Keywords

The transnational ruling class has no choice but to keep pushing for global technocracy, and the rest of humanity has no choice but to fight back. Knowing since 1968 at least that this moment was coming, the former has developed the CIA’s information-liquidation model used in Indonesia and Vietnam in the 1960s into a global digital surveillance dragnet. The “Covid-19 vaccines,” shot into as many people as possible for no sound medical reason, could form part of an advanced weapons system, not least in the context of the emergent “IT/Bio/Nano era” envisaged by NASA in 2001, involving the use of nanotechnologies to connect human beings to an external network. If the brain is the twenty-first-century battlescape, and given that syringe-injectable neural nets were a reality by 2018, the evil potential of weaponised neurotechnology knows no bounds. History teaches that as the old social order breaks down, a moment of revolutionary potential arises. Lest unimaginable horrors be allowed to manifest, as in previous world wars, that moment must be seized.

The Coming Unrest

Physical War Becomes Inevitable

As Sun Tzu (1963, p. 77) teaches, “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” So far, this has largely been achieved. There have been no major battles for history to record, only the insidious infiltration of governments and institutions with technocrats, of human minds with psychological programming (see Volume 2 of this book), and of human bodies with substances of an undisclosed nature (Hughes, 2022c). Before “Covid-19,” van der Pijl (2022, p. 77) argues, the IT revolution allowed the transnational ruling class to “evade a physical war against the population via the alternative of permanent surveillance and information warfare.”

Yet, now that all possibility of class compromise has been removed by a transnational ruling class that would sooner escalate to World War III than maintain its post-1968 strategy of low-intensity operations against the public, physical war becomes inevitable. As van der Pijl (2022, p. 268) argues, “It has been the governments, operating under the auspices of the internationalized state and ultimately, the capitalist oligarchy, which, by their declaration of war on society, have created a potentially revolutionary situation.” That situation may not have been created by the working classes, but it can only be resolved by them. Recall Minnicino’s (1974, p. 51) insight half a century ago that “the only war that is left [is] the world revolution.” We appear to be nearing that point.

In the final analysis, Minnicino (1974, p. 37) writes, it is “‘the armed body of men’ upon which class rule depends,” and “someday such armies [will] have to exercise their true function openly.” The warning signs are becoming ever more visible. Hedge fund manager Ed Dowd, for instance, seeing just one part of the bigger picture, thinks that the “emergence of global totalitarianism” is to “control the masses when they realise the economy is collapsing,” the ramifications of which may be the loss of pensions and social security income (Hope, 2022). The goal, in Dowd’s view, is to “prevent the riots that are going to ensue once this thing all unwinds.” Sri Lanka provides an island test case of the kind of social unrest that could follow (Sicetsha, 2022).

So far, the role of the military has remained largely covert, e.g. in information warfare (Webb, 2022). The military has been presented in a benign way, viz. its role in “assisting” with the “vaccine” rollout, even though it was behind it (see Chapter 6). The only overt physical violence to speak of has been police and paramilitary violence against those protesting the so-called “Covid-19 countermeasures” (Broudy et al., 2022), although there has been mass covert violence wrought by the effects of “lockdowns” and “vaccines,” disguised as public health measures (see Chapter 6). Keeping recognised physical violence to a minimum for as long as possible is strategically important from a deep state perspective, “because the facade of democracy must remain intact until the very end, even during the seizure of power. An unbridled assault on the population carries great risks and can even lead to a general political collapse” (van der Pijl, 2022, p. 76). If the public gets wise to what is happening before it is too late, then the controlled demolition of liberal democracy will spin out of control and the likelihood of revolution will increase exponentially.

The “Covid-19” operation was intended to blindside the public and render it incapable of mounting significant resistance to the transition to technocracy. Historically, a key function of psychological warfare has been to weaken target populations before the main fighting begins. During World War II, for example, OSS director William “Wild Bill” Donovan (a former Wall Street lawyer) saw propaganda as “the arrow of initial penetration,” to be followed by sabotage and subversion, commando raids, guerrilla action, and behind-the-lines resistance movements—all representing the “softening-up process of an area prior to invasion by friendly armed forces” (Paddock, 1979, p. 9).

Military-grade propaganda, as well as other means of psychological warfare deployed against the public during the “Covid-19” operation, acted as the “arrow of initial penetration.” But numerous developments since the winding down of that operation in 2022 pose cause for alarm. For example, should the WHO Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations be ratified, the door is opened to a global health dictatorship able to decree compulsory “lockdowns,” “vaccinations,” and the centralisation of health data surveillance tied to a global digital passport and ID system (Kheriaty, 2022). Central bank digital currencies are being heavily pushed by governments: they amount to a form of biodigital enslavement (Davis, 2023; Hughes, 2022a, p. 234). So-called “15-minute cities” are being phased in, against the will of the people, using physical bollards and licence plate recognition cameras to impose significant restrictions on freedom of movement. Those measures are meeting with civil disobedience (in terms of infrastructure destruction), protests (such as that in Oxford in February 2023), and interventions at the local political level (such as against Colchester City Council in March 2023). The rapid rollout of 5G, despite failure to address serious safety concerns (Burdick, 2023; Jamieson, 2023), is another highly troubling development.

Concerns have been raised about the 51,000 migrants being housed in 400 hotels throughout the United Kingdom at a reported cost to the taxpayer of £6.8 million a day (Young et al., 2023). Such a policy has no precedent or convincing justification, and, under the circumstances, it is reasonable to suspect an ulterior agenda for reasons that have nothing to do with far-right ideology. Since 1994, annual net migration to the UK fell mostly within the 170,000–330,000 range (Office for National Statistics, 2023). Following a dip during the “pandemic,” that figure suddenly spiked in Q3 of 2021 to 443,000, and rose every quarter until Q4 of 2022, when it reached 745,000; the latest available figure, for Q2 of 2023, is 672,000. Virtually the whole of this massive increase has been driven by non-EU immigration, with EU immigration turning negative. Along with everything else in the unfolding Omniwar, migration appears to have been weaponised, either to stoke social division and tensions through the sudden surge, or worse. Stage 5 of Stanton’s (2016) ten stages of genocide involves the training and arming of special army units or militias, and it is now a brute fact that tens of thousands of fighting-age males with no patriotic loyalty have been stationed throughout the UK, despite Brexit.

By now, global technocratic agendas and deep state military operations are obvious for anyone with eyes to see: they represent an attack on human freedom, dignity, and humanity itself. The transnational ruling class continues to erect various (largely invisible) architectures of oppression, while the public awakens at an ever faster rate to the Omniwar being waged against it. In this context, it seems possible that physical conflict could be about to break out as we enter the next stage of World War III, instigated not by the people, but, rather, by a transnational ruling class willing to go to any lengths to prevent its own demise.

Ultimately, human freedom depends on defeating a tiny cabal whose evil methods act like a cancer against the body politic, creating a “disease of inter-human relations,” as Meerloo (1956, p. 108) refers to totalitarianism. Unfortunately, while this solution is only now starting to dawn on a relatively small segment of the population, the ruling class has understood the logic of the coming global class confrontation for well over half a century and has spent that time carefully scheming its plan of attack.

The “Information-Liquidation” Model

As argued in Chapters 1 and 2, low-level counterinsurgency techniques have been deployed against Western populations since 1968, with the Strategy of Tension becoming globalised and turned into a permanent state of exception after “9/11.” However, we know where Anglo-American counterinsurgency operations in the so-called “Third World” ultimately led: namely, to what van der Pijl (2022, p. 59) calls “the information-liquidation model,” which involves “sending agents to penetrate the resistance and then, on the basis of centralized information, moving to take out the leadership.” The British did this in Malacca and Kenya; the Americans did it in Indonesia and Vietnam. In Indonesia, hundreds of thousands (possibly rising to over two million) were killed (van der Pijl, 2014, p. 174); in Vietnam, Operation Phoenix killed tens of thousands.

In Vietnam, everyone aged 15 and over had to carry an identity card, enabling a “computerized […] means of generating 1,800 names a month for the target list, coordinating the information on suspects from 30,000-plus informants” (Thomas, 2007, p. 27). Operation Phoenix represented “a “template for systemic domination,” which involved “targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style ‘special forces’ [i.e. death squads] and Gestapo-style secret police” (Valentine, 2017, pp. 55–63). The victims, in Valentine’s view, were “patriots resisting foreign aggression and seeking to take back their country, but they were considered spies and terrorists,” and it was on this basis that laws were written allowing the U.S. military to “torture and kill them by every means possible.”

The information-liquidation model was transnationalised—in Italy, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Guatemala, El Salvador, and elsewhere (van der Pijl, 2022, p. 59). Under Operation Condor, intelligence agencies in the Southern Cone shared information about dissidents using “a state-of-the-art computer system provided by Washington—and then gave each other’s agents safe passage to carry out cross-border kidnappings and torture”—a prefiguration of the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” network (Klein, 2007, p. 91). Domestically, meanwhile, the ARPANET was used to share files with intelligence agencies on 7 million U.S. citizens involved in anti-war and civil rights movements (van der Pijl, 2018, p. 13). Preventing social revolution, van der Pijl (2022, p. 73) infers, was always the fundamental purpose of the new information technology.

