being thrown out of court and the defendants freed. Even under the ex post facto law and extra-judicial, extra-legal terms under which the defendants were tried, at least two of the condemned deserved to be cleared.
It is not clear why Admiral Donitz was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The chief American judge of the Tribunal, Francis Biddle, said: “It is, in my opinion, offensive to our concept of justice to punish a man for doing exactly what one has done himself.” “The Germans,” Biddle said, “fought a much cleaner war at sea than we did.“
Jodl, who countermanded many Nazi orders, was sentenced to death. The injustice of the sentence was made clear by a German court in 1953 which cleared Jodl of all Nuremberg charges and rehabilitated him posthumously.
The French justice at the Nuremberg Tribunal said at the time that Jodl’s conviction was without merit and was a miscarriage of justice.
The entire Nuremberg proceeding stinks to high heaven. Defendants were charged with aggression for the German invasion of Norway. The fact was kept out of the trial that the British were about to invade Norway themselves and that the Germans, being more efficient, learned of it and managed to invade first.
Defendants were accused of using slave labor, paradoxical in view of the Soviets own practice. Moreover, while the trials were in process the Soviets were apparently gathering up able-bodied Germans to serve as slave labor to rebuild their war-torn economy.
Defendants were accused of mass executions despite the fact that the Russians, who were part of the prosecution and judgment of the defendants, had executed 15,000 or 20,000 Polish officers and buried them in a mass grave. Indeed, the Russians insisted on blaming the Germans on trial for the Katyn Forest Massacre.
Defendants were accused of aggression against Poland, and Ribbentrop was not permitted to mention in his defense the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union, without which Germany could not have attacked Poland. The fact that the Soviets, who were sitting at Nuremberg in judgment on the Germans, had themselves invaded Poland was kept out of the proceedings.
It goes on from here endlessly. The Nuremberg Trials stand as the worst injustice in Western judicial history. It served to cover up the war crimes of the allies and to magnify out of all proportion those of Germany.
What began publicly as Donald Trump’s lavish, taxpayer-funded vision of a gilded White House ballroom is now being justified by the administration—in and out of court—as a matter of national security.
To President Trump, it seems, a ballroom by any other name is a bunker.
And what a bunker it is.
Court documents indicate the massive subterranean military complex being constructed five stories beneath the White House grounds will include bomb shelters, a hospital, “top secret military structures and equipment, military-grade venting, a single integrated air conditioning and heating system, sniper nests and a drone port on top.”
Stephen Miller, Trump’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff, has explicitly invoked “continuity-of-government interests“ in defending the ballroom/bunker project, arguing that the reinforced underground military installation is necessary to ensure uninterrupted presidential command during an attack or global crisis.
The White House, however, already has a bunker built for precisely this purpose.
According to former officials, a nuclear-hardened facility buried more than 60 feet underground was secretly completed during the Obama administration. It can reportedly shelter dozens of officials for weeks and provide the president and senior officials with a secure command center during an extreme national-security crisis.
Which raises an obvious question: if the White House already has a nuclear-hardened Continuity of Government bunker, why does it need another one?
What threat justifies a new five-story military complex beneath the People’s House—one large enough to include bomb shelters, a hospital, military infrastructure, sniper positions and drone facilities? And if this is really about national security, why has so much of the project been wrapped around a ballroom that the administration initially presented as something quite different?
The message seems clear: get far enough along, fast enough, and it becomes that much harder for Congress, the courts or some future administration to undo what has already been built.
There is a lesson in that, and it speaks to much more than a ballroom or a bunker.
That is how the architecture of authoritarian government becomes permanent: Build the surveillance system. Build the detention centers. Expand the raids. Normalize executive rule by decree. Weaken the courts. Sideline Congress. Militarize the machinery of enforcement. Then hand it all to the next administration.
The faces change. The powers remain.
So much of what Trump is using today was inherited from presidents before him. So much of what he is building now will remain available to presidents after him.
That is the deeper problem with the Bunker State.
It is not merely about where government officials go when disaster strikes.
It is about the mindset of a government that increasingly treats preservation of its own power as the highest form of national security.
There is a grim irony in watching Washington spend enormous sums fortifying itself against catastrophe while government itself lurches from crisis to crisis and foreign conflict to economic disruption. Again and again, the pattern is the same: create or exploit the crisis, invoke extraordinary powers to manage it, insulate those in power from the consequences, and leave the public to absorb the cost.
That is the bunker mentality in practice.
And Continuity of Government gives it a blueprint to follow.
Continuity of Government planning, or COG, was devised during the Cold War to ensure that the federal government could survive a Soviet nuclear attack. If Washington were destroyed, surviving officials would disperse to secure locations, maintain command and eventually reconstitute constitutional government.
The goal, at least in theory, was survival long enough to restore constitutional order.
But 9/11 changed the equation.
Nearly twenty-five years later, we are still living with the consequences.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, did more than kill nearly 3,000 people. They gave Washington the crisis it needed to dramatically expand emergency powers, surveillance and the national-security state.
COG was part of that transformation.
What had been designed for doomsday became part of everyday government. The bunkers at Raven Rock and Mount Weather were part of the plan to keep Washington functioning even if Washington itself could no longer function.
The government has spent billions making certain that it can survive almost anything. But survival of the government is not the same as preservation of the republic.
Presidents, agencies, military commands, intelligence operations and critical records can all be relocated so that the machinery of government can keep functioning underground.
But what about the Constitution?
That is the question all of this elaborate government survival planning never answers satisfactorily. Who guarantees that Congress remains meaningful, the courts independent, elections intact, emergency powers temporary and the rights of the people protected?
Those questions matter because COG is no longer merely about bunkers.
It is part of a much larger emergency state—a government that has learned to govern through crisis, fear and claims of necessity.
After 9/11 came the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, secret courts, watchlists, military detention and a vastly expanded national-security state. COVID showed how quickly emergency orders could intrude on movement, assembly, commerce and ordinary constitutional processes in the name of public safety.
Wars have expanded executive power. Border emergencies have expanded executive power. Civil unrest has expanded executive power. Public-health emergencies have expanded executive power.
The emergencies change. The response does not: government claims extraordinary powers, and the extraordinary gradually becomes ordinary.
This is the real danger of a government accustomed to governing by emergency: the trigger does not have to be Armageddon. It can be terrorism, a cyberattack, a pandemic, civil disorder or some broadly defined threat to national security. It merely has to be a crisis serious enough for those in power to declare that ordinary rules can no longer apply.
The most dangerous words in government are often some variation of: this is an emergency.
That is when temporary measures become precedents, precedents become policies, and policies become permanent powers.
This is how the police state grows—incrementally, across administrations and parties.
Every president inherits the emergency powers, secret directives, surveillance machinery, militarized forces and weaponry assembled by his predecessors. Every president adds something to the arsenal. And every president leaves the next occupant of the White House more powerful than the one before.
Trump inherited Obama’s powers. Obama inherited Bush’s. Bush inherited those accumulated before him. And whoever follows Trump will inherit everything Trump leaves behind.
That is the lesson of the modern police state: presidents are temporary. The powers they leave behind are not.
Trump did not invent the Bunker State. He inherited it—and he is expanding it while further erasing the lines between presidential power, personal power and the national interest.
The government beneath Trump was built over decades, with the complicity of presidents, Congresses and courts that repeatedly allowed extraordinary powers to become permanent.
And behind it all sits another government—a shadow government—that elections rarely disturb.
More than a decade ago, we warned that America effectively had two shadow governments: Continuity of Government, the emergency government waiting in the wings for catastrophe, and the Deep State, the permanent government that carries on regardless of who occupies the White House.
Today, it’s hard to tell them apart.
One operates in the background. The other waits for the so-called emergency. But both run on the same machinery.
The Deep State supplies the permanent personnel and institutions. The surveillance state supplies the intelligence. The militarized police state supplies the enforcement. The presidency supplies the command authority. Continuity of Government supplies the emergency architecture. And the bunker supplies the headquarters.
Under ordinary circumstances, these systems may appear to operate separately.
Under emergency conditions, they can become one.
That is how the permanent state becomes the emergency state. And that is when Continuity of Government becomes Continuity of Tyranny.
The issue is not whether government officials have somewhere safe to go during an attack. The issue is what kind of government emerges afterwards.
A constitutional republic depends on divided power, public accountability and limits that cannot disappear whenever a president invokes emergency.
A bunker government is built on a very different logic. Command must continue. Government must survive. Constitutional restraints become negotiable.
That is the bunker mindset.
And increasingly, we do not need an actual bunker to see it at work.
We see it whenever presidents bypass Congress in the name of necessity, whenever surveillance expands in the name of security, and whenever courts are treated as obstacles rather than constitutional checks.
The bunker mentality begins long before anyone goes underground. It begins the moment government decides its own power matters more than constitutional restraint.
That is why the central question is not simply whether the federal government will survive the next catastrophe.
It almost certainly will.
The government has spent decades and untold billions making certain of that.
The more important question is whether constitutional government survives with it.
Will Congress retain meaningful authority? Will the courts continue functioning independently? Will elections remain meaningful? Will habeas corpus remain intact?
Or will the next emergency merely provide the justification for suspending restraints that have already been weakened in practice?
These are not questions for some distant doomsday.
They are questions for right now.
A government that already possesses mass surveillance, militarized police, detention powers, biometric tracking, drones and facial recognition does not need to invent the machinery of authoritarian control during an emergency.
It already has it.
