“The Great Work” = Enabled by Climate Emergency


Risk of Eco-Accidents:

NATURE: Abrupt and widespread discontinuities exist in the fossil record of fauna and are considered evidence of widespread mass extinction of species. These low frequency events have been attributed to fluctuations in sea level, reversals of the geomagnetic fields (exposing the earth’s surface to lethal radiation), impacts of the earth by very large meteors (putting tons of dust into the atmosphere cutting off photosynthesis) and supernovae (causing catastrophic but temporary climate changes). There are also a range of potential man-made ecocatastrophes, such as triggering an earthquake with a an underground nuclear explosion. In addition, there are other more fantastic possibilities. The sun will expand into a red star engulfing Mercury and Venus and melting lead on the Earth. The moon can fall to earth, a comet, a swarm of meteorites or a black hole could collide with the earth. The earth will eventually loose its atmosphere. A life form might evolve destroying all of humankind.

This is the source material for the United Nations Agenda 2030 – the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The carrying out of the implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals is the partnership formed between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum known as “The Great Reset”…

See where this Masonic aptitude takes us…

Saving Capitalism or Saving the Planet? • Global Research


The UK government’s Behavioural Insights Team helped to push the public towards accepting the COVID narrative, restrictions and lockdowns. It is now working on ‘nudging’ people towards further possible restrictions or at least big changes in their behaviour in the name of ‘climate emergency’. From frequent news stories and advertisements to soap opera storylines and government announcements, the message about impending climate catastrophe is almost relentless.

Part of the messaging includes blaming the public’s consumption habits for a perceived ‘climate emergency’. At the same time, young people are being told that we only have a decade or so (depending on who is saying it) to ‘save the planet’.

Setting the agenda are powerful corporations that helped degrade much of the environment in the first place. But ordinary people, not the multi-billionaires pushing this agenda, will pay the price for this as living more frugally seems to be part of the programme (‘own nothing and be happy’). Could we at some future point see ‘climate emergency’ lockdowns, not to ‘save the NHS’ but to ‘save the planet’?

A tendency to focus on individual behaviour and not ‘the system’ exists.

But let us not forget this is a system that deliberately sought to eradicate a culture of self-reliance that prevailed among the working class in the 19th century (self-education, recycling products, a culture of thrift, etc) via advertising and a formal school education that ensured conformity and set in motion a lifetime of wage labour and dependency on the products manufactured by an environmentally destructive capitalism.

A system that has its roots in inflicting massive violence across the globe to exert control over land and resources elsewhere.

In his 2018 book ‘The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequalities and its solutions’, Jason Hickel describes the processes involved in Europe’s wealth accumulation over a 150-year period of colonialism that resulted in tens of millions of deaths.

By using other countries’ land, Britain effectively doubled the size of arable land in its control. This made it more practical to then reassign the rural population at home (by stripping people of their means of production) to industrial labour. This too was underpinned by massive violence (burning villages, destroying houses, razing crops).

Hickel argues that none of this was inevitable but was rooted in the fear of being left behind by other countries because of Europe’s relative lack of land resources to produce commodities.

This is worth bearing in mind as we currently witness a fundamental shift in our relationship to the state resulting from authoritarian COVID-related policies and the rapidly emerging corporate-led green agenda. We should never underestimate the ruthlessness involved in the quest for preserving wealth and power and the propensity for wrecking lives and nature to achieve this.

Commodification of nature

Current green agenda ‘solutions’ are based on a notion of ‘stakeholder’ capitalism or private-public partnerships whereby vested interests are accorded greater weight, with governments and public money merely facilitating the priorities of private capital.

A key component of this strategy involves the ‘financialisation of nature’ and the production of new ‘green’ markets to deal with capitalism’s crisis of over accumulation and weak consumer demand caused by decades of neoliberal policies and the declining purchasing power of working people. The banking sector is especially set to make a killing via ‘green profiling’ and ‘green bonds’.

According to Friends of the Earth (FoE), corporations and states will use the financialisation of nature discourse to weaken laws and regulations designed to protect the environment with the aim of facilitating the goals of extractive industries, while allowing mega-infrastructure projects in protected areas and other contested places.

Global corporations will be able to ‘offset’ (greenwash) their activities by, for example, protecting or planting a forest elsewhere (on indigenous people’s land) or perhaps even investing in (imposing) industrial agriculture which grows herbicide-resistant GMO commodity crop monocultures that are misleadingly portrayed as ‘climate friendly’.

FoE states:“Offsetting schemes allow companies to exceed legally defined limits of destruction at a particular location, or destroy protected habitat, on the promise of compensation elsewhere; and allow banks to finance such destruction on the same premise.”

This agenda could result in the weakening of current environmental protection legislation or its eradication in some regions under the pretext of compensating for the effects elsewhere. How ecoservice ‘assets’ (for example, a forest that performs a service to the ecosystem by acting as a carbon sink) are to be evaluated in a monetary sense is very likely to be done on terms that are highly favourable to the corporations involved, meaning that environmental protection will play second fiddle to corporate and finance sector return-on-investment interests.