After 9/11, Operation Phoenix became the “template for policing the empire and fighting its eternal War on Terror,” with the CIA and U.S. military conducting joint Phoenix-style operations worldwide, most prominently in Afghanistan and Iraq (Valentine, 2017, pp. 25, 64). But domestically, too, “Homeland Security” was advertised as protecting people against terrorism, just as in the Phoenix programme, raising a troubling question: “What is to stop [the CIA and military] applying the full systematic extent of Phoenix-style operations to include political dissidents, immigrants, and despised minorities in America, just as they did in Vietnam?” (Valentine, 2017, p. 64). And not just in the United States. The Edward Snowden leaks in 2013 revealed a global surveillance programme being run by intelligence agencies and communications corporations in the USA, UK, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Canada, and Australia. Its presumptive purpose: to ensure that “everything is known about the population before it might even think of revolt” (van der Pijl, 2022, p. 60).

In Algeria in the 1950s, the French used a system of military aid to the civilian community to get “right under the skin of the population,” before introducing identity cards (Kitson, 1971, p. 80). Silicon Valley, it might be argued, has performed a similar clandestine function of getting the military right under the skin of populations, provided one understands that “the Big Tech giants are the Pentagon and the intelligence community” (Corbett, 2019a). Dating at least as far back as the development of the ARPANET, the CIA and ARPA (later DARPA) have spent decades working on “a worldwide signals intelligence operation, directed not only at the militaries of foreign countries, but at the population of the world as a whole,” with all the Big Tech giants (e.g., Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Google, and Facebook) originating with those very agencies (Corbett, 2019a). Big Tech essentially serves as a global dragnet hoovering up personal data about everyone so that the intelligence agencies can analyse it (e.g., using Peter Thiel’s Palantir) and use it for social control purposes. It is no accident that figures such as Regina Dugan have moved seamlessly between DARPA, Google, and Facebook: they are all part of one and the same project. “The internet was never intended as a tool of liberation,” Corbett (2019a) concludes. “It was from its very inception intended to be a tool for tracking, surveilling and, ultimately, controlling a target population.” With such an infrastructure in place, Valentine (2017, p. 66) contends, “it is only a matter of time until we enter the next Phoenix phase of explicit terror here at home.”

Writing just before the “Covid-19” operation was launched, Mikovits asks: “How far will our government go to attack members of what it perceives to be its domestic opposition? In other words, what measures will the United States government employ against its own citizens?” (Mikovits & Heckenlively, 2020, p. 46). This was in reference to the known history of harsh repression, up to and including murder, of outspoken critics of Big Pharma, an issue that was soon to intensify as medical professionals worldwide lost their licences for speaking out against the “Covid-19” narrative in a growing climate of censorship, persecution, and intimidation.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in April 2020, told a rally: “We are in a guerilla war” against a broken system. If so, there are serious reasons for concern, given van der Pijl’s (2022, p. 35) contention that “The information warfare model developed in counterinsurgency operations in Southeast Asia and Central America is now being applied to the home front in the West.” So far, this has mainly been applied to rooting out and censoring dissidents in cyberspace (Fisher & Smyth, 2020), but if dissidents can be targeted virtually, they can also, in principle, be targeted physically.

Injections No Matter What

Global power brokers made it very clear that they intend to see everyone (apart from their own class) injected with the novel technologies now known to contain all manner of undisclosed ingredients (Hughes, 2022c). According to Gates (2020a), “we need to make the vaccine available to almost every person on the planet,” such that “normalcy only returns when we have largely vaccinated the entire global population.” “You don’t have a choice,” Gates threatens. “People act like you have a choice” (“Transcript: Bill Gates speaks to the FT about the Global Fight against Coronavirus,” 2020). Boris Johnson at the 2021 G7 summit called on wealthy countries to “commit to vaccinating the world against Covid-19” (cited in Shearing, 2021). Justin Trudeau claimed: “the way to get through this pandemic is for everyone to get vaccinated” (cited in Connolly, 2021). According to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the EU must consider mandatory “vaccination” (Boffey & Smith, 2021). According to UNICEF (2021), “no one is safe until everyone is safe,” and the accompanying UNICEF advertisement threatened: “Nobody gets out of the Covid-19 pandemic until we get everyone protected around the world.” This is echoed by Schwab’s (2022) threat that “nobody will be safe if not everyone is vaccinated.” In that respect, “global public health” resembles a mafia protection racket.

Once the “Covid-19” narrative collapsed in late 2021, especially regarding the absurdity of pro-“vaccination” arguments (see Chapter 5), and with the emergent harms of the injections becoming ever more obvious, one might reasonably have expected the “Covid-19 vaccination” agenda to disappear altogether. As van der Pijl (2022, p. 281) wrote at the time, “The absurdity of pressing on with the vaccination campaign in spite of growing signs it poses severe health risks, with gene therapies that do not work, all that against a virus that for most poses no risk whatsoever, is rapidly eroding popular acceptance.”

But instead, after a half-year hiatus, the “vaccine” pushers were back for more. In July 2022, the Lancet published a “viewpoint,” whose authors include Chelsea Clinton, advocating for mandatory “vaccination” (Mello et al., 2022). In August 2022, the Rockefeller Foundation (2022) announced its Mercury Project to “boost Covid-19 vaccination rates and counter public health mis- and disinformation in 17 countries.” The outgoing Anthony Fauci in September 2022 anticipated “annual updated COVID-19 shots matched to the currently circulating strains for most of the population” (White House, 2022b).

In May 2023, the MHRA (2023) approved a new “Covid-19 vaccine,” called SKYCovion, which was developed with funding from CEPI and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The proposed UK “New Bill of Rights” could conceivably be used to pretend that inalienable rights, such as the right to bodily sovereignty, can be overridden in the name of “safeguarding the broader public interest” (Davis, 2022a). Claiming that an estimated 10–15 million people have already been killed by “Covid-19 vaccines”—Rancourt et al., (2023, p. 3) calculate 17 million—Yeadon (2023) warns: “these are but the first of many mRNA injections to come,” based on the number of doses that governments have already agreed to purchase.

Especially given the inexorable rollout of the WHO Pandemic Treaty, proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations, and “vaccine passports” (Wailzer, 2023), it may only be a matter of time before “the next pandemic” repeatedly touted by Gates (2021), or “the second pandemic” let slip by Joe Biden (White House, 2022a), is used as the pretext for mandatory “vaccination,” despite there being no such thing as an unusually deadly pandemic in the post-antibiotics era (see Chapter 6).

The irrational, anti-scientific, and immoral drive to force dangerous experimental products into everyone cannot possibly have anything to do with public health. Rather, the so-called “Covid-19 vaccines” are potential military technologies intended to give the oligarchy the decisive advantage should mass violence erupt when social order finally breaks down (as it must for the desired remaking of society to occur). As Schwab and Malleret (2020, p. 21) write, “It is far from certain that the COVID-19 crisis will tip the balance in favour of labour and against capital. For political and social reasons, it could, but technology changes the mix.” What technology, exactly?

The Covert Installation of Military Hardware into Human Bodies?

The IT/Bio/Nano Era

The Clinton administration threw its weight behind nanotechnology research with the foundation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2000, claiming that nanotechnology research goals “may take twenty or more years to achieve” (i.e. by 2020) (White House, 2000).

A July 2001 NASA Langley Research Centre report on “Future Warfare,” which aims to provide a “Heads Up” for the “Intel Community,” expects “ongoing worldwide technological revolutions” and “economic trends” to lead to a new warfighting paradigm by “circa 2025” (Bushnell, 2001, pp. 1, 5, 109). With a “Bio/NANO” era beginning around “2020-?,” an “IT/Bio/Nano” warfare paradigm will involve “everyone” and utilise “key future [nano]technologies” such as “carbon nanotubes” and “assemblers/living factories.” Moreover, a “takedown of the US” involving, among other things, “selective anti-personnel RF/MW [radio frequency and microwave] (Towers)” will be “ACCOMPANIED BY SERIOUS PSYWAR” (Bushnell, 2001, pp. 7, 13, 35, 98, 107).

In light of all that has happened since 2020, including massive psychological warfare, the erection of 5G towers in densely populated areas, and the discovery of apparent carbon nanotubes and self-assembling structures (possibly synthetic biology) in the blood of “vaccinated” patients (Hughes, 2022c), it seems hard to avoid the impression that the “Covid-19” operation was planned since at least the turn of the millennium, much as “pandemic preparedness” exercises—in which “CIA involvement was a consistent feature” (Kennedy Jr., 2021, p. 385)—date at least as far back as Operation Dark Winter in June 2001 (O’Toole et al., 2002).

A 2002 U.S. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce report on “convergent technologies” in “nanotechnology, biotechnology, [and] information technology” argues that “within twenty years’ time” (i.e. by 2022), there could occur a “turning point in the evolution of human society” and the “transformation of civilization” (Roco & Bainbridge, 2002, pp. ix–x). The report envisages “bionano processors” and “fast broadband interfaces directly between the human brain and machines” that would take a further decade or so (by ca. 2030) to implement “in new technologies, industries, and ways of life” (2002, p. 3). It should be noted that Charles Lieber had already, by this point, developed self-assembling nano-biosensors, analogous to “a computer, suspended in a flask of liquid, which assembles itself when the liquid is poured onto a desktop” (Shaw, 2001). One comment in the NSF/Department of Commerce report from W.A. Wallace stands out: “If the Cognitive Scientists can think it, the Nano people can build it, the Bio people can implement it, and the IT people can monitor and control it” (2002, p. 11). Wallace neglects to mention that whoever controls the IT people rules society.