All an emergency does is change the rules governing how freely that machinery can be used.
That is why the government’s obsession with Continuity of Government should concern anyone who cares about continuity of constitutional government.
A bunker can preserve a president—it cannot preserve a republic. A military command center can ensure continuity of power—it cannot ensure continuity of liberty.
Stanley Kubrick depicted the grotesque logic behind government survival in Dr. Strangelove more than 60 years ago.
As political and military leaders push the world toward nuclear annihilation, Dr. Strangelove proposes retreating into a government bunker, where officials, military leaders and other carefully selected survivors can wait out the radioactive fallout and eventually emerge to rebuild civilization in their own image. The people being saved, naturally, include many of the same people who helped create the catastrophe.
Kubrick’s black comedy bears an unnerving resemblance to current events.
The unsettling question is the same: when catastrophe comes, will the government preserve constitutional government—or merely preserve itself?
A constitutional government is defined by the limits placed on those who govern.
Serious government requires presidents who respect the limits of office, a Congress that exercises its authority, courts willing to restrain power, military force subordinate to constitutional authority, and citizens who understand that liberty depends on keeping power restrained.
The Founders understood this better than most.
They did not design the Constitution on the assumption that those who govern would always be wise, honorable or restrained. They assumed the opposite. They understood that power attracts ambition, that ambition seeks more power, and that government must therefore be divided, checked and bound down by law.
Thomas Jefferson put it bluntly: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Those chains are already being weakened.
Presidents declare emergencies. Presidents wage wars without meaningful congressional restraint. Presidents deploy military forces. Presidents conduct surveillance. Presidents issue decrees carrying the force of law. Presidents inherit extraordinary powers from their predecessors and add still more for whoever comes next.
This is what happens when a constitutional republic adopts a bunker mindset: government survival becomes the priority, and constitutional survival becomes an afterthought.
That is backwards.
The government exists to preserve liberty. Liberty does not exist to preserve the government.
If constitutional government cannot survive above ground, in ordinary times, when the courts are open, Congress is sitting and elections are still being held, there is little reason to believe it will somehow be resurrected underground in the wake of a national catastrophe.
What deserves continuity is not merely the federal bureaucracy.
What deserves continuity is the Constitution. The separation of powers. The rule of law. Representative government. Due process. Habeas corpus. The rights of the people.
That is what must survive.
And if we cannot preserve those things now—before the sirens sound, before the government retreats underground, before some president invokes the next great emergency—then no bunker, however deep, however secure and however lavishly equipped, will save the republic.
Because the Constitution cannot survive in a bunker underground if we have already allowed it to die above ground.
With millions dead and injured from the Covid bioweapon 'vaccines'; Instead of banning them, the FDA approves more deadly injections. This shows a clear signal that they are still engaged in the genocide program. At what point will these people be stopped and held accountable?
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH | Focal Points | Courageous Discourse
FDA Approves New Pfizer and Moderna XFG mRNA COVID Shots Based on Data From Just 8–10 Mice.
The new formulations were approved before their human safety and immunogenicity studies even began.
The FDA has approved Pfizer and Moderna’s new 2026–2027 XFG-adapted mRNA COVID-19 vaccines even though the XFG-specific evidence publicly presented to regulators was preclinical animal data involving just 8–10 mice per group.
The reach of these dangerous approvals is sweeping: Pfizer can now be given to every American age 65 and older and to “high-risk” individuals as young as 5, while Moderna extends all the way down to “high-risk” infants just 6 months old.
The human safety and immunogenicity studies of the new formulations had not even begun when FDA granted approval.
Pfizer’s new COMIRNATY formulation was approved on August 27, 2026, while its prospective human study of the 2026–2027 formula is scheduled to begin August 31—four days later.
Moderna’s new SPIKEVAX formulation was also approved on August 27, but its Phase 3b/4 human study of the 2026–2027 SPIKEVAX and MNEXSPIKE formulations is not scheduled to begin until November 16—nearly three months after approval.
FDA’s own 2026 vaccine-selection materials distinguish between human data from earlier/current COVID vaccines and animal immunogenicity data for the new candidate vaccines.
The approval letters reveal another troubling development: FDA also released both manufacturers from previously required placebo-controlled postmarketing studies, citing operational and feasibility problems. Pfizer’s abandoned study would have investigated circulating spike antigen and post-vaccination symptoms, while Moderna’s would have evaluated safety of variant-containing formulations.
Rather than requiring new human data before approval, FDA relied in part on human safety and immunogenicity data from previous COVID-19 vaccine formulations and extrapolated that evidence to the newly updated XFG products, while the XFG-specific evidence itself remained preclinical.
“A central problem with the idea that wars are needed to combat evil is that there is nothing more evil than war. War causes more suffering and death than anything war can be used to combat.” ~ David Swanson, War Is A Lie
The first matter of great importance and honest understanding is that there is no such thing as a ‘defensive’ war. What should follow then, is that no war can ever be against evil, given that war is the epitome of evil. Actual justified self-defense by any individual or group of individuals, regardless of the size and scope of the mass, is warranted only to quell a threat, but any war waged by states or nations, is a war against all, and therefore not defensive, but offensive aggression against innocents. If national war could ever be accepted as legitimate, then the individual rulers and politicians seeking to wage war would fight only among themselves instead of murdering innocents and using the children of others as fodder for their warmongering and power-seeking efforts.
Wars are always based on lies and deception. War is born from a political angle, corporate and military industrial complex standpoint, profit-seeking, and power and control aspirations. There is nothing organic about war and those pursuing war. All wars are avoidable; no wars are based on benevolence. There are no heroes or ‘patriots’ in war, wars are never ‘won,’ but always lost where the masses are concerned, and wars are always planned in advance (as well as during and after) and staged in order to achieve nefarious agendas. All wars are heinous and evil because they are done strictly for money, power, and control of people, finance, and geopolitical positioning.
The vile, and immoral depravity of war is achieved by back-door deals among the major players, regardless of the false pretense of good against evil, or the ridiculous ‘enemy’ of the state notion. Since collusion is always present, orchestrated madness is the result. The so-called problems of war, and therefore the so-called ‘advantages’ of war, are intentionally structured to achieve certain outcomes that benefit only the super-rich shadow government, the ruling class and its political pawns, and its banking and corporate heads. A mostly secret hierarchy controls the entire system, which is vastly compartmentalized, so that this secret society of power is always protected and held harmless.
Wars, in large part certainly, have allowed for a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of the tiny few of less than 1% of the population. This is not due to ‘capitalism,’ as some would suggest, because the core of real capitalism is free markets, which do not exist. The U.S., while showing many aspects of socialism and communism, (forget democracies and republics as they are stepping stones to totalitarianism) is actually more a war-mongering fascist state. I think this is without question at this time in history. But that should not be a surprise, as we currently live in a coordinated international fascist system that is bent on becoming the ultimate fascist State; a world run by the very powerful few, who are mostly hidden oligarchs seeking international technocratic rule.
Current sentiment incorrectly chooses to treat the word fascist as merely a “linguistic weapon” meant to be used against any opponent, political or otherwise. This thinking, while convenient for those attempting to marginalize this realistic descriptive term, is incorrect in my view. Fascism rests on the idea of heavily enforceable authoritarian rule, and that is exactly what we now have in this country and around the world. Also, fascism in essence, is the perpetuation of eternal war, and claims the impossibility of any lasting peace. This is the epitome of the U.S. empire.
“Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism — born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision — the alternative of life or death….”
“The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….”
“…The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a ‘sufficient’ margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone….”
The premeditated and staged insanity of war, all war, including WWI and WWII, is the mainstay of American ideology. The worship of the military and all those who murder on orders is beyond obvious in this country, as anyone with eyes can see. Real ‘patriotism’, which is reliant on standing against the State and its assault on freedom, not supporting it, is completely absent, as reverence for government and the military is rampant even to this day; as in “I love my country, right or wrong.”
The U.S. has been at war, aggressive war and slaughter, for nearly 100% of its existence, and all these wars were pre-planned, and based on enriching the wealthy at the expense of non-existent enemies, while using and endangering the domestic population. All were and are abhorrent ruses, and based on detestable lies. The current Ukraine/Russia ‘war,’ and the fake Middle East ‘war’ involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran, and all other U.S. involvement in ‘war’ and conflict across the world, is pure fabricated deception.
Unabashed support by a weak people of the State or nation, of its enforcement goons in the military, of its actions, regardless of the heinous nature of such actions, lays the entire groundwork for a captured society; more accurately described as an enslaved society. A society that has accepted rule, in this case, fascist rule to be more clear, has abandoned all aspects of individuality in favor of a collective herd of sheep, simply awaiting slaughter. Without the individual, freedom is impossible, and consuming authoritative control is imminent.
Perpetual war means perpetual bondage. All war is planned and structured in order to strengthen only the State, at the deadly expense of the people. We live in a country that lives and breathes constant aggressive war. The insanity of this madness lies at the feet of all those who support and participate in this country’s governing system.
As I have said in the past; To hell with the claimed ruling ‘elite,’ to hell with this heinous government, and any who wish to steal our freedom, our families, and our very lives!
“We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, free-masonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789.” (Mussolini speech before the new Naútional Directory of the Party, April 7, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 120).
Truth11 Films 5th short film: We have been tricked into fighting perpetual wars of mass genocide for pointless profit. There is no enemy. The enemy is within the US government. All exterior enemies are created to justify the advancing military industrial complex.