As FoE argues, business wants this system to be implemented on its terms, which means the bottom line will be more important than stringent rules that prohibit environmental destruction.

Saving capitalism

The envisaged commodification of nature will ensure massive profit-seeking opportunities through the opening up of new markets and the creation of fresh investment instruments.

Capitalism needs to keep expanding into or creating new markets to ensure the accumulation of capital to offset the tendency for the general rate of profit to fall (according to writer Ted Reese, it has trended downwards from an estimated 43% in the 1870s to 17% in the 2000s). The system suffers from a rising overaccumulation (surplus) of capital.Reese notes that, although wages and corporate taxes have been slashed, the exploitability of labour continued to become increasingly insufficient to meet the demands of capital accumulation. By late 2019, the world economy was suffocating under a mountain of debt. Many companies could not generate enough profit and falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent. In effect, economic growth was already grinding to a halt prior to the massive stock market crash in February 2020.

In the form of COVID ‘relief’, there has been a multi-trillion bailout for capitalism as well as the driving of smaller enterprises to bankruptcy. Or they have being swallowed up by global interests. Either way, the likes of Amazon and other predatory global corporations have been the winners.

New ‘green’ Ponzi trading schemes to offset carbon emissions and commodify ‘ecoservices’ along with electric vehicles and an ‘energy transition’ represent a further restructuring of the capitalist economy, resulting in a shift away from a consumer oriented demand-led system.

It essentially leaves those responsible for environmental degradation at the wheel, imposing their will and their narrative on the rest of us.

Global agribusiness

Between 2000 and 2009, Indonesia supplied more than half of the global palm oil market at an annual expense of some 340,000 hectares of Indonesian countryside. Consider too that Brazil and Indonesia have spent over 100 times more in subsidies to industries that cause deforestation than they received in international conservation aid from the UN to prevent it.

These two countries gave over $40bn in subsidies to the palm oil, timber, soy, beef and biofuels sectors between 2009 and 2012, some 126 times more than the $346m they received to preserve their rain forests.

India is the world’s leading importer of palm oil, accounting for around 15% of the global supply. It imports over two-­thirds of its palm oil from Indonesia.

Until the mid-1990s, India was virtually self-sufficient in edible oils. Under pressure from the World Trade Organization (WTO), import tariffs were reduced, leading to an influx of cheap (subsidised) edible oil imports that domestic farmers could not compete with. This was a deliberate policy that effectively devastated the home-grown edible oils sector and served the interests of palm oil growers and US grain and agriculture commodity company Cargill, which helped write international trade rules to secure access to the Indian market on its terms.

Indonesia leads the world in global palm oil production, but palm oil plantations have too often replaced tropical forests, leading to the killing of endangered species and the uprooting of local communities as well as contributing to the release of potential environment-damaging gases. Indonesia emits more of these gases than any country besides China and the US, largely due to the production of palm oil.

The issue of palm oil is one example from the many that could be provided to highlight how the drive to facilitate corporate need and profit trumps any notion of environmental protection or addressing any ‘climate emergency’. Whether it is in Indonesia, Latin America or elsewhere, transnational agribusiness – and the system of globalised industrial commodity crop agriculture it promotes – fuels much of the destruction we see today.

Even if the mass production of lab-created food, under the guise of ‘saving the planet’ and ‘sustainability’, becomes logistically possible (which despite all the hype is not at this stage), it may still need biomass and huge amounts of energy. Whose land will be used to grow these biomass commodities and which food crops will they replace? And will it involve that now-famous Gates’ euphemism ‘land mobility’ (farmers losing their land)?

Microsoft is already mapping Indian farmers’ lands and capturing agriculture datasets such as crop yields, weather data, farmers’ personal details, profile of land held (cadastral maps, farm size, land titles, local climatic and geographical conditions), production details (crops grown, production history, input history, quality of output, machinery in possession) and financial details (input costs, average return, credit history).

Is this an example of stakeholder-partnership capitalism, whereby a government facilitates the gathering of such information by a private player which can then use the data for developing a land market (courtesy of land law changes that the government enacts) for institutional investors at the expense of smallholder farmers who find themselves ‘land mobile’? This is a major concern among farmers and civil society in India.

Back in 2017, agribusiness giant Monsanto was judged to have engaged in practices that impinged on the basic human right to a healthy environment, the right to food and the right to health. Judges at the ‘Monsanto Tribunal’, held in The Hague, concluded that if ecocide were to be formally recognised as a crime in international criminal law, Monsanto could be found guilty.