Kurzweil (2005, Chapter 5) writes of “three overlapping revolutions”: in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics, creating intersections between information, biology, and the physical world. This is very similar to the claim of the founder of Sun Microsystems, paraphrased by van der Pijl (2022, p. 256), that “nanotechnology, genetics and information science would merge and might be able to begin to make self-replicating nanorobots.”

The RAND Corporation (2006) envisages a “Global Technology Revolution to 2020” involving “biotechnology trends,” “nanotechnology trends,” “materials trends,” and “information and communications technology trends” (i.e. IT/BIO/Nano convergence). So-called “wildcard” technologies would have “broad and substantial impacts” should “unlikely breakthroughs” occur (RAND, 2006, p. 4). Nanotechnology is one such “wildcard,” promising “self-assembly methods,” “carbon nanotubes or semiconducting and metallic nanowires as individual (designed) functional elements in electronic circuits,” “manufacturing using molecular or biological methods,” “implants that connect directly to the brain and nervous system,” and “therapeutic delivery of DNA and RNA and the creation of multifunctional delivery systems” (2006, pp. 4, 12, 14, 201–2).

From Neuroscience to Neurotechnology

The “wildcard” breakthrough was made in 2010, when Lieber and his colleagues used nanowires to create transistors so small that they can “enter and probe cells without disrupting the intracellular machinery,” enabling “two-way communication with individual cells” (Shaw, 2011)—perhaps the first example of the IT/Bio/Nano convergence in practice. According to Pentagon neuroscientist James Giordano (2018), neuroscience and neurotechnology became “viable for operational use in NSID [National Security Investigations Division]” in 2010, were considered for “military operational use” in 2013, and were “in operational NSID use” by 2014. The timing fits with Lieber’s breakthrough, as well as with developments in graphene-based technology (see below).

In January 2013, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Peking Union Medical College held a summit in Beijing titled “Dreaming the Future of Health for the Next 100 Years” (Rockefeller Foundation, 2013). That imagined future, as summarised by Kyrie and Broudy (2022a), involves

the “re-engineering of humans through genetic engineering or mixed human-robots,” nanobots and nanotechnology, synthetic biology and “human-designed life,” optogenetics, or remote brain monitoring and control using light signals, tissue-implantable sensors that interact with big data, self-replicating A.I., delivery of medical and health services through telemedicine and A.I., and a future in which the “abundance of data, digitally tracking and linking people may mean the ‘death of privacy’ and may replace physical interaction with transient, virtual connection.”

Health here is just a guise for rolling out IT/Bio/Nanotechnology that will facilitate eugenics (redirecting the course of human evolution), mind control, and ultra-surveillance.

In April 2013, President Obama launched the BRAIN Initiative, whose stated purpose is to “unlock the mysteries of the brain” by making extraordinary scientific advances in a short time frame under the “Grand Challenges” framework (White House, 2013). The Human Brain Project in Europe, also launched in 2013, served a similar function. Research funding for the BRAIN Initiative was disbursed through DARPA ($50 million), the NIH ($40 million), and the National Science Foundation ($20 million), beginning in FY 2014. Four private sector partners were named: the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Rockefeller-affiliated Kavli Foundation, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. The BRAIN initiative working group, which outlined the scope of the project, was co-chaired by Rockefeller University’s Cori Bargmann. One early project to be funded was a Rockefeller University (2014) initiative to find a “new way to remotely control brain cells” using radiogenetics, which “combines the use of radio waves or magnetic fields with nanoparticles to turn neurons on or off.” This was successfully achieved in rats, enabling what Rockefeller University (2016) calls “magnetic mind control.” A WEF article from 2018 (since deleted) is titled “Mind Control using Sound Waves?” (Jérusalem, 2018). The in-house references to mind control give the game away. Optogenetics (using pulses of light), sonogenetics (ultrasound waves), magnetogenetics (magnetic fields), and chemogenetics (engineered proteins, viz. DREADDS, or “Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs”) were all explored for purposes of remotely controlling brain activity.

We should not lose sight of the hubristic nature of attempts to “unlock the mysteries of the brain” (White House, 2013). No one, for instance, has ever managed to explain human consciousness. In fact, human beings are still so far away from being able to explain the Majesty of Creation, that Caltech professor Christof Koch, chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, admits: “The roundworm has exactly 302 neurons, and we still have no frigging idea how this animal works” (cited in Keats, 2013). Although the goal of communicating with one million neurons sounds lofty, according to Phillip Alvelda, DARPA’s Neural Engineering System Design programme manager, “A million neurons represents a miniscule percentage of the 86 billion neurons in the human brain. Its deeper complexities are going to remain a mystery for some time to come” (DARPA, 2017). The EU Horizon 2020 BrainCom project aimed to develop “biocompatible and high bandwidth neural interfaces” with an “ultra-high-count of sensors” to begin addressing the problem that the brain contains 100 billion (!) neurons (BrainCom, 2020). This goes to show how far researchers really are from “unlocking the brain with novel graphene technology,” to quote BrainCom’s strapline.

DARPA has been investing in brain-computer interface technology since at least 2002. Its known programmes include (by year of initiation): the Brain Machine Interface (BMI) and Human Assisted Neural Devices (HAND) programmes (2002), the Neurotechnology for Intelligence Analysts (NIA) programme (2005), the Revolutionizing Prosthetics programme (2006), the Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System (CT2WS) programme (2007), the Accelerated Learning programme (2007), the Restorative Encoding Memory Integration Neural Device (REMIND) programme (2009), the Reorganization and Plasticity to Accelerate Injury Recovery (REPAIR) programme (2010), the Reliable Neural Interface Technology (RE-NET) programme (2010), the Reliable Central nervous system Interfaces (RCI) programme (2011), the Reliable Peripheral Interfaces (RPI) programme (2011), the Narrative Networks (N2) programme (2011), the Neuro Function, Activity, Structure, and Technology (Neuro-FAST) programme (2014), the Systems-Based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (SUBNETS) programme (2014), the Restoring Active Memory (RAM) programme (2014), the Hand Proprioception and Touch Interfaces (HAPTIX) programme (2015), the Electrical Prescriptions (ElectRx) programme (2015), the Neural Engineering System Design (NESD) programme (2015), the Targeted Neuroplasticity Training (TNT) programme (2016), and the Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) programme (2019).

With all these developments underway since around the turn of the millennium, Klaus Schwab seems late to the party with his dubious “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” a concept coined in December 2015, premised on a “fusion of technologies across the physical, digital and biological worlds” (Schwab, 2016, p. 7). If anything, Schwab (2016, p. 13) seems to be opportunistically positioning himself, pointing to the need for an “institutional framework [no doubt with the WEF at the heart] to govern the diffusion of innovation and mitigate the disruption” caused by the new technologies and the inevitable “popular backlash” to them. Interestingly, Schwab’s physical/digital/biological triad does not include nano (as in IT/Bio/Nano). Instead, Schwab has repeatedly mooted the possibility of implantable microchips in the brain, as when he asked Sergey Brin: “Can you imagine that in ten years, twenty years, sitting here, we have an implant in our brains, and […] I can immediately tell you how the people react to your answers?” (WEF, 2017; cf. Schwab, 2016, p. 110). Elon Musk’s Neuralink similarly involves a microchip robotically implanted “in a person’s skull” (Asher Hamilton, 2022), although in an early interview, Musk claimed “You could go through the veins and arteries” (cited in Jiminez, 2017). It seems possible that the public is being fed the image of brain-implantable microchips as some kind of emergent futuristic technology, when self-assembling bionanotechnologies capable of communicating with an external network may already be a reality.

Giordano (2018) tells West Point recruits: “The brain is, and will be, the twenty-first-century battlescape.” Clearly, by this point, neuroscience and neurotechnology had entered military operational use. Weaponised neurotechnology, Giordano (2017) teaches, can be used to:

1) assess, predict, and control particular cognitions, emotions, and behaviours; 2) mitigate aggression and foster cognitions, emotions, and/or behaviours of affiliation or passivity; 3) incur burdens of morbidity, disability, or suffering and in this way “neutralise” potential opponents, or 4) induce mortality.

In other words, it can be used to control subjective experience and behaviours and to leave a target sick, disabled, or dead. The way it works is to “put minimal sized electrodes in a network within a brain through only minimal intervention to be able to read and write into the brain function, in real time, remotely” (Giordano, 2018).