There is only one way war will end. The masses must rise up, unite, and demand world peace.
This film contains the footage released by Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.
Elites Are Claiming The World's Water Supply & Plan To Trade It
Tyler Durden | zerohedge.com
Patti Johnson | glorytogodstudio.com
Yep, you heard me right. This is not a joke or exaggeration. The facts are out there for all to see. I wrote about the tokenization of nature in my article “From Blockchain to Ball and Chain: Are We Being Borged?”
This article will deal primarily with the tokenization of the world’s water supply.
Tokenization: Turning Life Itself into a Tradeable Chip
For those who do not understand tokenization, here is a short and simple explanation: Tokenization means turning something real, like a share of water rights, a measured volume of water from a river or aquifer, or even credits for water that was “saved” or recycled, into a digital token (a unique digital certificate) that lives on a blockchain.
A blockchain is simply a shared digital notebook that many computers keep identical copies of at the same time, so the records of who owns what cannot be secretly changed by any one person or company.
That token can then be bought, sold, or traded on markets the same way people trade stocks or other assets. Instead of water simply belonging to the land, the local community, or the people who rely on it, it becomes a financial product that large investors, corporations, and institutions can own fractions of and exchange for profit. The right to use, claim, offset, or trade that water becomes the commodity.
Offset means making up for the water you use by helping save or restore the same amount somewhere else. A farmer switches to drip irrigation, a project restores a wetland, or a company reuses treated wastewater. That saved or restored water is measured and turned into credit. You buy or claim the credit. On paper your water use is balanced.
How Dare They Profit from Stealing Our Water
How dare they make money off this corrupt plan to steal, control, measure and meter the world’s water supply. Yes, I sound like Greta. The irony is thick: the same girl who made “How dare you” famous has been thoroughly programmed to cheer for Agenda 2030 and the very control grid she should be screaming against. Since she refuses to use her catchphrase where it actually belongs, then I will.
Water is the foundation of life itself. Every human, every animal, every plant depends on it. Yet the same elites who lecture the public about scarcity and climate are building the machinery to turn every last drop into a tradable asset they can profit from while ordinary people face rationing and surveillance.
This is exactly the process already described and promoted in official reports. Goldman Sachs itself published “Securing and Financing the Future of Water” in 2026, openly stating that tokenization can turn water rights into traceable tokens that track use across markets and deliver credits for companies that conserve or recycle water through connections to flow meters. Read it yourself: https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/securing-and-financing-the-future-of-water
The United Nations has declared the world has entered an era of “Global Water Bankruptcy.” Their report argues that the old system of local rights is finished and that new enforceable limits, transparent accounting, and centralized management are required. See the official collection: https://unu.edu/inweh/collection/global-water-bankruptcy
The Mapping Machines Are Already Flying Over Your Head
Look at how they are already doing it.
Across the United States, helicopters now fly low over farms and aquifers towing giant electromagnetic loops that map the groundwater beneath our feet like an MRI of the earth. California’s Department of Water Resources runs statewide Airborne Electromagnetic Surveys for exactly this purpose. Click here to read how the water mapping technology works: https://water.ca.gov/programs/sgma/aem
These surveys create detailed maps of every major water source so that usage can later be tracked and limited.
The The All-Seeing Eye of Oracle Returns: Now It Watches Every Drop You Use
Oracle Utilities already processes data from more than 100 million meters worldwide with AI systems that detect irrigation, leaks, and individual household use in real time. Their customer platform is designed for exactly this level of precise control: https://www.oracle.com/utilities/customer-platform/
Larry Ellison didn’t just dream of a panopticon. He said the quiet part out loud: “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.” That wasn’t a warning. That was a sales pitch from the man who still owns roughly 40% of Oracle, the company now quietly embedding itself into the pipes that deliver the most basic resource on Earth: water.
Once you own the real-time ledger of every drop that enters every home, every farm, every factory, you don’t need jackboots. You just need a dashboard. Throttle the water, and compliance follows. The same technocratic elite that spent decades consolidating data, finance, and surveillance is now moving on the last ungoverned commons, water itself, under the soothing branding of “customer platforms” and “smart utilities.”
And Ellison isn’t some lone eccentric billionaire operating in a vacuum. He’s a Trump donor who poured roughly $45 million into supporting the 2024 campaign and has since enjoyed the kind of access that turns political proximity into regulatory profit. The same circle that lectures about freedom while building the tools to score, monitor, and ration everyday life now has one of its most unapologetic surveillance advocates sitting in their inner circle.
The water meters are just the latest sensor in a system that already knows when you open the fridge, when and where you drive, when you yawn, drink, text or speak and soon, how long you shower and how many times you flush your toilet.
This is not innovation. This is the elite’s operating system for managed scarcity and behavioral compliance, dressed up as progress and sold by a man who openly celebrated the idea that constant recording would keep the public “on their best behavior.” Oracle isn’t managing utilities. It’s helping construct the choke points. What’s next Larry? Are you going to regulate and tokenize oxygen?
The infrastructure for control is already being paired with the financial machinery. Chainlink, a decentralized oracle network that feeds real-world data such as meter readings and conservation verification into blockchain systems, has published detailed guides on digitizing water rights and conservation credits into tokens so companies can buy offsets just like carbon credits: https://chain.link/article/tokenized-water-rights-credits
In Dubai, the DMCC (Dubai Multi Commodities Centre), a government-backed free zone and major international trading hub, has signed agreements to launch the world’s first digital token backed by verified freshwater reserves, positioning water itself as a tradable commodity on global markets: https://mediaoffice.ae/en/news/2025/june/17-06/dmcc-signs-strategic-mou
They Already Seized the Food and Are Playing God with the Weather
The elites have been systematically taking control of the world’s food supply for years. Bill Gates, through Cascade Investment, has become the largest private owner of U.S. farmland, holding hundreds of thousands of acres across nearly twenty states. At the same time, major asset managers like BlackRock hold massive stakes in the dominant agribusiness corporations that control seeds, fertilizers, processing, and distribution.
Simultaneously, cloud seeding programs and solar geoengineering research, backed by Silicon Valley money and governments, are rapidly expanding. These efforts claim to manage rainfall and cool the planet, yet they place the power to influence weather patterns in the hands of the very institutions already pushing centralized control over water and food.
In other words, they are running the classic Hegelian dialectic to consolidate power:
Create the droughts through weather geoengineering/modification
Declare an emergency and frighten the public.
Arrive with the “solution,” water tokenization that will supposedly save the planet but in reality just make them richer.
The pattern is unmistakable. Connect the dots. First, they buy the land that grows the food. Then they experiment with altering the weather that waters the crops. Now they are mapping, metering, and tokenizing the water itself so that every drop can be tracked, rationed, and sold.
This Is Not Theory. This Is the Takeover in Progress. Technocracy 101
They tell us water is too important to leave in local hands. They declare bankruptcy on systems that have sustained communities for generations. Then they create the digital and physical infrastructure to measure every use, enforce every limit, and profit from every token. The shared nature of water is being rewritten into a system of permission slips owned by the elite few who say that they, the experts, the financiers, the scientists, know best how to manage nature and humanity. It is all part and parcel of the plan of Technocracy Inc.
And make no mistake, this entire scheme sits squarely inside the United Nations Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals. SDG 6 pretends to be about “clean water and sanitation for all,” yet the real machinery being built is the global accounting, metering, and financialization of every drop. The same institutions that wrote the goals now promote water “bankruptcy,” enforceable limits, transparent tracking, and market-based solutions that turn a basic necessity of life into a tradable asset class. What is sold to the public as sustainability and equity is in practice the transfer of control from communities and nations to the very financial and bureaucratic elites who drafted the blueprint. Agenda 2030 is the framework being used to justify seizing, measuring, and selling the world’s water under the banner of saving it.
This is the plan. It is already in motion. And the people pushing it expect the public to accept it as inevitable.
It is NOT inevitable.
Resistance is NOT futile.
Expose the plan. Shout if from the rooftops, news sites, podcasts and council meetings.
Don’t let the elites complete their takeover plan. They have the money but we have the numbers.
All government, of course, is against liberty.”~ H.L. Mencken
In all of nature, man is the only living thing that purposely seeks rule and abandons self-governance. I see this as entirely foreign, and completely unnatural. This desire to be ruled, to be coddled, to be told how to act, regulated, and restricted is unique to the human animal. Why is it that the only entity known that is supposedly intellectually superior and has the ability to reason, surrenders independence in favor of dominance by a master? Why is self-responsibility forsaken for a life bound by slavery? Why do people voluntarily vote to choose their commanding ruler, king, and court?
This is a legitimate inquiry, because government, all government, depends completely on force. Government cannot exist without resorting to violence, theft, and murder. Therefore, government is evil, and government is the essence of terrorism against all under its totalitarian thumb. This is why nullification of most all so-called ‘laws’ is absolutely vital, and not just in the courts by juror nullification, but broad-based nullification of all unjust ‘laws,’ which of course are all that exist outside those of natural law.
Government and its henchmen consider any resistance and any individual dissent a crime against the State, this the exact same as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and of course now, Trump. This is backward of course, but reliance on propagating threats and fear is necessary by the State, so that a cowardly populace will obey their chosen masters. If a decent sized minority failed to comply with government at any level, that government would fail and fall apart in short order. There is just no way for the few to control hundreds of millions if they simply ignore and fail to acquiesce to this false authority, of which all government certainly qualifies.