The tribunal called for the need to assert the primacy of international human and environmental rights law. However, it was also careful to note that an existing set of legal rules serves to protect investors’ rights in the framework of the WTO and in bilateral investment treaties and in clauses in free trade agreements. These investor trade rights provisions undermine the capacity of nations to maintain policies, laws and practices protecting human rights and the environment and represent a disturbing shift in power.

The tribunal denounced the severe disparity between the rights of multinational corporations and their obligations.

While the Monsanto Tribunal judged that company to be guilty of human rights violations, including crimes against the environment, in a sense we also witnessed global capitalism on trial.

Global conglomerates can only operate as they do because of a framework designed to allow them to capture or co-opt governments and regulatory bodies and to use the WTO and bilateral trade deals to lever influence. As Jason Hickel notes in his book (previously referred to), old-style colonialism may have gone but governments in the Global North and its corporations have found new ways to assert dominance via leveraging aid, market access and ‘philanthropic’ interventions to force lower income countries to do what they want.

The World Bank’s ‘Enabling the Business of Agriculture’ and its ongoing commitment to an unjust model of globalisation is an example of this and a recipe for further plunder and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few.

Brazil and Indonesia have subsidised private corporations to effectively destroy the environment through their practices. Canada and the UK are working with the GMO biotech sector to facilitate its needs. And India is facilitating the destruction of its agrarian base according to World Bank directives for the benefit of the likes of Corteva and Cargill.

The TRIPS Agreement, written by Monsanto, and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, written by Cargill, was key to a new era of corporate imperialism. It came as little surprise that in 2013 India’s then Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accused US companies of derailing the nation’s oil seeds production programme.

Powerful corporations continue to regard themselves as the owners of people, the planet and the environment and as having the right – enshrined in laws and agreements they wrote – to exploit and devastate for commercial gain.

Partnership or co-option?

It was noticeable during a debate on food and agriculture at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow that there was much talk about transforming the food system through partnerships and agreements. Fine-sounding stuff, especially when the role of agroecology and regenerative farming was mentioned.

However, if, for instance, the interests you hope to form partnerships with are coercing countries to eradicate their essential buffer food stocks then bid for such food on the global market with US dollars (as in India) or are lobbying for the enclosure of seeds through patents (as in Africa and elsewhere), then surely this deliberate deepening of dependency should be challenged; otherwise ‘partnership’ really means co-option.

Similarly, the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) that took place during September in New York was little more than an enabler of corporate needs. The UNFSS was founded on a partnership between the UN and the World Economic Forum and was disproportionately influenced by corporate actors.

Those granted a pivotal role at the UNFSS support industrial food systems that promote ultra-processed foods, deforestation, industrial livestock production, intensive pesticide use and commodity crop monocultures, all of which cause soil deterioration, water contamination and irreversible impacts on biodiversity and human health. And this will continue as long as the environmental effects can be ‘offset’ or these practices can be twisted on the basis of them somehow being ‘climate-friendly’.

Critics of the UNFSS offer genuine alternatives to the prevailing food system. In doing so, they also provide genuine solutions to climate-related issues and food injustice based on notions of food sovereignty, localisation and a system of food cultivation deriving from agroecological principles and practices. Something which people who organised the climate summit in Glasgow would do well to bear in mind.

Current greenwashed policies are being sold by tugging at the emotional heartstrings of the public. This green agenda, with its lexicon of ‘sustainability’, ‘carbon neutrality’, ‘net-zero’ and doom-laden forecasts, is part of a programme that seeks to restructure capitalism, to create new investment markets and instruments and to return the system to viable levels of profitability.

Colin Todhunter, independent writer and analyst specialising in development, food and agriculture based in Europe/India, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Climate and COVID Delivered from the Same Technocratic Trojan Horse of Tyranny: Discerning the Globalist Truth from a Bill Gates Interview • Political moonshine

We need a new way of doing the vaccines. Those blindsiding and dystopian words derive from an interview of Bill Gates following the administration to the world of 7.4 billion doses of experimental mRNA pseudo-vaccines. A new way to replace the new way, he said. The interview unfolds like a Globalist infomercial oozing and dripping the requisite narrative and talking points and it should be consumed fully but only after first consuming the discernment of truth provided here.

Through the application of a discerning lens, one can see the truth that Bill Gates proffers and it will present here as unvarnished and tethered back to existing work and positions so as to provide a comprehensive and fulsome explanation of what is being done to us and how they’re doing it.

Through the lens of a poker player or a psychologist – take your pick, whichever hat fits best – observing basic elements of human nature like facial expressions, hand gestures and body position undo Gates relative to the content he provides. In short, Bill must be a horrendous card player because he is incapable of lying without specific tells, such as his uncontrollable wry smile and his attempts to veil it when it gets away from him.

Between that smile and his hands of arthritic disfigurement, he’s a difficult if not unbearable person to tolerate and especially so against the backdrop of his wealth, power and nefarious designs for all of us. The type of miscreant to cower on his knees and perhaps shit his pants in the absence of all that and in the face of true adversity, like the scenario of standing alone and across from an unprivileged, informed and motivated grown man with the skill set and desire to redress his grievances in biblical fashion.