This, again, is consistent with Lieber’s research, this time involving a 1 cm-squared neural net comprised of superfine “nanowire [field effect transistors] as general biological nanosensors” syringe-injected into the brains of rats, where it seamlessly integrates with neural tissue and remains intact for at least a year (Hong et al., 2018, pp. 34–5). “Looking into the future,” Lieber and his co-authors write, nanowire technology could be “incorporated into other platforms, such as syringe-injectable mesh electronics [….] perhaps eventually bringing ‘cyborgs’ to reality” (Zhang et al., 2019, p. 3). Kyrie and Broudy’s (2022b) “Cyborgs R Us” article presents a large amount of circumstantial evidence that this is indeed the plan. Policy Horizons Canada (2020) has a chilling document on “biodigital convergence” that points to the end of homo sapiens and “synthetic biology machines that can be programmed to create entirely new organisms.” The UK Ministry of Defence (2021) has a similar document on “human augmentation.”

“mRNA Vaccines” as Cover for Military Technologies?

If the aim of the deep state (Hughes, 2022b) is to use public health as the disguise under which to introduce military technology into the bodies of the population, then traditional forms of vaccine must be replaced. This, it seems, is the purpose of so-called “mRNA vaccines.” In addition to camouflaging the true nature of their contents, “mRNA vaccines” can allegedly be produced at speed, anywhere, based on computer code rather than a physical sample of a virus. With governments, regulators, and the media all captured, the public has no reliable way of knowing what these new products contain (Hughes, 2022c).

Former DARPA Director Regina Dugan recalls “a pivotal moment in 2010” (the breakthrough year above), when Dan Wattendorf asked: “What if we have a global pandemic and it’s a novel pathogen? That will be catastrophic. We can’t wait the normal 3–10 years for a vaccine. And what if instead we could use mRNA to create a vaccine in days and weeks […]?” (“How DARPA Seeded the Ground for a Rapid Covid-19 Cure,” 2020). The context for Wattendorf’s question is not provided, but it is easy to imagine a DARPA brainstorming session on how to provide for injecting as many people as possible, at speed, with a revolutionary new military technology whose proof of concept had just been established. In December 2013, DARPA awarded Pfizer $7.7 million for research to “cut response times to pandemic or bioterrorism threats by eliminating several of the steps currently needed to confer immunity,” though “details of the research are scarce” (Taylor, 2013).

Moderna was founded in September 2010 and operationalised in 2011. In 2012, “despite being years away from testing its science in humans,” and with no scientific publications to its name, $40 million of venture capitalist funding flowed into the company (Crunchbase, n.d.), plus $240 million from AstraZeneca for the rights to mRNA drugs that did not yet exist (Garde, 2020). On October 2, 2013, DARPA awarded Moderna $25 million of research funding (Moderna, 2013). On October 24, 2013, Moderna was named a WEF “global growth company” and heralded as “an industry leader in innovative mRNA therapeutics.” In 2014, the company achieved the rare “unicorn” status (a $1 billion stock valuation for a private startup), even though it was offering a “fledgling drug technology” that had still not been tested in humans (Dolgin, 2015). None of this makes any sense from a commercial perspective, and the fingerprints of the deep state are not difficult to detect.

In a panel called “Making Influenza History: The Quest for a Universal Flu Vaccine,” held at the Milken Institute’s Future of Health Summit (October 28–30, 2019), the panellists repeatedly stressed the urgency of abandoning traditional methods of vaccine production in favour of what BARDA Director Rick Bright calls “synthetic-based vaccines,” specifically “messenger RNA-based” vaccines that could be produced remotely based on the RNA sequence of the virus—say, if a novel virus escaped from China (“Clip of Universal Flu Vaccine,” 2019). The “novel coronavirus” was sequenced in Wuhan about eleven weeks later. Fauci, at the 21-minute mark, proposes “not growing the virus at all, but getting the sequences, getting the appropriate protein and sticking it on a self-assembling nanoparticle that is much more immunogenic.” Thus, not only was the public health groundwork for novel “vaccines” being laid directly after the World Military Games in Wuhan (October 18–27, 2019)—to which one narrative ascribes the outbreak of “SARS-CoV-2”—and directly before the “coronavirus pandemic,” but the idea of injecting self-assembling nanotechnologies was being openly discussed.

Moderna’s 10-Q Q2 2020 filing with the SEC states: “We have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future” (Moderna, 2020). Moderna only had one viable commercial product, i.e. mRNA-1273 (its “Covid-19 vaccine”). All other products remained “years” away from commercialisation, with the company admitting it “may never achieve profitability.” Then, as if by magic, the “Covid-19 pandemic” allowed for emergency use authorisation that bypassed the need for animal trials and long-term safety data. $1 billion of U.S. taxpayer money flowed into research for mRNA-1273, a $1.5 billion advance purchase arrangement was made through Operation Warp Speed, and further support came from CEPI (Dearden, 2022). Moderna achieved its first ever quarterly profit in Q1 of 2021 and finished 2021 with pre-tax profits of $13 billion ($36 million of profit per day). Moderna executives become multi-millionaires and billionaires through suspiciously timed selling of shares (Egan & Isidore, 2020; Webb, 2021). Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom announced new contracts with Moderna for mRNA “vaccine” manufacturing plants in the first half of 2022. None of this is believable without treating Moderna as part of a transnational deep state operation to inject “mRNA vaccines” into as many people as possible.

In the “race” for a “Covid-19 vaccine” in 2020, traditional types of vaccine were never in the running, and of the novel types of “vaccine” that were, the mRNA kind soon established dominance. According to CDC data, 97% of all “Covid-19 vaccines'’ administered in the United States by August 3, 2022, were either Pfizer (59%) or Moderna (38%); Johnson & Johnson’s adenovirus vector injection and the protein-based Novavax (granted EUA in July 2022) barely register (CDC, n.d.). In the UK, one of the two main “Covid-19 vaccines,” Oxford-AstraZeneca (viral vector)—which, according to MHRA (n.d.) data, was responsible for the lion’s share of “Covid-19 vaccine” injuries and deaths following a Wimbledon Centre Court standing ovation for their pioneer, Dame Sarah Gilbert—was quietly phased out in 2021 as Moderna was phased in. The “vast majority” of UK third doses were Pfizer (30.1 million) and Moderna (9.4 million), vs. just 56,000 for AstraZeneca (Head, 2022). In the EU/EEA, of the 1.26 billion doses distributed by July 21, 2022, mRNA types accounted for 80% (Comirnaty 63%, Spikevax 17%) (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, n.d.). Similar data can be found in virtually every Western country (Official Data collated by Our World in Data, n.d.). An attempted “coup” appears to be underway in which traditional vaccines are to be replaced by “mRNA vaccines.”

We must remember that we are dealing with a camouflaged military operation, saturated in deceit (cf. Chapter 6). It is possible that “mRNA” (Moderna trading as MRNA) is a decoy to disguise other components/functions of the injectables. We know, for instance, that the ultra-cold storage requirements for “Covid-19 mRNA vaccines”—“as low as -80 degrees C” for Pfizer (Gates, 2020a)—above which the mRNA and combined nanoparticles were said to lose their integrity, were quickly rescinded in favour of fridge temperatures (Vedmore, 2020) or “normal freezer” temperatures (DHS Science & Technology Directorate, 2021, p. 11). There are serious quality issues with industrial-scale mRNA “vaccine” production, as Maria Gutschi explains (NZDSOS, 2022), and the European Medicines Agency had “major concerns over unexpectedly low quantities (around 55%) of intact mRNA in batches of the vaccine developed for commercial production” (BMJ, 2021). Moderna refused to share its mRNA vaccine knowledge to boost production of COVID-19 vaccines (Meyer, 2022), consistent with its trademark furtiveness (Dearden, 2022). The “mRNA vaccine” narrative thus seems questionable on several levels. What if “mRNA” is cover for something else?

Graphene

Graphene, first discovered in 2004 by University of Manchester researchers, is a “2D,” i.e. “one-atom thick, layer of carbon atoms in a honeycomb crystal lattice” that possess “unique electronic and optical properties” (Jornet & Akyildiz, 2014, p. 685).

In 2010, DARPA Director Regina Dugan testified that nanotechnologies hitherto had “resisted practical implementation in systems,” but that graphene promised to “break through the 50-year old limitations of traditional silicon microelectronic devices” (Dugan, 2010). DARPA’s CERA (carbon electronics for radiofrequency applications) programme looked to use graphene to create components for nanoscale circuitry, e.g. “graphene channel RF-transistors and key amplifier components such as LNAs [low noise amplifiers, used to amplify very low power signals]” (Albrecht, 2010). By February 2012, DARPA (2012, pp. 47–8, 218) had produced “graphene mechanical transistors with single-layer graphene sheets successfully transferred onto a silicon substrate”; “semiconducting nanowires, graphene ribbons, quantum dots, Kane q-bits, carbon nanotubes and other structures using tips-based nano-manufacturing (TBN) for specific device applications”; and “a low power, low noise amplifier (LNA) using graphene-field effect transistors (FETs) as the channel material.”

In 2014, DARPA announced it had developed “graphene sensors that are electrically conductive but only 4 atoms thick,” allowing “nearly all light to pass through across a wide range of wavelengths.” This provided “proof-of-concept” for a technology that could “measure and stimulate neural tissue […] by applying programmed pulses of electricity or light to temporarily activate neurons,” there being “causal linkages between neural activity and behavior” (DARPA, 2014). Thus, DARPA was proposing a graphene-based means of neurological manipulation that can be used to control human behaviour. DARPA deleted the 2014 announcement from its website, and the last available access to it on the Wayback Machine is April 20, 2015. There appear to be no further mentions of graphene on DARPA’s website, suggesting the agency went dark on the subject in April 2015.