This brings us to these current circumstances, all long-planned and now being implemented in order to quell the herd by division and fear. Withholding vital goods by stealth gives the appearance of actual shortages, but all these so-called ‘shortages’ are non-existent. There is no shortage of oil; in fact there are great surpluses, but they are being purposely withheld in order to drive great fear among this seemingly helpless proletariat herd. By intentionally making sure that the Strait of Hormuz and other passageways are blocked, this by the fake war in Iran, done intentionally, energy gluts become real. This of course is also devastating to farming, fertilizers, food production, markets, and causes extreme price inflation, all harmful to the masses only. Who controls the energy, food supply, and money controls the world, as has been posited for decades. Think of this situation as a coup, which is really nothing less than an intended false flag operation meant to bring about total control over all by resetting the monetary system in order to create a global multi-polar technocratic dictatorship.
The only reason all these things are happening is due to the fact that the people at large are not doing anything to stop it. In fact most are doing nothing, except relying on someone else to fix all the problems for them. I am constantly asked the insane question: “What is your solution, and what are you going to do to fix it. This seems to be the way of ‘modern’ man; indifferent, cowardly, dependent, irresponsible, groveling chattel.
This government is in the midst of wars around the world, all led of course by the U.S., Israel, and global technocrats, all working together to advance the same agendas of technocracy. We are constantly surveilled and monitored, monstrous data centers are going up everywhere, our data is captured and analyzed, our food, energy, and water stolen, our currency debased, and inflation is rampant, causing prices to explode. At the same time, AI is being shoved down out throats, biometrics are being mandated, digital ID is being implemented everywhere, ICE goons are targeting innocents nationwide, Flock cameras are going up by the thousands, and speaking out against this heinous government has become a crime, and in many cases has claimed many as targets of the State.
I cannot begin here to describe all of the evil being pursued by the ruling element of the technocratic dark state. Genocide, slaughter, torture, child molestation, depopulation efforts, democide, theft of assets, transhuman experimentation, and assisted ‘suicide,’ even of children. Land theft by government and its corporate partners, weather manipulation, atmospheric spraying of poisonous toxins and metals in the form of chemtrails, toxic ‘vaccines,’ fake pandemics, possible conscription, (slavery) and the list is endless. None of this could happen in a society based upon non-aggression, self-responsibility, self-defense, and true freedom.
As I stated in a few years ago:
The homily of obedience is beaten into the minds of the people by multiple deceptive means, and is an ongoing process that never sleeps. The effort to control societies is based on many methods of promoting service, (subservience) monetary or dependency enticement, nationalism, (worship of State) promotion of collectivism, and especially fear. The basis of this atrocious curse of obedience is psychological warfare against the people. Henry David Thoreau properly stated: “Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
“Anyone who seeks relief from totalitarian rule by use of any political process or system, is completely lost in a sea of insanity and madness. The epitome of rule lies in obedience and voluntary compliance by those subjects of the State. Those subjects are any and all who believe in, allow, approve, condone, worship, or participate in, any State system or government that survives by a top-down ruling structure. Any rule of one monarch or any oligarchy over any other is absolutely immoral. No politician, no political party, no government, no president, no congress, no ‘democracy,’ no ‘republic,’ or any other insane power and control system, can exist if freedom is to be achieved. Only anarchy, self-rule; of, by, and for the individual, can co-exist with liberty.”
The only way to insure freedom is through the efforts of self-rule and self-governance. If government exists, freedom cannot. It is simply a matter of removing rule at every conceivable juncture, and disallowing any group of maniacal psychopaths to lord over entire populations, regardless of the outright idiocy of any claimed political ‘representation,’ which is just a farce based on propaganda, deception, and lies.
“Why can you not see the manipulation taking place? Why can you not see that you are being treated as a collective horde of tamable animals, instead of thinking individuals? Why can you not see the madness that is the basis of the world today? Why are you so blind to the planned total destruction of all that is natural and good, in favor of designed immoral chaos?“
“Order derived through submission and maintained by terror is not much of a safe guaranty; yet that is the only ‘order’ that governments have ever maintained.”~ Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays
Part I: Technocrats Called for Dictatorship and Technocracy In 1932
Patrick Wood | technocracy.news
In my tattered copy of Henry A. Porter’s Roosevelt and Technocracy (1932), an early reader drew a careful bracket around a single passage on page 72. It reads: “Radical and immediate changes in both our political and economic systems will be necessary.
This can best be accomplished by vesting supreme and emergency power in some one man who has the confidence and respect of a majority of the American people. That man is FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT — to whom should be given dictatorial powers in the approaching crisis.”1
It is one thing to know, as a generalization, that respectable Americans flirted with dictatorship in the winter of 1932–33. It is quite another to hold a commercially published book in which the proposition is worked out in numbered steps by a financial analyst, and to see that a contemporary reader found the decisive sentence and marked it. Whether that reader bracketed the passage in alarm or in agreement, the pencil does not say. The ambiguity is fitting, because the country itself had not decided.
Porter is nearly invisible to history, and that is precisely what makes him valuable. His title page bills him as a “Nationally known Economist and Financial Analyst” and lists his other works — Profitless Prosperity, Gentlemen of America, Romance of Natural Gas, Research or Retrogression, America’s Greatest Tragedy — titles that place him not in any university but on the investment-commentary circuit of the day.2
His publisher, the Wetzel Publishing Company of Los Angeles, was a small regional house. I have located no academic appointment, no archive of papers, no obituary of substance. In the ordinary run of intellectual history this would disqualify him from attention. For my purposes it does the opposite. The views of Howard Scott were the views of a movement’s impresario; the views of Columbia’s prestigious engineers were the views of an elite faction. Porter is evidence of something else: how far the technocratic idea had seeped into the commercial milieu — the men who wrote market letters, advised investors, and considered themselves hard-headed realists. When a proposal to abolish constitutional government appears in that literature, dressed in the sober vocabulary of financial analysis, the proposal has ceased to be fringe.
The book’s internal architecture makes the point sharper, because Porter did not begin as a radical. Chapter XII, “What Will Roosevelt Do?”, opens on page 55 with sentiments any Hoover-era financial conservative would have signed: “Many people believe that the government is primarily responsible for prosperity, and likewise for depression, when the fact is that the relations of government to prosperity or depression are negative rather than positive.”
Commerce, he continues, “is carried on by the people without government assistance,” its relations “determined by themselves.”3
This is orthodox laissez-faire, stated as a recognized fact. Seventeen pages later, the same author is demanding a dictatorship. The distance between those two positions — traveled within a single short chapter by a self-described practical man — is, I would argue, the single most instructive thing about the book. The depression had not converted such men to collectivism by argument; it had convinced them that the machinery itself, price system and Congress alike, had failed, and that technocratic rationality was the only thing left standing.
Porter’s method of getting from the one position to the other was prophecy. In a chapter grimly titled “Postponing the Inevitable,” he set out a numbered forecast of the collapse he believed the interregnum winter would bring. Dissolution of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, he wrote, “may be expected to bring about the complete collapse of the stock market,” followed by, among other items: “7. Suspension of stock exchanges. 8. Government ownership of railroads and public utilities in an effort to maintain the solvency of our savings banks and insurance companies. 9. A ‘dole’ for the unemployed.” And then the sequence arrives at its destination: “a national awakening which, overnight, may well be expected to herald the news to every corner of the nation of the inauguration of the ‘new deal’ by 10. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT — Dictator.”
Lest anyone mistake the dictatorship for the goal rather than the instrument, Porter closes the chapter: “Drastic as these changes from the present order of things may be, they will serve their purpose if only to pave the way for the Economic Revolution — and TECHNOCRACY.”4 Notice the small typographic fossil embedded there: “new deal” sits in lowercase, inside quotation marks. When Porter wrote, the phrase was still a fresh coinage from Roosevelt’s Chicago acceptance speech of July 1932, not yet the proper name of an era. The book belongs unmistakably to the narrow window between the election and the inauguration, when everything about the incoming administration was still projection.
The page-72 passage the old reader bracketed completes the argument.
“Assuredly Technocracy will come,” Porter writes. “It is plain that its coming will be delayed by political maneuvering and financial chicanery.”
The nation “shall have to pass through a period of Chaos”; its severity “is wholly within the control of the people”; and the way through is the vesting of “supreme and emergency power” in the one man commanding majority confidence.5
Two things are worth stating precisely here. First, Porter was not proposing a coup. His dictatorship seemed self-evident, and in his imagination, temporary — the old Roman logistics model, a magistrate for the emergency, legitimated by “the confidence and respect of a majority.” Second, and more remarkable, the dictatorship is not even the point. It is scaffolding. Congress is to be dismissed and supreme power concentrated so that the technicians can be installed “from top to bottom” and the price system dismantled. Among the era’s many calls for emergency power, this is what makes Porter’s distinctive: he fused the two most electric ideas of that winter — presidential dictatorship and Technocracy — into a single program, each justifying the other.
Dating matters enormously here, and it is a point my research has forced me to insist on: Porter wrote before Technocracy, Inc. existed! The membership organization, with its gray suits, its monad insignia, and Howard Scott’s increasingly wild-eyed pronouncements, was not founded until late 1933.
What Porter knew in 1932 was Technocracy in its first, unorganized incarnation: the public craze. Nobody can call Porter a disciple of Howard Scott.