How I miss the good old days. Digressing.

A new way to replace the new way is what Gates told us in his interview sourced from Jordan Schachtel and featured at Zero Hedge. Schachtel excludes the bulk of the interview getting right to COVID meat and potatoes and I’m slowing it down and translating all of the important segments because they deliver abundant and meaningful details once discerned.

The interview [linked in the ZH item] featured by Dean Godson of the Policy Exchange between Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hunt MP and Gates centers on “the future of liberal democracies” and the ways technology and climate can “change the rules of the game.” Let’s be clear here. Despite the Policy Exchange being described as center-right to right, the first several minutes of this interview reveals naked Globalism and demonstrates that there is nothing right about this.

Gates is describing the elements of our Trojan Horse that he will expand on collectively.

In consideration of climate and technology changing the rules, Hunt quotes Gates’ book, “This is going to be hard. We need cooperation with China.”

China’s installed proxy, Joe Biden, factors into this equation further bearing down on the governance of the U.S. since the functional usurpation of Article II Executive authority on 13 Mar 20. Gates isn’t seeking to tie together a relationship as he’s suggesting here, rather he’s establishing useful pretext for the future and in reference to an existing relationship. Moreover, does anyone recall electing Gates or him having gone to medical school?

At this point, Gates and Hunt have built most of the horse with China, climate and technology and with COVID-19 on deck.

Pertaining to climate, Gates said, “In 2015, we didn’t have a focus on innovation” and “the cause was not talked about that much.”

Consider this contrary headline and quote from CBS News on 12 Dec 15, ‘Technology that could disrupt the course of climate change,’

“When President Obama spoke at a news conference at the end of his two-day appearance at the COP21 climate conference in Paris, he stressed the need to seek innovative solutions to combat climate change.

“I actually think we’re going to solve this thing,” he said. “We have to push away fear and have confidence that human innovation, our values, our judgment, our solidarity, it will win out.”

Many experts believe seeking innovative solutions is key to making a dent in carbon emissions and ensuring that Earth doesn’t eventually warm to catastrophic levels, commonly considered anything beyond the threshold of 2 degrees Celsius above the average temperature from before the Industrial Revolution.”

Climate and COVID Delivered from the Same Technocratic Trojan Horse of Tyranny: Discerning the Globalist Truth from a Bill Gates Interview — Political moonshine

Why COP26 Refused to Address Planned Obsolescence • Strategic Culture


Joaquin Flores

November 8, 2021

The ugly truth about cap and trade and all similar schemes is that they do not really reduce carbon emissions, if most other factors remain the same, Joaquin Flores writes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carbon Reduction as Cover for a Sinister Depopulation Agenda

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

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

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

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

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

Global Fight-back – The UN and Beyond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nations are not Bound to Agenda 2030 by Force of Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overcoming this Paradigm’s Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The author can be reached at

Lügenpresse!!! New York Times Attempting to Attribute Recent Storms to “Climate Change”

This is an example of the Virus-Cyber-Climate emergency fear mechanisms at work. The New York Times is part of the mainstream media apparatus, which is one of the tentacles of the globalist, Zionist, technocratic oligarchy that wishes to instill the FEAR into ALL OF YOU. It’s latest iteration comes:

This is the article:

A few quotes from the article:

Officials in the area had moved quickly to prepare for the nor’easter, in part scarred by the intensity of several storms this summer that exposed the region’s vulnerability to extreme weather events made more frequent and intense by climate change.

from NY Times article

And this quote:

Someday maybe we’ll just have a regular rainstorm. We don’t seem to get those much anymore,” Joseph Fiordaliso, who leads New Jersey’s utility board, said at a news conference on Tuesday, adding, “Climate change is real, and we have to work to mitigate as much of it as we possibly can.”

from NY Times article

These storms – and storms themselves have been in existence since FOREVER. Whether one ascribes to Christian doctrine, or to perhaps one is well acquainted with the Celts, amongst many others I could write here, storms have been in existence since ancient times.

I’ve been alive since 1979 and we have had a shit-ton of storms since then in New England. I’ve lived in New England for some 32 of my 42 years (living elsewhere in the world for work purposes the other ten years – of which storms occured in those places I lived too)…

The Great Reset is meme’ing any/all weather events as abnormalities that are due to “climate change”.

Just so all of you know, the idea of using climate change (an environmental emergency) was conceived by the globalist consortium known as the Club of Rome, I’ve written about them here:

I have also shared information on my blog about MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, yes him, as he stated in 1996 that the possibility of an environmental emergency would we manipulated to usher in a New World Order:

With the hoax of a climate change emergency, they will ultimately tell you the earth will burn up beneath your feet if you do not surrender your rights to private property ownership. If the sheep give in to this? Well, they will find a new home in the smart cities grid (one of the clearcut objectives of Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals). Through this barrage of propaganda, soon enough the people will be begging for a breathe of fresh air from an eye dropper and Rabbi Klaus Schwab makes that decision.