Far more visible has been the EU Graphene Flagship, founded in 2013 with €1 billion of funding from the European Commission, EU member states, and associated states. Its stated goal is “bringing together academic and industrial researchers to take graphene from the realm of academic laboratories into European society in the space of 10 years [i.e. by 2023]” (Graphene Flagship, n.d.). The Flagship’s “core consortium” consists of ca. 170 academic and industrial research groups (roughly evenly divided) in 22 countries; there are also around 100 associate members. By November 2021, the Graphene Flagship had published over 4000 peer-reviewed studies, attracting hundreds of citations a year. It hosts an annual Graphene Week to showcase its innovations, which cover a staggering array of applications, mostly outside neuroscience. The Graphene Flagship is, thus, the public face of graphene research. As the “flagship” metaphor is intended to suggest, the public is meant to think that this is where the most important graphene research is being done. Attention is thereby drawn away from military research organisations such as DARPA, which has an annual budget of ca. $4 billion and was investigating potential graphene applications years before the Flagship existed.

Here is what we know about graphene from non-classified research. Graphene can “easily enter biological systems and interact with them physically and electromagnetically,” making it potentially useful as a “nanotag” (Tian et al., 2011). Graphene solves the problem of communication between nano-devices via tuneable nano-antennae operating in the Terahertz band (Jornet & Akyildiz, 2014). It is paramagnetic (Zhang et al., 2021) and can be made ferromagnetic (Marquardt, 2015). Graphene-based substrates can interface directly with neurons without impairing their signalling properties, promising to “pave the way for better deep brain implants to both harness and control the brain” (Fabbro et al., 2016; University of Cambridge, 2016). A graphene skin patch is in use for monitoring diabetics’ glucose levels and delivering drugs through microneedles (Cuthbertson, 2016). Graphene nanostructures are being developed for use in bioelectronic devices to “enable real-time monitoring or control of physiological processes” (Huang et al., 2019; San Roman et al., 2020). “Flexible solid-state electrical double layer supercapacitors” exist, based on graphene hydrogel electrodes (Lee et al., 2020). Graphene sheets aligned at precisely the right angle can form an “unconventional superconductor,” which is “highly integrative with neuron cells in the brain” (Chu, 2021). Graphene nanostructures can “morph from conductor to semiconductor and back again,” potentially facilitating “high performance computing and nanoscale quantum devices” able to “interact with electrons, light, and even magnetism” (Brown & Crommie, 2021). Mobile phone signals can be used to trigger the delivery of drugs via a graphene oxide platform (Sahoo et al., 2022).

In sum, we know that DARPA was excited in 2014 about the prospects of graphene to create a novel form of neurological manipulation that can be used to control human behaviour. Based on subsequent research, we also know that it is theoretically possible to create a graphene-based nano-operating system within the human body that is capable of monitoring and controlling physiological processes, and which can be controlled remotely. We could be looking here at a highly advanced weapons system, as Andersen (2021) proposes in a study that compares items found in the “Covid-19 vaccines” to components found in the nanotechnology literature.

The Evil Potential of Weaponised Neurotechnology

The above considerations make the covert transnational military campaign (see Chapter 6) to inject as many people as possible with substances containing undisclosed ingredients, apparently including self-assembling EMF-responsive nanotechnology (Hughes, 2022c, 2023, 50:25), extremely worrying, especially in the context of an undeclared Omniwar in which the public is the enemy. Moreover, with the rapid rollout of 5G technology capable of targeting individuals, plus projects such as Elon Musk’s Starlink, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, and OneWeb all vying to provide internet coverage to every part of the world from low earth orbit, there could, potentially, be no escape from a wireless technocratic control grid.

Steele proposes that the metallic components found in the “Covid-19 vaccines” (cf. Hughes, 2022c, pp. 461, 572) make their recipients radio-traceable for directed energy weapons kill missions (“Mark Steele on 5G,” 2023); in the military context described above, we have to take such possibilities seriously. The exotic technologies apparently contained within the “Covid-19” injectables (Hughes, 2022c) have been linked to MAC addresses (Sarlangue et al., 2021); if proven, this would make human bodies identifiable components of the Internet of Things and thus directly targetable on the information-liquidation model.

Nanotechnology within the body capable of communicating with an external network is sold as a positive development in terms of healthcare (e.g. nanorobots can explore within the body and deliver precision payloads of medicine without the need for invasive surgery). Those funded to do this kind of research probably justify their activities in such terms. However, it can also be dual-use technology, much like the “‘dual use’ vaccine and weapon technologies” developed since the anthrax attacks of 2001 (Kennedy Jr., 2021, p. 384). “The problem of dual-use science research and technology,” Miller (2018) argues, is that “such research and technology has the potential to be used for great evil as well as for great good.” Sonogenetics, for example, “is not without its risks of misuse. It could be a revolutionary healthcare technology for the sick, or a perfect controlling tool with which the ruthless control the weak” (Jérusalem, 2018).

Consider the potential for evil if the deep state’s aim is to connect human bodies to a technocratic control grid. For one thing, there are the health implications of injecting exotic technologies into the human body, which could explain the very high level of serious adverse reactions to the “Covid-19 vaccines” (OpenVAERS, n.d.; MHRA, n.d.; WHO, n.d. [search “COVID-19 vaccine”]). Graphene oxide, for instance, a non-degradable substance 100 times stronger than steel with a melting temperature approximately 80% as hot as the sun’s surface, is suspected of being present in the “Covid-19 vaccines” (Campra, 2021; UNIT, 2021), yet is known to be toxic (Newman, 2020; Ou et al., 2016; Pumera, 2016).

Why did WEF ideologue Yuval Noah Harari (2020), as early as March 20, 2020, refer to “under-the-skin surveillance”? Was the insider, Harari, anticipating “the mass injection of intrabody components for a Bio-Nano Internet of Things” (Kyrie & Broudy, 2022b, p. 368)? Certainly, “the technology, protocols, industry intentions, and government plans to connect human bodies to the internet, and deploy nanorobots inside the body, using a combination of nanotechnology and ‘smart’ technology exist.” So too does the military motivation in a global class war.

Through IT-Bio-Nanotechnologies, human beings could in principle be surveilled “from the inside out,” down to the level of bodily activity and thought patterns. Researchers at a DARPA-funded laboratory at UC Santa Cruz, for instance, have been working on nano sensors the size of a single viral particle that can traverse the blood–brain barrier: “Once inside the brain they would act like a kind of antenna, turning neural activity into optical signals that could be wirelessly sent to an external device” (Taylor, 2021).

Microsoft patent WO/2020/060606 (awarded March 26, 2020) is for a device that will “award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity data is verified” via a “mining process” (Abramson et al., 2020). Human bodies thereby become part of the financial system, trainable via cryptocurrency rewards. This has to be understood in the context of the move towards CBDC (a centralised form of blockchain), whereby all money must be digital and it must be tied reliably to human beings via a biometric ID system such as the AADHAR system trialled in India, which was set up by N.R. Narayana Murthy, the billionaire father-in-law of British Prime Minister and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak (Hughes, 2022a, p. 234). Why else would IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva make the extraordinary claim in 2021 that “This year, next year, vaccine policy is economic policy, and it is an even higher priority than the traditional tools of fiscal and monetary policy. Why? Because without it, we cannot turn the fate of the world economy around” (cited Australian Voice, 2021). The aim seems to be to make human bodies part of a revolutionised global financial system.

Conversely, two-way communication with human bodies via an external network could, in principle, allow intracorporeal technologies to be programmed/manipulated “from the outside in.” This opens onto the possibility of remote-control human beings, dating back to MKULTRA Subproject 119 in the early 1960s, which explored “techniques of activation of the human organization by remote electronic means” but did not result in any device for doing so (Miyamoto, 2018).

In 1966, Rodríguez Delgado, funded by the CIA through the Office of Naval Intelligence, was able to halt a charging bull using remote-controlled electrical stimulation of the brain. He was also able to make a chimpanzee become “quieter, less attentive and less motivated” by using a stimoceiver to cause a sensation of pain when certain amygdala signals were detected (Coates, 2008, p. 36). In Physical Control of the Mind, Delgado (1969, p. 91) predicts that the new technology will “provide the essential link from man to computer to man, with a reciprocal feedback between neurons and instruments which represents a new orientation for the medical control of neurophysiological functions.” In the 1970s, Delgado placed brain transponders in humans, and in the 1980s, he claimed that brainwave patterns and physiology could be altered using electromagnetic broadcasting from up to three kilometres away (Thomas, 2007, pp. 32–33).

Today, the possibility of “vaccination as neurological remote-control” must be taken seriously, for “after achieving access by vaccination to the biomass of the 7 to 8 billion individuals who have to be controlled, remote-controlling them is no longer an absurd fantasy” (van der Pijl, 2022, pp. 249, 256). Just as the central bankers want to “go direct” in their control of people’s money (BlackRock, 2020), so the military and intelligence agencies seem to want to “go direct” in their control of people’s bodies. According to Harari (2017, p. 289), human beings can be manipulated like rats by stimulating relevant areas of the brain, and “the U.S. military has recently initiated experiments on implanting computer chips in people’s brains.” To see where this could go in the hands of psychopaths, one need only consider the remote-control beetle (Bolton, 2016).