Walter Rautenstrauch’s Committee on Technocracy at Columbia, formed in the summer of 1932, had lent Scott’s Energy Survey of North America the university’s prestige, and through the last weeks of 1932 the newspapers were saturated with ergs, energy certificates, and the imminent doom of the price system. “Technocracy” in those months was not an organization one joined; it was an idea in the air, unowned and undefined, and precisely because of that, a writer like Porter could pour his own content into the word.6
His Technocracy is not Scott’s in detail — it is a financial analyst’s take on a movement that did not yet have a catechism. The book thus preserves something the later literature obscures: what the technocratic idea looked like during its brief window of mainstream respectability, before it acquired uniforms and became a sect.
Nor was the dictatorship half of Porter’s program eccentric in its moment. The leaderless winter produced an entire literature of respectable authoritarianism. Walter Lippmann, the most influential columnist in the country, told Roosevelt to his face at Warm Springs that he might have “no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers,” and told his readers that the danger was not that Congress would give Roosevelt too much power but that it would give him too little. Eleanor Roosevelt herself remarked that if the crisis demanded it, a benevolent dictator might be the only way through.7
Barron’s, the prestigious weekly of the financial establishment (e.g., Porter’s own tribe), editorialized in February 1933 for “a genial and lighthearted dictator.”8 William Randolph Hearst, the publishing magnate of that day, put the fantasy on film: Gabriel Over the White House, rushed into theaters weeks after the inauguration, shows a president who dissolves Congress and governs as a benevolent strongman, and Hearst intended it as counsel, not satire.9 And when Roosevelt, in the inaugural itself, warned that if Congress failed him he would ask for “broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign enemy,” the line drew the loudest applause of the address — applause that, by her own account, frightened the new First Lady.10 Porter, in other words, was not shouting from the margin. He was saying loudly and systematically what the American center was murmuring.
What of the book’s own reception? After considerable searching, I found that it barely had one, no substantial review in the major press, no evidence of a second printing, no sign that anyone in the incoming administration acknowledged it — and Roosevelt, of course, did not respond to the offer of a crown from a Los Angeles market analyst. The book survives today in a scattering of library copies; the University of California’s copy has been digitized, which is how the text can now be checked against page numbers by anyone.11 Its bibliography entry in the movement’s historiography is a line item, not a discussion. But the obscurity of the artifact should not be mistaken for the marginality of its ideas.
The two halves of Porter’s program — Technocracy and emergency dictatorship — each received a spectacular public verdict within months of publication, and tracing those verdicts is the real reception history of this book.
The Technocracy half collapsed first, and theatrically. On January 13, 1933, Howard Scott, pressed by his Columbia sponsors to answer mounting press skepticism, delivered a nationally broadcast address at the Hotel Pierre in New York that was by every account a rambling disaster. Within days, reporters finished demolishing his credentials — the celebrated engineer had no engineering degree at all — and Columbia cut the Committee on Technocracy loose. By spring, “technocracy” was a vaudeville punchline.
The movement splintered: Harold Loeb’s Continental Committee on Technocracy took the respectable-study route, while Scott regrouped his loyalists and incorporated Technocracy, Inc. in late 1933 — an organizational salvage operation conducted in the wreckage of the craze.6 The consequence for Porter’s book was brutal: within ninety days of the inauguration it had become a fossil. Its title yoked Roosevelt to a word that had passed from front page to punchline in a single season, and no one in 1934 needed a tract urging the president to adopt a discredited fad. But fossils are what stratigraphy is made of. Precisely because Porter wrote before the collapse and before the incorporation, his book records the high-water mark — the moment when a financial analyst could believe, in print, that Technocracy was simply coming, “assuredly,” and that the only question was how much chaos would precede it.
The dictatorship half received its verdict in March 1933, and the verdict was subtler: Roosevelt took the emergency powers and declined the dictatorship. The sequence is worth setting against Porter’s numbered prophecy, because the analyst’s scorecard is better than one might expect. The banking system did collapse; the New York Stock Exchange did suspend trading, closing with the banks in the first week of March — Porter’s item 7, briefly literal. The federal government did assume responsibility for relief within weeks (item 9, in the form of federal emergency relief), and it did go into the utility business on a scale unimaginable in 1932 (item 8, partially, in the Tennessee Valley). The Emergency Banking Act was passed, famously, in hours, by congressmen who in some cases never saw the text they approved — government by acclamation if ever the republic practiced it.12 What never arrived was item 10.
The extraordinary powers of the Hundred Days flowed through Congress, not around it; they were statutory, revocable, and litigated, and when the Supreme Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1935, the revocability was demonstrated in the most public way possible.13 Roosevelt governed the emergency with the forms of the Constitution intact — which is, historically, the precise thing that separates what happened in Washington in 1933 from what happened in Berlin the same spring. Porter had predicted the crisis accurately and the constitutional outcome wrongly, and the wrongness is the most reassuring fact in this whole story.
And yet, on a third count — the one nobody was polling — Porter half-won. He had wanted Technocrats appointed “from top to bottom,” and while no Technocrat with a capital T ever ran the government, the type arrived in force. Rexford Tugwell, the most Veblen-marinated of Roosevelt’s Brain Trust, spent the decade being denounced in the press as precisely the technocrat-planner Porter had prayed for. Arthur Morgan’s early Tennessee Valley Authority was as near to a working technate as this country has built — engineers, dams, regional planning, and utopian community-building under one federal charter. The National Recovery Administration’s code apparatus, the Resources Planning Board, the rural electrification engineers: the New Deal absorbed the technocratic impulse so thoroughly that the organized movement suffocated for lack of a grievance.14
This, I think, is the correct frame for Porter’s book in the longer arc I have been tracing from 1932 to 1938: the Technocracy movement failed as a constitutional proposition in the same season it succeeded as a personnel policy. The country refused the dictatorship of the engineers and then, quietly, hired the engineers.
That is why this obscure book repays the attention I have given it. It compresses into ninety-odd pages the entire mechanism by which the technocratic temptation works on practical men: begin with efficiency, proceed through despair of politics, arrive at rule by experts, and treat the constitutional question as a detail of implementation.
Porter traveled that road in seventeen pages, in public, under his own name, with a straight face. His was the sober, business-district version of an idea that was simultaneously being preached in gray flannel by Howard Scott. The road did not close in 1933. It reopens, in politer dress, in every era that loses confidence in its deliberative institutions and finds its engineers still standing; readers may supply their own examples from the present century. Somewhere in 1933 a reader worked through this book, reached page 72, and set a pencil bracket around the sentence offering Franklin D. Roosevelt a dictatorship. The bracket is still there. The question it marks — whether a frightened democracy can borrow the competence of its technicians without surrendering the government to them — is still open, and it is the question my research on these years keeps returning to.
[Part II: Technocrats Call For Dictatorship And Technocracy In 2026 Below Endnotes]
Endnotes
Henry A. Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy (Los Angeles: Wetzel Publishing Co., 1932), 72. Capitalization as in the original.
Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy, title page.
Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy, 55.
Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy, 62–63. The chapter is titled “Postponing the Inevitable”; items 1–6 of the forecast precede the page reproduced here.
Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy, 72.
William E. Akin, Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900–1941 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), which remains the standard account of the Columbia Committee on Technocracy (organized under Walter Rautenstrauch, summer 1932), the press craze of December 1932–January 1933, Howard Scott’s Hotel Pierre address of January 13, 1933, the exposure of his credentials, and the movement’s subsequent splintering into Harold Loeb’s Continental Committee on Technocracy and Scott’s Technocracy, Inc., incorporated in late 1933.
Jonathan Alter, The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), on Lippmann’s Warm Springs counsel (“you may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers”), his February 1933 columns to the same effect, and Eleanor Roosevelt’s private remarks on the possible necessity of a benevolent dictator.
“A genial and lighthearted dictator”: editorial, Barron’s, February 13, 1933.
Gabriel Over the White House, dir. Gregory La Cava (Cosmopolitan Productions/MGM, 1933); produced with William Randolph Hearst’s financing and script interventions, from the novel Rinehard by Thomas F. Tweed.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933. On the applause and Eleanor Roosevelt’s reaction, see Alter, The Defining Moment.
The University of California copy is digitized at HathiTrust (catalog record 006517511), permitting page-level verification: babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b273822.
David M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), on the March 1933 bank holiday, the concurrent suspension of trading on the New York Stock Exchange, and the passage of the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933.
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
Akin, Technocracy and the American Dream, on the New Deal’s absorption of the technocratic impulse and the movement’s consequent decline; Kennedy, Freedom from Fear, on Tugwell, the Brain Trust, and the planning agencies. On the early TVA as applied technocracy, see also Arthur Morgan’s own writings and the TVA’s founding statute of May 1933.
Part II: Technocrats Call For Dictatorship And Technocracy In 2026
Patrick Wood | technocracy.news
On my desk are two texts separated by seventy-five years and joined by a single idea. The first is a physical object: Henry A. Porter’s Roosevelt and Technocracy, published by a small Los Angeles house in 1932, in which a self-described “Nationally known Economist and Financial Analyst” urged the incoming president to accept “dictatorial powers in the approaching crisis,” dismiss the machinery of representative government, and install Technocrats from top to bottom.1
The second exists only as archived pixels: Unqualified Reservations, the blog Curtis Yarvin began writing in 2007 under the name Mencius Moldbug, in which a San Francisco software engineer urged Americans to accept that democracy had failed, that the government should be run by a chief executive with the powers of a monarch, and that the officer class of the new regime should be drawn from the people who know how to build things.2
Who cares about Curtis Yarvin? Well, arch-Technocrat Peter Thiel reveres Yarvin as his “house philosopher.” J.D. Vance, as a protégé of Thiel, has repeatedly quoted Yarvin’s ideas over an extended period. Specific Yarvin policies, like RAGE, have been explicitly enacted during the Trump Administration. Yarvin matters!