If you think I am being obtuse then I suggest you return to watching Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow, or David Rubin and Ben Shapiro, whatever keeps you comfortable.

The NY Times is under control of the global financial system. How? Through:

  • Ownership of stock (equity)
  • Stock ownership affords VOTING RIGHTS
  • The Voting Rights are utilized at shareholder meetings
  • At these meetings is where major issues of the viability, financial well-being and other important matters are brought up and voted upon
  • It is at these meeting that members of the Board of Directors are appointed
  • Presence on the Board of Directors – a shareholder can be appointed to the Board (ie a financial institution from BlackRock, or Goldman Sachs, or Comcast, or a private equity firm – can become a Director)
  • Directors are responsible for appointing the Executive Management (ie CEO, CFO, COO) which carry out operations of the business entity
  • Take a look at the current NY Times Board:

I wanted to make a simple blog post therefore I did not cut and paste the BoD here but from the page I can tell you these truths about the Directors:

  • Mostly Jewish
  • Ties to these companies:
    • Facebook
    • Microsoft
    • Google
    • Verizon
    • JP Morgan
    • Aspen Institute
    • GoDaddy
    • Harvard College
    • Columbia University
    • Ernst & Young LLP
    • Clinton administration
    • A slew of venture capital and private equity firms

Have a look at the Board of Directors yourself:

It is also important to note here that the New York Times in it’s history has had Directors, Executives, Editors, Journalists and other employees that have been members of the globalist one world order La Kosher Nostra type of organizations like the World Jewish Congress and B’nai B’rith. Also the spooky groups like the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. And the Think Tanks like the CFR, Brookings Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, Christopher Lloyd Foundation (yes 88mph that Christopher Lloyd), Atlantic Council, etc.

And please keep in mind the networking that occurs amongst the NY Times with the entire industry.

This is how Climate Change Emergency becomes the weapon!!!

The entities I listed are all members of the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum was founded by Klaus Schwab. The World Economic Forum entered into a partnership with the United Nations in June of 2019, a strategic partnership. What was the intent of this partnership?

To summarize; The partnership was created in order for the World Economic Forum to carry out the implementation of the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, contained within Agenda 2030. The realization of Agenda 2030 is underway under the scheme called The Great Reset.

This blog post I wrote gives tremendous detail. I put alot of effort into it. Please read it if you want to discover the recent origins of The Great Reset:

I am 42 years old and it is commonplace to have Nor’easter storms. They have occured throughout New England and the northeast portion of the United States (and also affecting Canada – and other places) since – since FOREVER.

The Jew York Times is meme’ing together the phenom known as nature with their climate hoax. Storms have been happening since forever!!

Every storm = climate change. Because the Jews say so.



Source: Philosophical Salon

Sheep spend their entire lives being afraid of the wolf, but end up eaten by the shepherd. (Popular proverb)

By now it should be clear that COVID-19 is, essentially, a symptom of financial capital running amok. More broadly, it is a symptom of a world that is no longer able to reproduce itself by profiting from human labour, thus relying on a compensatory logic of perpetual monetary doping. While the structural shrinking of the work-based economy inflates the financial sector, the latter’s volatility can only be contained through global emergencies, mass propaganda, and tyranny by biosecurity. How can we break out of this vicious cycle?

Since the third industrial revolution (microelectronics in the 1980s), automated capitalism has been engaged in abolishing wage labour as its own substance. We have now passed the point of no return. Due to escalating technological advance, capital is increasingly impotent vis-a-vis its mission of squeezing surplus-value out of labour-power. With the unleashing of artificial intelligence this truly becomes mission impossible – game over.

This means that the foundations of our world no longer reside in the socially necessary labour contained in commodities such as cars, telephones, or toothpaste. Rather, they reside in highly flammable debt-leveraged speculations on financial assets like stocks, bonds, futures, and especially derivatives, whose value is securitised indefinitely. Only the religious belief that the mass of these assets produces value prevents us from seeing the yawning abyss beneath our feet. And when our faith dwindles, divine providence intervenes by sending us into collective hypnosis through apocalyptic tales of contagion and attendant narratives of salvation.

Yet, reality is stubborn, and keeps knocking on our door. As the financial tumour spreads through the social body, capital opts to unleash its Leviathanic doppelganger, a vampire that feeds on global emergencies and business models anchored in digital technology with the potential to securitize the entirety of life on earth. The writing is on the wall, a ‘soft dictatorship’ is already staring at us. Today, resisting the tide means defending the inviolable dimension of human dignity, a non-negotiable starting point for the construction of an alternative social project. There is still time, but we need critical awareness, courage, and collective awakening.