According to Doug Weber, DARPA’s ElectRx programme manager, “the peripheral nervous system is the body’s information superhighway” (DARPA, 2015). As the Edward Snowden leaks in 2013 revealed, however, the internet allowed the NSA backdoor access into everyone’s personal computers. An Internet of Bodies could allow the deep state (Hughes, 2022b) backdoor access to everyone’s bodies. The implications do not bear thinking about. “Imagine a dictatorial regime,” Jérusalem (2018) cautions, “with access to the tricks and tools to change the way its citizens think or behave.” The control would be total. More terrifyingly still, individuals, made radio-identifiable by the technologies inside their bodies, could be remotely assassinated via a 5G network capable of targeting individuals with specific frequencies capable of interacting with intracorporeal nanotechnology. This would be the perfect murder weapon: targeted, asymmetrical, and traceless. All dissidents could be quickly and efficiently eliminated in the ultimate version of the information-liquidation model.

INBRAIN Neuroelectronics was spun off from the Catalan Institute of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology (ICN2), a partner of the Graphene Flagship, in 2019. It describes itself as “scientists, doctors, techies and humanity lovers, with the mission of building neuroelectronic interfaces to cure brain disorders” (INBRAIN, n.d.). INBRAIN’s promotional video boasts that its Graphene Brain Interface “enables perfect brain surface contact,” “real-time brain mapping,” and is “easily coupled with modern electronics, contributing to the huge momentum of connected and smart devices.” Here is a technology that is laudable if it helps to cure brain disorders or allows physically disabled people to control smart devices by the power of their mind. However, the flip side is that it could be used to connect human brains to a technocratic control grid. In July 2021, INBRAIN and Merck announced a partnership to co-develop the next generation of graphene bioelectronic vagus nerve therapies. In the wrong hands, such technologies could be used as weapons to target the heart, lungs, and digestive tract remotely. In view of the widespread abandonment of medical ethics since 2020 (“first do no harm” vs. coerced injection of entire populations with dangerous experimental substances), there is no reason to think that such technologies will be responsibly used.

Alternatively, dissidents could be tortured by remote control. As explained in Chapter 3, torture goes hand in hand with the logic of the shock doctrine. During Operation Condor, for instance, many “saw a direct connection between the economic shocks that impoverished millions and the epidemic of torture that punished hundreds of thousands of people who believed in a different kind of society” (Klein, 2007, p. 7). The torture techniques described in Chapter 3, stomach-churning as they are, by no means exhaust the available repertoire. In 2019, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, received various reports of gang stalking, electronic torture, the use of cybertechnologies to intimidate, harass, surveil, shame, and defame, and even forms of torture involving “medical implants, and, conceivably nano- or neurotechnological devices” (Phelan, 2020). Given concerns about such devices potentially being present in the “Covid-19 vaccines,” the implications do not bear thinking about.

Prospects for Revolution

Socialism or Barbarism

As capitalism once more enters a period of acute crisis, we are, yet again, faced with the stark choice posed by Rosa Luxemburg (1915), i.e. socialism or barbarism.

Barbarism currently has the upper hand. The “lockdowns” left behind a “legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people in the years ahead” owing to

a rise in non-Covid excess mortality, mental health deterioration, child abuse and domestic violence, widening global inequality, food insecurity, lost educational opportunities, unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, social polarization, soaring debt, democratic backsliding and declining human rights. (Bardosh, 2023)

There is clear evidence of democide (Rancourt, 2020; Rancourt et al., 2021, 2023), state-sponsored euthanasia, and experimentation on human beings (Hughes et al., 2022). Patterns of sadism and cruelty have been deliberately instigated, from locking elderly people up in care homes and not allowing relatives to visit (HART, 2022a), to forcing children to wear masks in schools all day, to persecuting those not complying with tyranny (see Chapter 7). Constitutional rights and the centuries-old social contract, whereby the government’s first responsibility is to protect its citizens, have gone to the shredder, as Agamben (1998) foresaw, meaning that “the social and political system of the original liberal West has run its historic course and after 300 years has dropped all pretence of a social contract other than the state of emergency” (van der Pijl, 2020). Those who protest this orchestrated breakdown of civilised society have been met with police brutality, riot squads, and water cannon (Broudy et al., 2022).

A reported 5.55 billion people (as of March 2023) have been injected with dangerous experimental substances containing a devil’s brew of undisclosed ingredients (Holder, 2023; Hughes, 2022c). Huge numbers of people, including previously fit and healthy people, have suffered serious adverse reactions to those injections, including severe disability and death, viz. Yellow Card (MHRA, n.d.) and VAERS data (OpenVAERS, n.d.) (with most deaths accruing towards the time of injection), which may only account for between 1% and 10% of the total (Ross et al., 2010; MHRA, 2019). Strange, rubbery “clots,” often huge, are being pulled out of dead “vaccinated” bodies by embalmers such as Richard Hirschmann (Tice, 2022); they do not appear to be natural blood clots, and are possibly caused by hydrogel polymers (Mihalcea, 2023). “Died suddenly” and “vaccine genocide” trend routinely on social media. Websites such as www.instagram.com/jab_injuries_global/ collect testimonials from “vaccine”-injured people and are quickly shut down. Highly distressing videos are all over the internet of people suffering horrific adverse reactions to the “vaccine” and/or collapsing and dying in public (some collected in Broudy et al., 2022). The “vaccine” rollout to children and young people was premised wholly on corruption and not science, as I warned before the rollout reached 5–11-year-olds in Britain (Hughes, 2022a), and since then, children, young adults, and athletes have been collapsing and having heart attacks at a historically unprecedented rate (Dowd, 2022).

For reasons unknown, but consistent with war conditions, excess mortality rates prove most consistent among the working-age population. According to the UK Office for Health Improvements and Disparities (n.d.), the 50–64 age range (as at December 1, 2023, search by age range) experienced excess mortality every week bar five since March 2020, i.e. 187/192 weeks, or 97.4% of all weeks. For the 25–49 age range, the figure is 164/192 weeks (85.4% of all weeks). These figures are higher than for any other age range. For the 15–44 age range in the UK, excess deaths from cardiovascular diseases rose by 13% in 2020, 30% in 2021, and 44% in 2022, vis-à-vis the 2010–2019 average, and Personal Independent Payment (disability) claims for cardiovascular diseases were “more than double the equivalent rises in deaths” (Phinance Technologies, 2023, pp. 3–5). Since the start of the “pandemic,” according to the Office for National Statistics (2022), “the number of people out of work because of long-term sickness has risen by 363,000”; the trend began in early 2019 and accounts for a 25% increase.

In the United States, the baseline number of deaths for the 15–34 age range since 2020 displays “a permanent (1.5 years and counting) step-wise time-independent increase in mortality” in both males and females, accounting for ca. 400 additional deaths per week (Rancourt et al., 2021, pp. 139, 111). An increased baseline mortality can also be seen in the 35–54 age range, but not in older-age groups. This was before the “Vietnam War equivalent” event identified by Dowd that occurred for the 25–44 age range in Q4 of 2021 (cited in Kennedy Jr., 2022).

Despite all the unfolding horrors, there is no sign of any significant political or legal resistance in sight, as is consistent with the idea of a global class war in which all institutions aligned with the ruling class, including the legislature and the judiciary, must unite against the general population. Politicians, the world over, repeatedly voted in favour of “lockdowns” and other “Covid countermeasures,” moving liberal democracies ever further in the direction of police states (see Chapter 3). Under these conditions, all major legal challenges to tyranny can be expected to fail. In Ireland, for instance, the Supreme Court effectively ruled that “lockdown” measures were constitutional, dismissing the idea that “there is a burden on the State to justify legislative measures that interfere with constitutional rights” (O’Faolain, 2022).

The professions have failed in spectacular fashion to challenge the lurch towards totalitarianism since 2020. The medical profession is the primary culprit, with its removal of licences from dissenting doctors and its threats to remaining members not to speak out against medical fascism (Blaylock, 2022) and criminal medical negligence (Dalgleish, 2023). Mary Holland argues that events 2020 have exposed “the degree of rot and subversion of medicine in all its aspects – medical science, clinical medicine, and public health” (D4CE, 2023a, p. xvii). Academia, too, has had precious little to say about the tyranny enveloping our world and the methods used to facilitate it; in fact, it has tried to silence dissenting academics (Bhattacharya, 2023), through open letters (Abaluck et al., 2020) and other means, in contravention of academic freedom (Miller, 2020). The psychology profession has remained largely silent on the menticidal methods deployed against the public (Sidley, 2022; Scott, 2021).

Where does this leave us? Forming new political parties seems an exercise in futility given that the political system itself is captured by vested interests. Recourse to the legal system can only be expected to end in failure, the higher up the system one goes. Ultimately, the only resolution to the crisis that has unfolded since 2020 lies at the social level. An inhumane and rapacious global capitalist system that is now metastasizing into a global technocracy intent on human enslavement through whatever means necessary must be removed. Objectively, the conditions are present for worldwide revolution.