I have spent years with the first text, and the more time I spend with the second, the more convinced I become that they are the same essay written twice — once in the vocabulary of the engineer, once in the vocabulary of the startup founder.
Some precision about names is required first, because the genealogy is loose in the popular telling. Yarvin did not coin the phrase “Dark Enlightenment”; the British philosopher Nick Land did, in a 2012 essay of that title that described, systematized, and extended what Yarvin had been writing for five years.3 Yarvin’s own name for his school of thought was “neoreaction.” Nor is there any documented organizational pipeline running from Howard Scott’s Technocracy Inc. to Yarvin’s movement; no membership rolls handed down, no succession of institutions. The connection is of the kind I have traced elsewhere between the Technocracy movement and the Cold War defense intellectuals: a continuity of ideas, incubated in the same elite class and reactivated by the same conditions.
The Dark Enlightenment stands to the 1930s Technocracy movement roughly as the Cold War technostructure did — a descendant that would indignantly deny the ancestry, and whose family resemblance is for that reason all the more instructive. It is the recurring conviction that the deliberative institutions are obsolete machinery, and that the people who demonstrably make complex systems work have a superior claim to run the state.
What makes the comparison exact rather than merely suggestive is that both programs converge on the same man. Porter made his offer prospectively: writing in the middle of the winter of 1932–33, he prophesied collapse in numbered steps, culminating in “FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT — Dictator,” and argued that supreme and emergency power vested in “some one man who has the confidence and respect of a majority” was the necessary passage to Technocracy.4
Yarvin makes the same argument retrospectively. Across his writing, and as recently as his January 2025 interview with the New York Times, he has held up Roosevelt as his central American precedent: the president who, in Yarvin’s telling, governed as an elected monarch; commanding a compliant Congress, ruling through new agencies staffed by his own people, adored rather than resisted.5 Yarvin does not offer this history as a warning. He offers it as proof of concept.
The presidency, he argues, contains a throne. Roosevelt sat in it. The republic loved him for it. Therefore, the next occupant may sit in it too, this time with a better org chart.
Porter is the prophecy, Yarvin is the application.
Set side by side, the two programs share a complete logical skeleton. Both begin by declaring the existing system not merely failing but already fake. For Porter and the Technocrats, the price system and the Congress that served it were obsolete machinery, kept running past their natural death by “political maneuvering and financial chicanery.”6
For Yarvin, electoral democracy is a facade behind which an unelected consortium of universities, media, and permanent bureaucracy actually governs. He calls this “the Cathedral.” 7 Both then conclude that the remedy is formal, concentrated, personal power: better an open executive than a hidden oligarchy. Both are explicit that the strongman is not the destination but the instrument — scaffolding for the installation of a new administrative class of Technocrats.
Porter wanted his dictator to appoint Technocrats from top to bottom; Yarvin wants his chief executive to retire the entire civil service — his old acronym was RAGE, “Retire All Government Employees” — and restaff the state with founders and engineers.8 And both close with the same soothing clause: Porter’s dictator holds “the confidence and respect of a majority of the American people,” while Yarvin’s monarch answers to a board and can be removed like any failing CEO. In each case the reassurance is hollow, and in each case it is the weakest joint in the structure, for reasons the actual history of the 1930s supplies.
Even the legitimating figure is the same figure, updated for a new economy. In 1932 the engineer stood at the peak of his cultural authority: he had electrified the continent, raised the dams and the skyscrapers, and could plausibly claim to be the one man in American life who demonstrably made things work while the politicians talked.
The Technocracy craze and Porter’s book converted that authority into a political claim. In the 2010s and 2020s the startup founder occupies precisely that position: the builder of platforms and rockets, the one figure who visibly ships while institutions deliberate. Yarvin’s innovation was to convert that authority into a political claim, and his prescription — run the government “like a startup,” with a founder-CEO wielding undivided authority — is Porter’s prescription with the slide rule swapped for the term sheet.
Ninety years apart, the same professional class petitions for the same commission on the same grounds: that competence should replace consent.
The differences are as instructive as the parallels. Scott’s Technocracy was, in its economics, radically anti-capitalist. It proposed to abolish the price system outright and to replace money with energy accounting, which is one reason respectable America could flirt with it only briefly.9
Yarvin inverts the economics completely. His “gov-corp” is capitalism absolutized — the state reimagined as a joint-stock corporation, sovereignty as equity, citizens as customers. Private property should be turned over to the gov-corp to manage.
Technocracy dreamed of rule by a faceless technical committee; Yarvin, whose intellectual debts run to Carlyle rather than Veblen, insists on a person, a sovereign, a name. The temperaments differ accordingly: Technocracy was scientistic and positivist, all charts, surveys, and thermodynamics, while the Dark Enlightenment is literary.
The movements’ social forms differ too — Technocracy was a genuine mass movement, with lecture halls, membership sections, and gray uniforms, where neoreaction was born on a blog and traveled through elite patronage, most prominently Peter Thiel’s.10 And the surrounding weather differs most of all. Porter wrote amid twenty-five percent unemployment and a banking system in genuine collapse; the emergency was not rhetorical. Yarvin writes amid prosperity and polarization, and must therefore manufacture the sense of terminal crisis that 1932 supplied free of charge.
Yet the reception histories rhyme in the way I have come to expect from this material. Porter’s book sank without a review worth finding; within months its title had yoked Roosevelt to a word that had passed from front page to vaudeville punchline, and the book became a fossil.
But the technocratic type was absorbed into the New Deal almost immediately — Tugwell in the Brain Trust, Arthur Morgan on the Tennessee Authority, the planners in a dozen new agencies — so that the idea lost as a constitutional proposition in the very season it won as a personnel policy.
Yarvin’s trajectory inverts the tempo but repeats the shape. His blog was a fringe curiosity for fifteen years, and then the absorption began: a sitting vice president has cited him by name,11 his RAGE proposal was widely recognized as a template for the mass federal workforce removals of 2025,12 and mainstream interviewers now travel to ask him whether democracy is finished.
There remains the historical question on which the whole comparison turns, and here I part company with both of my subjects. Yarvin’s proof-of-concept, like Porter’s prophecy, requires that March 1933 be read as the moment America accepted a monarch. It was not, and the distinction is not trivial — it is the entire point. Offered exactly the crown Porter described, in exactly the crisis he prescribed, Roosevelt took extraordinary powers through Congress rather than over it: statutory, revocable, and litigated.
The stock exchanges closed and reopened; the banking act passed in hours;13 and two years later the Supreme Court struck down the centerpiece of the recovery program in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, and the president — adored, unprecedented, at the height of his mandate — complied.14 The forms held.
I keep returning to the pencil bracket in my copy — the mark some reader of 1933 set around the sentence offering Franklin D. Roosevelt a dictatorship. I once assumed the bracket belonged to a closed chapter, a curiosity from the era my research covers. I no longer believe that. The technocratic temptation is not a chapter but a recurring season: it arrives whenever a confident technical class meets a discouraged democracy, in 1932 wearing the engineer’s gray flannel, in 2012 posting under a pseudonym, and in our own decade briefing statesmen.
Porter and Yarvin, the obscure analyst and the celebrated blogger, mark two visitations of the same scenario, and the question the bracket asks has not changed in ninety years: whether a frightened or merely frustrated republic can borrow the competence of its builders without handing them the government.
Twice now, America’s answer has been to take the builders and refuse the crown. The Dark Enlightenment is, at the bottom line, a wager that the third time will be different.
Porter was an obscure figure rising out of the financial industry in 1932. Yarvin is a pedestrian philosopher who rose from Silicon Valley in the 2010s. It’s the same playbook to create a coup to implement Technocracy. Reject it all.
References
Henry A. Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy (Los Angeles: Wetzel Publishing Co., 1932), 72 and title page. Capitalization as in the original.
Curtis Yarvin, writing as Mencius Moldbug, Unqualified Reservations (blog, 2007–2014), archived at unqualified-reservations.org.
Nick Land, “The Dark Enlightenment” (essay serialized online, 2012).
Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy, 62–63 (“Postponing the Inevitable”).
David Marchese, “Curtis Yarvin Says Democracy Is Done. Powerful Conservatives Are Listening.” New York Times, The Interview, January 18, 2025 — also the source for the run-the-government-”like a startup” and FDR-as-monarch discussions.
Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy, 72.
Mencius Moldbug, “A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations” (2009), where “the Cathedral” receives its fullest exposition.
The RAGE proposal (“Retire All Government Employees”) dates to Yarvin’s 2012 lecture “How to Reboot the US Government”; he revisits it in the Marchese interview, note 5.
William E. Akin, Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900–1941 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), on the abolition of the price system, energy accounting, and the movement’s organizational forms.
James Pogue, “Inside the New Right, Where Peter Thiel Is Placing His Biggest Bets,” Vanity Fair, April 2022.
JD Vance’s on-the-record citations of Yarvin, beginning with 2021 podcast remarks on mass replacement of the civil service, are documented in, e.g., Ian Ward, “The Seven Thinkers and Groups That Have Shaped JD Vance’s Unusual Worldview,” Politico Magazine, July 2024.