Pandexit in the land of unicorns

How close are we to Pandexit? The following excerpt from a recent Bloomberg piece has the most likely answer: “For anyone hoping to see light at the end of the Covid-19 tunnel over the next three to six months, scientists have some bad news: brace for more of what we’ve already been through.” To unpack this statement, let us surmise that our future is characterised by the following events: 1. Central banks will continue to create inordinate amounts of money, mostly destined to inflate financial markets; 2. The contagion narrative (or similar) will continue to hypnotise entire populations, at least until Digital Health Passports are fully rolled out; 3. Liberal democracies will be dismantled, and eventually replaced by regimes based on a digitised panopticon, a Metaverse of control technologies legitimised by deafening emergency noise.

Too dark? Not if we consider how the health crisis rollercoaster (lockdowns followed by partial openings alternating with new closures caused by mini-waves) looks increasingly like a global role-play, where actors pass the buck to make sure the emergency ghost continues to circulate, albeit in a weakened capacity. The reason for this depressive scenario is simple: without Virus justifying monetary stimulus, the debt-leveraged financial sector would collapse overnight. At the same time, however, rising inflation coupled with supply-chain bottlenecks (especially microchips) threatens a devastating recession.

This catch-22 appears impossible to overcome, which is why the elites cannot let go of the emergency narrative. From their perspective, the only way out would seem to imply the controlled demolition of the real economy and its liberal infrastructure, while financial assets continue to be artificially inflated. The latter comprises cynical tricks of financial greenwashing such as investment in ESG securities, an environmentally disguised loophole to legitimise further debt expansion. With all due respect to the Greta Thunbergs in our midst, this has nothing to do with saving the planet.

Rather, we are witnessing the accelerating dissolution of liberal capitalism, which is now obsolete. The outlook is objectively depressing. Global financial and geopolitical interests will be secured by mass data harvesting, blockchain ledgers, and slavery by digital app peddled as empowering innovation. At the heart of our predicament lies the ruthless evolutionary logic of a socioeconomic system that, to survive, is ready to sacrifice its democratic framework and embrace a monetary regime supported by corporate-owned science & technology, media propaganda, and disaster narratives accompanied by nauseating pseudo-humanitarian philanthro-capitalism.

By appealing to our personal sense of guilt for ‘destroying the planet’, the coming climate lockdowns are the ideal continuation of Covid restrictions. If Virus was the scary appetiser, a generous portion of carbon-footprint-mixed-with-energy-scarcity ideology is already being served as main meal. One by one we are being persuaded that our negative impact on the planet deserves to be punished. First terrified and regimented by Virus and now shamed for harming Mother Earth, we have already internalised the environmental command: our natural right to live must be earned through compliance with ecological diktats imposed by the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, and ratified by technocratic governments with their police. This is capitalist realism at its most cynical.

The introduction of Digital Health Passports (only a year ago ridiculed as conspiracy theory!) represents a critical juncture. The tagging of the masses is crucial if the elites are to gain our trust in an increasingly centralised power structure sold as an opportunity for emancipation. After crossing the digital-ID Rubicon, the crackdown is likely to continue smoothly and gradually, as in Noam Chomsky’s famous anecdote: if we throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will immediately come out with a prodigious leap; if, on the other hand, we immerse it in lukewarm water and slowly raise the temperature, the frog will not notice anything, even enjoying it; until, weakened and unable to react, it will end up boiled to death.

The above prediction, however, needs to be contextualised within a conflictual and deeply uncertain scenario. Firstly, there is now evidence (however heavily censored) of genuine popular resistance to the pandemic psy-op and the Great Reset more widely. Secondly, the elites appear deadlocked and therefore confused as to how to proceed, as demonstrated by several countries opting to de-escalate the health emergency. It is worth reiterating that the conundrum is, fundamentally, of economic nature: how to manage extreme financial volatility while holding on to capitals and privileges. The global financial system is a huge Ponzi scheme. If those who run it were to lose control of liquidity creation, the ensuing explosion would nuke the entire socio-economic fabric below. Simultaneously, a recession would deprive politicians of any credibility. This is why the elites’ only viable plan would seem to lie in synchronizing the controlled demolition of the economy (collapse of global supply-chain resulting in an ‘everything shortage’), with the rolling out of a global digital infrastructure for technocratic takeover. Timing is of the essence.

Emergency addiction

With regard to a potential recession, financial analyst Mauro Bottarelli summarised the communicating-vessels logic of the pand-economy as follows: “a state of semi-permanent health emergency is preferable to a vertical market crash that would turn the memory of 2008 into a walk in the park.” As I tried to reconstruct in a recent article, the ‘pandemic’ was a lifeboat launched to a drowning economy. Strictly speaking, it is a monetary event aimed at prolonging the lifespan of our finance-driven and terminally ill mode of production. With the help of Virus, capitalism attempts to reproduce itself by simulating conditions that are no longer available.