Prospects for Revolution

Politically, we live now, as Lenin did in May 1917, in an age of war and revolution (Lenin, 1964). With the old social order (in our time, liberal democracy) being dissolved under war conditions, the future is pregnant with revolutionary potential. In that respect, history has lessons to teach. The two world wars were

partly intended as a response to the sharp increase in social unrest, especially labour unrest, and to the political organization of the working population and the intellectuals associated with it. However, they were followed by social explosions that were even more violent: after WWI the Russian revolution, after WWII, the Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese revolutions and the decolonization of Asia and Africa, the Cuban Revolution, etcetera. (van der Pijl, 2022, p. 269)

What will be the social response to the mass atrocities and crimes against humanity that have been committed since 2020 in a desperate effort to keep the global population in check (Hughes et al., 2022; Hughes, 2022c)? Or, as van der Pijl (2022, p. 281) asks: “Given that governments, acting for the oligarchy and the internationalized state, will not let go, the question is: will there be a revolutionary response?”

If there is not, then we should recall Huxley’s (1958, p. 118) warning that the “scientific dictatorship” could prove permanent, there being “no good reason” why it “should ever be overthrown.” Such a dictatorship is now being attempted at the global level and, if allowed to happen, even if only by a narrow margin, like the NSDAP election victory in 1933 with only 44% of the vote, it could prove irreversible. Critics of the “Covid-19” narrative have expressed concern that “humanity’s event horizon is close to hand” (Yeadon, cited in Forte, 2021) and that “humanity is now at its most critical inflection point” (Henningsen, 2021). For Altman et al. (2023), “The fate of humanity and all future generations is literally at a critical tipping point.”

On the other hand, the real power structures in the world have come into much sharper focus since 2020 and look very much like the “global public–private partnership” described by Davis (2021), with governments acting as mere enforcers of policies formulated and distributed at higher levels. The key actors are becoming ever more visible to the global population, including:

  • the major investment banks, central banks, and Bank for International Settlements;

  • the intelligence agencies (in particular the CIA, MI5, MI6, and Mossad, as well as military intelligence);

  • the major tax-exempt foundations used by powerful families to advance their interests (the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Soros Open Society Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Wellcome Trust, etc.);

  • the major think tanks used to formulate policy and “strategic narratives” (e.g. Chatham House, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome);

  • coordinators of transnational capital such as the World Economic Forum, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group;

  • international organisations that are increasingly coming to set policy at a global level, e.g. the WHO (via the Pandemic Treaty) and the UN (via the IPCC);

  • the biggest institutional investors, such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street;

  • Establishment-aligned media, without which propaganda and psychological warfare against the public would not be possible;

  • Big Tech companies responsible for the technocratic control grid; and

  • the heads of Big Pharma and the regulators, which facilitated the experimental injection of billions of people.

Phillips (2018) lists the few hundred individuals who control nearly all of world affairs: the list needs updating, but this “global power elite” seems to be acting in ways that are ever more at odds with the interests of humanity.

It is hard to say what worldwide revolution in the twenty-first century would look like. There is no central Party to provide leadership and organisation, and that is probably a good thing, given what the Party became in the twentieth century, and given that the information-liquidation model is specifically designed to identify and target key organisers. Rather, the model has to be decentralised and relies on a surge in class consciousness (which today goes by the name of the Great Awakening) that will result in mass rejection of all aspects of technocracy. There is no requirement, and certainly no desirability, that this process be violent, despite Omniwar being waged in the opposition direction by deep state actors too cowardly to show their faces. Mass non-compliance renders technocratic agendas unenforceable. Non-compliance at the individual level and civil disobedience at the social level can soon spread, as we are already seeing in Britain and elsewhere in response to the attempted rollout of 15-minute cities.

A simple but extremely powerful tactic—a mass disabling event from the perspective of technocracy—would be for a new social norm to cascade, whereby as many people as possible got rid of their “smart” (slave) devices by which they voluntarily hook themselves up to the control grid and feed it information on all areas of their lives. There is a reason why those devices are designed to be highly addictive; notifications, for instance, create “short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops,” as Chamath Palihapitiya, Facebook’s vice-president for user growth until 2011, admitted (cited in Wong, 2017). In that respect, society urgently needs to kick its habit.

We have to hope that smart surveillance technologies have not already gone “under the skin” of 5.55 billion people, to quote Harari (2020). This is why adequately powered studies urgently need to be carried out into claims that “vaccinated” individuals emit hexadecimal MAC addresses when exposed to EMF radiation. In principle, this should be simple to test using a faraday cage to isolate test subjects from background EMF radiation and then introducing specific frequencies from within the cage (or by some other protocol that scientists should be able to design, cf. Taylor, 2023). Given the seriousness of this issue, and the fact that it is empirically testable, it is frustrating that scientists and academics around the world are not doing the work to get to the bottom of it. Even if the MAC address phenomenon is disproven, we still need satisfactory answers as to why 5G technology—which has not passed adequate safety tests (Frank, 2021), is known to be harmful to human health (Burdick, 2023; Jamieson, 2023), and allows for potentially “limitless power to surveil and control a target population” (Corbett, 2019b)—is being rolled out.

We are in a race against time. Technocracy’s biodigital gulag is at an advanced stage of construction, with its CBDC, Internet of Bodies, smart cities, social credit scoring, ESGs, 5G networks, etc. starting to materialise around us. Will enough people, in the wake of the “Covid-19” operation, be able to see what is happening and take decisive action to stop it, before it is too late?

Ruling-Class Desperation

As close as the transnational ruling class may appear to be to achieving its war aim, i.e. the rollout of technocracy, the “Covid-19” operation was also a sign of incredible desperation. As Wolff (2021) puts it, “What we are experiencing at this time is a gigantic act of desperation, probably the biggest that has ever occurred in the whole history of mankind,” necessary for the ruling class to maintain control as the old paradigm of rule collapses. It has all been seen before. Trotsky (1938), one year before the outbreak of World War II, describes how the ruling class, forced to “stake its last upon the card of fascism, […] now toboggans with closed eyes toward an economic and military catastrophe.”

On the one hand, the planning for global technocracy goes back to the early 1970s (see Chapter 1), the “IT/Bio/Nano” paradigm and “pandemic preparedness” exercises date at least as far back as 2001 (Bushnell, 2001; O’Toole et al., 2002), and Gates’ “Decade of the Vaccine” (2010–2019) led seamlessly into “Covid-19” (with China first notifying the WHO of a “pneumonia of unknown cause” on December 31, 2019). As argued in Chapter 1, the planning behind the “Covid-19” operation must have taken years, such was its complexity and transnational coordination.

But, on the other hand, the proximate triggers for the initiation of the “Covid-19” operation (described in Chapter 1) appear to have come sooner than anticipated. “Too much has been set in motion too early, too disjointedly,” observes van der Pijl (2022, p. 2), “and the contradictions between the different interests and institutions, only apparently in agreement, are bound to turn into overt conflict.” The enormity of the events that have taken place since 2020 has blown the cover hitherto meticulously maintained by the transnational deep state (Hughes, 2022b) and was entirely out of keeping with its preferred method of introducing social change gradually, over long periods of time, so that the population does not notice the encroaching tyranny and global centralisation of power. Brzezinski (1970, pp. 253, 260), for instance, envisages the “piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society,” with “the needed change” being “more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly.”

For whatever reason, an 18-month window (the same length of time between “9/11” and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, incidentally) seems to have been identified by the ruling class at the start of the “Covid-19” operation. For example, 18 months is the timeframe used in the Event 201 simulation. Neil Ferguson, following CEPI, puts the development of a new “vaccine” at 18 months (Ferguson et al. 2020, p. 1). Zeke Emmanuel, who later became part of President Biden’s Covid-19 Advisory Board, claimed on April 7, 2020, that “Covid-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more” (cited in Olson, 2020). The Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank president, Neel Kashkari, warned in April 2020 that 18 months of lockdowns would follow (cited in Titus, 2021). Gates (2020a) put the time frame for the development of a “Covid-19 vaccine” at 18 months.

During this 18-month window, a note of urgency was detectable in the pronouncements of Establishment mouthpieces. The WEF partnered with the WHO on March 11, 2020, to launch a “COVID Action Platform” to move at “scale and speed [so as] to help end the global emergency [for them, the spectre of revolution] as soon as possible” (Vanham, 2020). According to Gates (2020a), “We need to make billions of doses, we need to get them out to every part of the world, and we need all of this to happen as quickly as possible.” The name “Operation Warp Speed” says it all. According to Schwab (2020), “the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity [to] reset our world.” Prince Charles, announcing the WEF’s “Great Reset” on the same day, claimed, “We have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again. So, we must use all the levers at our disposal […]” (Prince of Wales, 2020). On November 10, 2020, Charles pleaded at the Green Horizon Summit, “I’m afraid we are literally at the last hour. And there is real urgency for action […] We know now what we have to do to rescue the situation, rather than going on talking about it” (“Prince Charles says Firms must prioritise Climate Change Fight,” 2020). On December 22, 2020, Blair (2020) called for vaccination efforts to be “radically accelerated.” According to the Good Health Pass Initiative (2021, p. 13), “we do not have the luxury of time” when it comes to rolling out “vaccine passports.”