For contemporaneous reporting connecting Yarvin’s program to the incoming administration and the 2025 federal workforce reductions, see Jason Wilson, “He’s Anti-Democracy and Pro-Trump: The Obscure ’Dark Enlightenment’ Blogger Influencing the Next US Administration,” The Guardian, December 21, 2024, and subsequent 2025 coverage.
David M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), on the bank holiday, the Emergency Banking Act, and the Hundred Days.
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
See, e.g., the syndicated commentary “The Dubious History of America’s Most Famous Monarchist,” Salt Lake Tribune, January 25, 2025, among the historians’ responses to Yarvin’s readings of FDR and Lincoln.
...done so as to usher in a new internet. Cancel the old one and launch a new one, one that automatically verifies digital ID and supports the tokenization of everything, under the guise of, ‘well, the old internet has been corrupted by AIs so it is no longer fit for task, and neither do businesses want to advertise to fake people, so we need to start fresh with a more secure, immutable internet.’
Dead Internet: Over 40% Of LinkedIn Posts Are AI, As 'Agentic AI Activity Is Driving A Lot Of Browser Activity'
The WinePress | substack.com/@thewinepress
Rudy Yang, a financial tech analyst at Pitchbook, told Fortune: “Agentic AI activity is driving a lot of the browser activity you’re seeing.”
The dead internet theory is no longer a theory, it is dead internet fact. The WinePress has covered in a number of reports that so much internet activity and content nowadays is driven by or is AI-generated.
A recent report found that LinkedIn is currently the platform saturated the most with AI content.
AI detection platform Pangram reported earlier this month that 40.5% of content on LinkedIn was AI, followed by Medium (a platform to write and share blogposts, similar to Substack) at 30%, X (formerly Twitter) at 24%, and Substack at 10%. A percentage of other posts and content on these platforms have both AI and human-generated content as well.
The researchers at Pangram added:
LinkedIn had the highest AI share of any platform across the board. LinkedIn posts made up a third of scanned items, yet it accounted for nearly two-thirds (62%) of all AI content we flagged. Contrary to what one might expect, people are overwhelmingly willing to use AI to speak on their behalf in professional settings that are associated with their real identity, and less likely to use it on casual and anonymous platforms.
LinkedIn also encourages AI use on its platform in several ways, including a built-in “Write with AI” button (now rebranded “Enhance post,” but still offering AI writing assistance). People are noticing LinkedIn’s growing reputation for slop – perhaps to combat it, an executive at LinkedIn recently announcedthat the platform would be detecting and downranking AI-generated posts using an in-house algorithm; ironically, the announcement was itself AI-generated. Whether or not the company is attempting to modulate AI in their feed, our users are still seeing a lot of AI writing on LinkedIn.
AI writing is now a problem everywhere on social media. This is concerning, but it’s in line with what we’re seeing elsewhere online: researchers estimatedthat 35% of newly published websites on the open internet were AI-generated or AI-assisted. An internet that is completely flooded with undisclosed AI content is bleak, but we don’t believe it’s inevitable. We hope that by providing transparency to AI-generated content online, we can give internet users back some control of how they spend their attention.
The studies and reviews continue to pour in: the internet is being dominated by AI, and it will only get worse.
Fortune did a roundup of the latest data on the makeup of internet traffic, and most of it points to humans now being a quaint minority.
“There’s a lot of missing pieces of information, but a lot of the observed data suggests the same thing, which is like there is more bot activity,” Rudy Yang, a financial tech analyst at Pitchbook, told Fortune. “Agentic AI activity is driving a lot of the browser activity you’re seeing.”
“They consume the web completely differently than humans do,” Yang told Fortune. “It’s almost like an entire new category, customer category, was created, and it means a lot for businesses because no one, as a business owner, is going to want to silo themselves from being able to serve a completely new customer segment.”
They’re also changing what we see on the web, too. A report published in October from the SEO firm Graphite found that over half of all new English-language articles on the internetwere written with AI.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
As I said, it’s not a theory anymore, it’s a fact. The internet is dead; and I personally think that there is even more AI content presently than these firms are able to detect.
Now we definitely know why there are so many “ghost jobs” and fake job applications on LinkedIn…
The problem also largely rests on the fact that so many businesses and people simply do not care that they proliferate AI content themselves. In a very short amount of time a lot of people have become addicted to AI or have been quite tolerable enough to it.
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
God has inspired us with the ability to create and understand, and to have our own inspiration. AI removes all of that; and we are seeing it with how everything has become so dead and lifeless.
I have said before that the time is rapidly approaching when we will have to simply walk away from the internet, within our reasonable capacity, because it has become totally fake and will only get worse, and by extension further erode our minds.
However, not only is this by design, I believe that it is being done so as to usher in a new internet. Cancel the old one and launch a new one, one that automatically verifies digital ID and supports the tokenization of everything, under the guise of, ‘well, the old internet has been corrupted by AIs so it is no longer fit for task, and neither do businesses want to advertise to fake people, so we need to start fresh with a more secure, immutable internet.’
“Operation Warp Speed” was a SPECTACULAR SUCCESS [At killing Americans], in fact, many [other genocidal maniacs] say, one of the most successful [depopulation] things ever done by an American President." ~ Trump
The WinePress | substack.com/@thewinepress
Today, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before a Senate Committee hearing led by Kentucky GOP Senator Rand Paul over the origins of Covid-19, something the two have repeatedly squared-off over before.
But before the proceedings began, Fauci announced that he would be pleading the Fifth Amendment and would not answer any questions.
Dr. Anthony Fauci declined to answer senators’ questions at a contentious hearing Wednesday on the origins of Covid and the government’s handling of the pandemic, saying he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right to avoid the possibility that Republicans use his testimony to prosecute him for perjury.
The surprise decision set the stage for a hyper-partisan hearing that yielded no new revelations about the origins of the coronavirus or the government response to the pandemic. But the absence of Fauci’s testimony presented plenty of opportunities for Republicans and Democrats to present dueling narratives about those issues — and about the doctor himself.
Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee used their allotted time to criticize the doctor’s recommendations during the Covid pandemic as the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, accusing him of providing harmful advice on issues such as lockdowns and of lacking candor on the origins of the coronavirus.
Democrats, meanwhile, came to Fauci’s defense, painting the hearing as a Republican-led effort to entrap Fauci into committing perjury and using their time to focus criticism on the Trump administration’s health care policies.
After Fauci had invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times, committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., said as the hearing ended that he would call for a vote to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress. He said after the hearing that the committee would vote on the issue next week.
All the criminals in the country plead the Fifth without fail.
All these hearings are just more daytime soap opera drama. Some yelling and screaming, but nothing else happens. No punishment, no fines, no jail, and nothing more than that.
Per usual, it was a waste of time. Nothing ever happens at these things. It’s good for television and viral clips, but no judgment or justice ever comes of these things.
Paul continues to beat the drum over the origins of Covid — another lie and distraction in and of itself — and has these pow-wows with Fauci.
It’s all so nonsensical. I have already exposed Rand Paul for the fraud and hypocrite he is, as he too was a big promoter of the vaccines when they were being rolled out, how getting vaccinated was a great incentive to take off the masks, the only way “we are getting out of this [pandemic]” is to take the vaccine, elderly who have been vaccinated have a “twinkle in their eye” because they got their freedoms back and feel safe from the vaccine; and would then advocate for the creation of new vaccines later that year because of purported new variants rendering the first batches ineffective.
The man is a total sleaze. Why isn’t he grilling Fauci, Birx, Trump, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and more, etc. for the incalculable number of deaths and irreparable harm caused by the clot shots? Exactly. That’s a no-go zone for these people, can’t talk about that…
"(Fauci being the main driver behind Covid is) a fairy tale for adults.”
Nevertheless, and notwithstanding, of course, President Donald Trump had to give his input on this drama.
He made sure to once again heap praise upon Operation Warp Speed, which he oversaw in 2020, while also claiming that more people died under Biden than under him. He then tried to craft a narrative that he sidelined Fauci and did not regard his policy recommendations.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote:
“Many more people died of Covid under the Biden Administration than under the Trump Administration.
“Operation Warp Speed” was a SPECTACULAR SUCCESS, in fact, many say, one of the most successful things ever done by an American President.
“I overrode Fauci on this. His ideas were CRAZY! Also, I said from the beginning that the Virus came from the Wuhan Laboratory in China. Fauci strongly disagreed, always trying to protect China. I Inherited Fauci, who was there since the 1980’s, but with each passing day, relied less and less on him. He made too many bad calls, like on MASKS. Remember at the beginning he was an anti-masker. He then switched to a super-masker.
“In any event I didn’t let him shut the Country down, although he wanted to. I went the Federalist way, and let the governors decide. The Republican governors did a much better job than the Dumocrats. Fauci was largely taken out of play, and then along came Sleepy Joe Biden, who made Fauci a “King!” I called Biden to tell him Fauci was no good, either didn’t have a clue, or was dishonest. The call was well received, but sadly, not acted on. Biden went on to give Fauci vast destructive power. The rest is history! President DJT.”
He said something identical in the White House.
However, interestingly, he said he “respects” President Biden’s pardon of Fauci for potential offenses committed between 2014 and January 2025. So Trump has effectively pardoned Fauci as well. No prosecution is coming (let me see your shocked face).
This is certainly not the first time Trump has praised OWS — the whole-of-government order that has completely destroyed people’s lives, families, businesses, and economies around the world forever — such as the case (among many) last year when he commented that OWS was “one of the greatest achievements ever in politics or in the military.”