Here is a summary of Covid’s economic rationale. The September 2019 bailout of the financial sector – which, after eleven blissful years of Quantitative Easing, was again on the verge of a nervous breakdown – involved an unprecedented expansion of monetary stimulus: the creation of trillions of dollars with the magic wand of the Federal Reserve. The injection of this inordinate amount of money into Wall Street was only possible by turning the engine of Main Street off. From the point of view of the short-sighted capitalist mole, there was no alternative. Computer money created as digital bytes cannot be allowed to cascade onto economic cycles on the ground, as this would cause an inflationary tsunami à la Weimar 1920s (which ushered in the Third Reich), only much more catastrophic for a stagnant and globally interconnected economy.

Inevitably, the (cautious) reopening of credit-based transactions in the real economy has caused inflation to rise, hence further impoverishment on the ground. The purchasing power of salaries has been dented, along with revenues and savings. It is worth recalling that commercial banks are positioned at the interface between the magical world of Central Banks digital money, and the emergency-swept wasteland inhabited by most mortals. Thus, any wild expansion of Central Bank reserves (money created out of thin air) triggers price inflation as soon as commercial banks leak cash (i.e. debt) into society.

The purpose of the ‘pandemic’ was to accelerate the pre-existing macrotrend of monetary expansion, while postponing inflationary damage. Following the Federal Reserve, the world’s central bankers have created oceans of liquidity, thus devaluing their currencies to the detriment of populations. While this continues, the transnational turbo-capital of the elites keeps expanding in the financial orbit, absorbing those small and medium size businesses it has depressed and destroyed. In other words, there is no such thing as a free lunch (for us). The Central Bank’s money-printer works only for the 0.0001% – with the help of Virus, or a global threat of equal traction.

At present, it looks as if central bankers are indulging in the noble art of procrastination. The Fed’s board will convene again in early November 2021, with taper (reduction of monetary stimulus) announced to start in December. However, with the Covid bubble deflating, how will the elites deal with zero interest rates and direct deficit financing? In more explicit terms: what new ‘contingent event’ or ‘divine intervention’ will get them out of trouble? Will it be aliens? A cyber-terrorist attack on the banking system? A tsunami in the Atlantic? War games in Southeast Asia? A new War on Terror? The shopping list is long.

In the meantime, ordinary people are caught in a suffocating double bind. If credit needs to be made available to businesses, Central Banks must keep a lid on inflation, which they can do only… by draining credit! Runaway inflation can be avoided only by containing the disruptive effects of excessive money creation; that is, by bringing work-based societies to their knees. Most of us end up squashed between price inflation of essential goods, and deflationary liquidity drainage via loss of income and erosion of savings. And in a stagnant economy with inflation off the chart, each suppressed business transaction is channeled into financial assets.

A tool preventing liquidity from reaching the real economy is the Federal Reserve’s Overnight Reverse Repo facility (RRP). While continuing to flood financial markets with freshly printed money, thanks to reverse repos the Fed mops up any excess of that very cash it pumps into Wall Street. Effectively, a zero-sum game of give and take: at night, financial operators deposit their excess liquidity with the Federal Reserve, which delivers as collateral the same Treasuries and Mortgage-Backed Securities it drains from the market during the day as part of its QE purchases. In August 2021, the Fed’s usage of RRP topped $1 trillion, which led the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to double the RRP limit to $160 billion, starting from 23 September 2021.

Here, then, is the elephant in the room: how will the Fed’s taper square with reverse repos of this astronomical magnitude? Is the much-anticipated reduction of monetary stimulus even possible with a global financial bubble fuelled by zero-interest-rate leveraging and structural borrowing? But, at the same time, how can central bankers continue to expand their balance sheet, when the double whammy of stagnation and rising inflation (stagflation) is just around the corner?

The logic of this monetary mechanism is perverse. The solipsistic ‘mad dance’ of financial capital has spun out of control well beyond its customary madness, and the day of reckoning is fast approaching. Can a devastating recession be avoided? Today’s political answer would seem to mobilise the ancient wisdom that ‘extreme times call for extreme measures’, which translates as: no crime against humanity can be ruled out when systemic implosion is so stubbornly denied. Is this not what history has always taught us?

The crisis we are experiencing is not epidemiological. In the first instance, it is meant to take care of the potentially cataclysmic financial exposure to toxic risk and the associated management of inflation. Suffice it to note that central bankers do not succeed in increasing interest rates to 2%, when in the 1970s they were brought up to 20% to combat inflation. However, as Covid reminds us, financial acrobatics of the current magnitude only work under emergency cover: blockades, lockdowns, restrictions, etc. The purpose of the cover-up is twofold: 1. To conceal the sinking of the Titanic (finance-driven ‘work society’); 2. To coordinate the implementation of a colossal monetary reset based on economic depression and centralised control of people’s lives.