The “vaccination” agenda did not go according to plan, however. As of July 2022, 18.9 million Brits (30% of a NIMS cohort of 63.4 million) had not taken a first dose of a “Covid-19 vaccine” by July 2022 (UKHSA, 2022, Table 5). This includes 12.4 million responsible adults (20% of the cohort, or 23% of the adult population of 54 million). Thus, even according to official data, almost a quarter of the UK adult population successfully withstood the prolonged assault on their bodily sovereignty. The proportion is likely higher when one factors in routine manipulation of official “Covid-19” statistics (Crawford, 2022), creating “one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history” (Blaylock, 2022).

This non-conformist segment of the population roughly corresponds to the “fifth of the population” that “cannot be hypnotized at all”; another fifth “can be hypnotized very easily”; and the remaining 60% of the population falls somewhere in the middle (Huxley, 1958, pp. 94–5). This shows how finely poised the balance of social forces really is. If the 23% of “unvaccinated” UK adults wins over another 27% of the adult population, the balance is even. Fascinatingly, in that respect, the “injection rejection” (HART, 2022b) grew with each new dose. 21.5 million people did not receive the second dose, and 30.4 million (48% of the NIMS cohort) did not receive the third; in terms of adults, 40% refused a “booster shot” (see UKHSA, 2022b, Table 5). In most parts of the world, people stopped coming forward for “Covid-19 vaccination” during 2022 (HART, 2022b).

Once the 18-month window closed in September 2021, concern set in among the ruling class. Ngaire Woods, speaking at a WEF event in November 2021, claimed: “in every single country [polled], the majority of people trusted their elite less. So, we can lead, but if people aren’t following, we’re not going to get to where we want to go” (WEF, 2021, 39:20). Gates (2021) admits that he “underestimated how tough it would be to convince people to take the vaccine.” Former New Zealand Prime Minister and WEF affiliate, Helen Clark, told Davos in 2022: “Popular support for measures is waning […] We are in danger of losing this moment for transformative change” (“Helen Clark: ‘Covid… we are in danger of losing this moment for transformative change,’” 2022). UCL professor Mariana Mazzucato asked:

Did we actually manage to vaccinate everyone in the world? No. So, [we should highlight] water as a global commons [...] water is something that people understand. You know, climate change is a bit abstract [whereas…] every kid knows how important it is to have water […] Can we actually deliver this time in ways that we have failed miserably other times? (World Economic Forum, 2022)

This appears to be an admission that the post-1968 project to manufacture global consciousness (see Chapter 6) is foundering, because not enough people buy into the technocrats’ manufactured “climate change” and “pandemic” narratives (possibly even pointing to future water shortages as a means of compelling compliance). Clearly, all was not going according to plan.

Plan B: Ukraine

The almost surreal sudden disappearance of “Covid-19” from the top of the “news” agenda after two years of nothing but “Covid-19,” and its replacement with the conflict in Ukraine as the 24/7 object of attention, indicates an obvious change of plan. Given that the global ruling classes fundamentally act as one, transnationally, against those layers of society not aligned with their interests, and have done so since 1968 at least, it makes sense that Vladimir Putin would be part of such a master plan (cf. Davis, 2022b, 2022c).

BlackRock (2019) knew before “Covid-19” that, “in the long run, the growth of money supply drives inflation.” The inevitable high inflation resulting from record levels of quantitative easing in 2020 created a “cost-of-living crisis” that was then disingenuously blamed on Putin, even though the surge in UK inflation from 2 to 10% in a single year began in July 2021 (Rate Inflation, n.d.). We are looking here at a shift to economic warfare against Western populations following a period of shock, known from the CIA playbook: in the 1970s, for instance, “Not only were Chileans in a state of shock following Pinochet’s violent coup, but the country was also traumatized by severe hyperinflation” (Klein, 2007, p. 7). This, in turn, was exploited by Milton Friedman to institute the original economic shock therapy, involving mass privatisation of public goods and services in the “most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere.”

It is impossible to predict exactly where the present crisis will lead, but with an estimated 700,000 UK households unable to afford the rent/mortgage payment in April 2023 (“Rent and mortgage payments are missed by 700,000 households,” 2023), it does appear that poverty and debt are being used to demoralise sections of the working- and lower-middle classes ahead of the intended transition to CBDC, which could conceivably involve debt forgiveness and universal basic income for those willing to make the transition to a biodigital slavery system. One almost hears Aleister Crowley from beyond the grave: “In this way we shall have a contented class of slaves who will accept the conditions of existence as they really are, and enjoy life with the quiet wisdom of cattle” (Crowley, 1996, p. 131). Yet, things could also go the other way: the consequences of the economic depression being ushered in “cannot be foreseen and may in fact turn against” those responsible for it (van der Pijl, 2020)—should, for instance, disenfranchised populations rise up.

Although the Ukraine conflict is real in a geopolitical sense, it can also be used for psychological warfare purposes against Western populations. As the “Cold War” teaches, geopolitical conflict, or the threat of it, has long served as a weapon used to terrorise domestic populations, always requiring the surrender of liberty in exchange for the promise of security (Hughes, 2022b). Thus, it was no surprise to hear politicians and the media claiming that the Ukraine conflict is “the biggest war in Europe since 1945” (taking over seamlessly from “Covid-19” as the biggest peacetime threat since 1945) (Allegretti, 2022; Hirsh, 2022). The risk of a wider conflagration between NATO and Russia/China looms large in the minds of the public owing to propaganda about potential nuclear weapons usage (Brugen, 2023; Myre, 2022). Perhaps nuclear weapons (even if “only” tactical) will be used again in war—not to smash a state, but, rather, to create worldwide fear of nuclear Armageddon and thus yet more mass hysteria to be exploited through myriad psychological operations. What will not be seen is the kind of nuclear escalation feared by mid-twentieth-century thinkers, for in a post-1968 world, the ruling classes of all countries, even if nominal enemies, are as one when it comes to suppressing the working class.

World War III is a war for global technocracy; everything else, including different versions of the “biggest threat since 1945,” up to and including alleged nuclear weapons usage, is a decoy. Plan A, involving the “Covid-19” operation, fell apart after the known 18-month window: ultimately, too many people were unwilling to submit to violations of their bodily autonomy and a biodigital version of the totalitarian “papers, please” society. Plan B, involving the Ukraine conflict, layered economic warfare and further psychological warfare onto Plan A, progressively demoralising a population struggling to make ends meet, having just been subjected to the most ferocious psychological warfare operation in history.

In They Thought They Were Free (first published in 1955), a German philologist recalls that ordinary Germans in the Third Reich were kept so “fascinated by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us” (Meyer, 2022, pp. 167–168). In our own time, while public attention has been focused on Russia/Ukraine and (since October 2023) Israel/Palestine, the cancer of technocracy continues to grow within Western societies. By such means, the ruling class continues to conceal its Omniwar manoeuvres, but the camouflage cannot be maintained indefinitely.

Towards Worldwide Revolution

With class consciousness rapidly rising, the day is fast approaching when the wider population starts to awaken to the undeclared Omniwar that is being covertly waged against it and begins to resist in large numbers. What that resistance will look like cannot be foreseen, but it begs the all-important question: “can the world population still be kept under control?” (van der Pijl, 2022, Chapter 2).

The U.S. Declaration of Independence asserts “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” any form of government that becomes destructive of citizens’ “unalienable Rights.” Today, all rights are under attack from totalitarian technocracy, including the rights to free speech, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and bodily autonomy. If the Declaration still means anything to American patriots, then it is hard to see the status quo being maintained once they realise what is happening.

Any mass uprisings in the United States are almost certain to be met with an attempt to implement martial law. Planning for such an eventuality goes back to the Continuity of Government (COG) arrangements made in the early 1950s anticipating a possible nuclear attack, followed by the creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1978, the activation of COG provisions on “9/11,” and the formation of a “shadow government that could take over from the formal, statutory agencies” in case of emergency (van der Pijl, 2022, pp. 39–41). FEMA’s Federal Continuity Directive 1 (2017) states that the U.S. Government must provide “leadership visible to the Nation and the world [while] maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people”; if this fails, van der Pijl (2020) infers, then “a replacement, or military command, may take over,” and thus there is “explicit provision for a seizure of power by the Deep State through the military.” The transnational aspect of the deep state (Hughes, 2022b) means that similar measures will be attempted in multiple countries near-simultaneously.

There is no guarantee they will succeed, however. As the populations of affected countries come to understand that they have been viciously abused and lied to as part of a transnational deep state operation intended to lead to their technocratic enslavement, overwhelming numbers of people will join the resistance, shifting the balance of class forces decisively against the would-be global technocrats. The result will then be, not the passive acquiescence to tyranny witnessed during the “shock and awe” phase of the psychological warfare in 2020, but rather a global mass movement to defeat the actors and organisations behind the war for technocracy. Once victory is achieved, all collaborators, including those who pushed for “lockdowns,” mandatory masks, testing, injections, and other assaults on human dignity and freedom, will need to be held to account.