And as far as the Covid vaccines death shots are concerned, the man absolutely knew what was coming, he understood and understands now what it was all about, as his own administration was preparing for the lockdowns and vaccines in advance. In September 2019, he signed an executive order to create new vaccines using “innovative technologies” in preparation for an outbreak or pandemic. Then in January 2020, a whole week before he announced the prevalence of “coronavirus,” his administration inked a contract with Moderna to produce mRNA vaccines — months before OWS was officially enacted in May.And Fauci? Well, we all remember (at least I remember) when in 2017 Fauci now infamously said that there was going to be a pandemic in Trump’s administration.
“There is no question that there will be a challenge, the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already of ongoing disease.
“But also there will be a surprise outbreak. And I hope by the end of my relatively short presentation, you’ll understand why history, and the history of the last 32 years that I’ve been the director of NIAID will tell the next administration, that there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that they will be faced with the challenges that their predecessors were faced with.”
Furthermore, Trump is simply trying to revise history.
Of course, when Trump was out making empty campaign speeches in 2024 to get reelected, Trump told Tim Pool that he would prosecute Fauci for lying to Congress.
Furthermore, let’s not forget the times Trump defended Fauci amidst it all, claiming that he, Fauci, and the administration were all working closely together.
On top of that, don’t let us forget the times Trump emphasized that it was he and his administration that forced the lockdowns, and it was the right thing to do.
Never forget.
And again, watch as he, surrounded by his cabinet members, including Fauci and Birx, who supported the necessity of this spending package, all belly laugh as Trump signed into law the $6.2 trillion CARES Act.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
It’s all lies and deceit, and they all serve their father and god, Satan.
Proverbs 16:29 A violent man enticeth his neighbour, and leadeth him into the way that is not good. [30] He shutteth his eyes to devise froward things: moving his lips he bringeth evil to pass.
For a man who said he was going to “drain the swamp,” tell me, MAGA, how many high-level arrests have there been? Name one, just one. But these people will be hopped-up on hopium again in a week. ‘We got him this time! He’s going down!’ (Insert name).
Trump, Musk among those leading the brainwashing barrage, playing up the good while ignoring the bad
Leo’s Newsletter | Leo Hohmann | LeoHohmann.substack.com
Last week President Trump told us in a post to his Truth Social account that AI data centers are going to make us all filthy rich. They are cash cows. Money makers. Tax reducers. Job creators, blah, blah, blah. Don’t fight against them, he said. You’re wasting your time. These massive data centers are “liquid gold” and are going to make so many people wealthy that you can’t stop them from being built, the brainwasher-in-chief said.
Trump says communities are begging for data centers to be built. Ya right. The only produce short term construction labor and once operational run a minimal staff. Why would anyone be begging to have them built? Especially when you consider the negatives to having them in your neighbourhood. Stating that people are begging to have them built is insane, or simply a bald face lie.
As he always does with every issue, Trump casts all those who hold an opposing view as Democrats. If you aren’t for what he wants, you must be a Democrat. Of course nothing could be further from the truth as the fight against data centers is one of the most non-partisan issues in America today. Nobody, regardless of political affiliation, is for higher electricity and water rates, draining the reservoirs and aquafers, destroying neighborhoods and property values with noise pollution, while contributing to an AI-powered surveillance state.
However, by casting those fighting these monstrosities as Democrats, Trump is attempting to keep the opposition to his AI free-for-all to a minimum, because no Republican wants to be called a Democrat. I don’t believe it will work, but he’s going to keep trying. Just like he said those pushing for the release of the Epstein files were all Democrats, and those against his disastrous war in Iran are Democrats, yada, yada, yada. Trump never mentions that his own sons, Don Jr. and Eric, are personally invested in the data center boom, as reported by Forbes in an article from Feb. 20, 2025.
Anyway, you get the point. Trump wants thousands more data centers and will tell any lie to get them. That was last week. This week we hear from another member of the billionaire brainwashing club, Elon Musk.
“Our tech overlords tell us that artificial intelligence will soon create a world of abundance while solving our major problems such as climate change. Just so you know who I’m talking about, I have previously defined our tech overlords as ‘a grab bag of technology companies, technology scientists and inventors, and technology investors and journalists who have bewitched the modern world through inventions that speed up our daily lives without necessarily making them better.’
“In a recent interview with The Economist magazine, tech overlord-in-chief Elon Musk explained that ‘[i]f you have vast numbers of robots with vast amounts of digital intelligence, you have a sort of a quasi-infinite economy.’ In such an economy, ‘anyone can have anything they think of.’ He added that ‘money won’t matter in 2036’ because everyone will have a high income without working. This is a Star Trek version of the future, he explained.”
Cobb goes on to point out that Musk’s views exemplify the tech industry fantasy of a push-button, voice-activated future world of abundance portrayed in the Star Trek television series and movies. In that fictional series, poverty has been eliminated, people do not need money, and everything they want or need is available to them.
Here’s the critical component of this fantasyland being promoted by the likes of Trump, Musk, Sam Altman, Larry Ellison and the rest of Trump’s technocrat cronies: Cobb notes that in 10 years, “AI will be running the world without humans. If that happens, …how will companies make money? How will they even exist? Musk has no answer.”
And that leads to a second question: How will people get money to buy the things they need from a government that is $40 trillion in debt in an economy poised for a crash?
AI critic Ed Zitron asks AI boosters to explain what current AI models are capable of doing right now without using the word “will.” They have little they can point to.
Nothing current AI models can do remotely fits this view of a fantasyland populated by rich folks who no longer need to work.
Cobb writes:
“Those models—called Large Language Models (LLMs)—produce so many errors that handing over mission-critical systems across the economy to AI as suggested by Musk would almost certainly create catastrophe rather than prosperity. The problem of so-called‘hallucinations’ is an inherent feature of the way LLMs operate and cannot be eliminated. And the kind of intelligence needed to run most mission-critical systems, that is human intelligence, simply isn’t achievable with LLMs.”
It’s slowly becoming obvious that the most realistic applications for AI are for state-sponsored surveillance, using tools such as Flock and Axon cameras and creating military kill lists, with the killings themselves being carried out by AI drones and robots.
Since the U.S. government has killed more people in wars than probably any other government on the planet over the last 30 years (over 1 million in Iraq and Afghanistan alone), it makes sense that it would need the most AI computing power for future wars. Ultimately, I believe America’s high-tech killing machine will be turned against its own citizens. This may be the real reason for so many data centers on U.S. soil. The U.S. already has about 5,400 AI data centers, about five times as many as you will find in China and 25 times as many as in Russia. The U.S. wants at least another 3,000, for a total of nearly 9,000 AI data centers.
“Governments seem ready to pay the high cost of AI in order to obtain better surveillance of citizens and more effective weapons. That such systems will inevitably make many mistakes seems not very consequential to the governments that use them,” Cobb writes.
This is borne out by the fact that Israel’s IDF uses an AI-powered software system called Lavender to create kill lists in Gaza, and the IDF admits this system has an error rate of about 10 percent. And the government is OK with that frightful ratio. The notion that 90 percent of its killings in Gaza are seen as legitimate and 10 percent are carried out against completely innocent and undeserving Gazans is of no consequence to the government.
Ukraine is using similar technology in its war with Russia, while unleashing swarms of AI-powered autonomous killer drones.
How would you like it if your local police department created lists of people to arrest for capital crimes, the punishment for which is death, while admitting that 10 percent of those caught up in the dragnet never committed any crime? Oh well. Off to the electric chair. Too bad, so sad.
This is a real fear given the fact that military technology often ends up in the hands of civilian law enforcement years after it has been rolled out on battlefields.
Cobb concludes:
“Businesses and consumers may be finding some benefit to using AI, especially for enhanced searching on the internet. But the true costs of such limited benefits are many, many times what they are currently paying. And given the way AI works, that is, requiring additional data center capacity for each new user, there are really no economies of scale that will bring down costs. Simply said, each new user costs the AI provider more money. AI as it is currently conceived is unlikely to be profitable except for niche users who find its output worth paying the true costs for.
“The tech overloads have been singing the same tune for years: Trust us, sit back, and let us take you into an ever-grander techno-utopian future. New claims that AI will be the vector for this future are part of a propaganda campaign designed to keep you from having a say about AI and its uses. Fortunately, many communities are saying that they do not want to bear the costs and disruptions of new data centers associated with the AI build-out. That concern needs to be extended to the uses and abuses of AI itself.”
In this inverted reality, orchestrated by high-level chaos magicians in the political and corporate realms, we find everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the mainstream media destroy truthful information, religions destroy spirituality, truth is called lies, slavery is called freedom, war is called peace, and so many are walking among us under the spell of the billionaire brainwashers. Judging by their compliance with the insane Covid mandates, I would estimate that 75 to 80 percent of the American population is effectively mind controlled. Walking zombies. Those still in possession of their critical-thinking skills are now cast as “anti-technology extremists” by the FBI and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which sees us as a “threat” worthy of being placed on government watchlists, according to a May 26, 2026 report by Wired magazine.
And the snake oil salesmen of technocracy are laughing all the way to the bank.
Truth Warriors | Armed With The Truth • United We Stand
Thank you for being one of the individuals in our world that wants the truth. Thank you for reading articles on Truth11.com, for sharing the truth and for speaking the truth. Thank you for being a Truth Warrior!.
Truth11.com is an independent media site. Our mission is to arm you with the truth.
Login