Digital fascism

The consequences of emergency capitalism are emphatically biopolitical. They concern the administration of a human surplus that is growing superfluous for a largely automated, highly financialised, and implosive reproductive model. This is why Virus, Vaccine and Covid Pass are the Holy Trinity of social engineering. ‘Virus passports’ are meant to train the multitudes in the use of electronic wallets controlling access to public services and personal livelihood. The dispossessed and redundant masses, together with the non-compliant, are the first in line to be disciplined by digitalised poverty management systems directly overseen by monopoly capital. The plan is to tokenise human behaviour and place it on blockchain ledgers run by algorithms. And the spreading of global fear is the perfect ideological stick to herd us toward this outcome.

As public debates are silenced by censorship and intimidation, we are being escorted to a bio-techno-capitalist dystopia whose hellish character is likely to manifest itself fully with the next global crisis. This would justify the rolling out of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which, in the words of Agustin Carstens (general manager of the Bank for International Settlements), will grant “absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that Central Bank liability [i.e., money], and we will have the technology to enforce that.” Digital cash linked to digital identity is shorthand for hi-tech monetary serfdom, which will be extended to the unemployed first (e.g., UBI recipients), and potentially to most of us. When Larry Fink (BlackRock CEO) says that “markets prefer totalitarian governments to democracies,” we should better believe him.

Separating the population on the basis of vaccination status is an epoch-making achievement typical of totalitarian regimes. If resistance is quashed, a compulsory digital ID will be introduced to record the ‘virtuousness’ of our behaviour and regulate our access to society. Covid was the ideal Trojan horse for this breakthrough. A global system of digital identification based on blockchain technology has long been planned by the ID2020 Alliance, backed by such giants as Accenture, Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation, MasterCard, IBM, Facebook, and Bill Gates’ ubiquitous GAVI. From here, the transition to monetary control is likely to be relatively smooth. CBDCs would allow central bankers not only to track every transaction, but especially to turn off access to liquidity for any reason deemed legitimate. The ‘digitisation of life’ project also includes an ‘Internet passport’ which, subject to periodic review, would exclude from the web anyone considered undeserving. Should the social credit score fall below a certain level, finding a job, traveling, or obtaining loans would depend on willing subjection to ‘rehabilitation programmes’. Presumably, there will be a black market for the outcasts.

A cornerstone of historical fascism was industry controlled by government while remaining privately owned. It is quite astonishing that, despite the overwhelming evidence of systematic revolving doors between public and private sector, most public intellectuals have not yet realized that this is where we are heading. Italian writer Ennio Flaiano once said that the fascist movement is made of two groups: the fascists, and the anti-fascists. Today, when most self-proclaimed anti-fascists are quietly or enthusiastically supporting the medically driven authoritarian turn, this paradox is more relevant than ever.

From conspiracy theory to successful paranoia

The epistemology of conspiracy theory drives much of today’s propaganda as a rhetoric of exclusion. The a priori rejection of ‘paranoid thinking’ leaves the official narrative as the sole bearer of truth, irrespective of empirical verification. Therefore, as argued by Ole Bjerg, “the real pathology emerges on the side of the mainstream reactions to so-called conspiracy theorists […] in the form of an epistemic state of exception, which threatens to undermine the functioning of public debate and intellectual critique.”[i] In other words, paranoia qualifies the position of those modern-day Torquemadas whose inquisition tribunals silence any ‘heretical’ thinking that dares to depart from the dogmas of emergency capitalism. The blanket accusation levelled at ‘paranoid Covid-deniers’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’ is symptomatic not only of the dissolution of the democratic bond, but especially of a top-down contagion of ideological sickness never experienced before on such a global scale.

As Jacques Lacan argued in the 1960s, capitalist power works by vanishing, by making itself secret and invisible, thereby dissimulating not only its authority but also its impotence. Everything seems to function spontaneously in capitalism, as if no-one was giving or obeying orders, but just following their spontaneous desires: “What is striking, and what no one seems to see, is that by virtue of the fact that the clouds of impotence have been aired, the master signifier only appears even more unassailable […] Where is it? How can it be named? How can it be located—other than through its murderous effects, of course.”[ii] Should this prompt us to enlist Lacan in the army of wacky conspiracy theorists? While the traditional master relies on symbolic authority, the capitalist master delegates authority to the intangible objectivity of its modus operandi. As made abundantly clear by neoliberalism, mastery is officially relinquished but simultaneously reasserted in its relinquished form, for example as ‘leadership’. And Lacan’s point is that this stratagem opens the space for deeper, more insidious forms of manipulation.

Just like corporate-owned mainstream media, today many Lacanians love to ridicule ‘conspiracy theorists’. Typically, they do so by citing Lacan’s motto that “there is no such thing as a big Other” – so, ultimately, no-one can possibly be plotting behind the curtains. Or, to quote from a recent piece by Slavoj Žižek, “there is no need to invent pandemics and weather catastrophes, since the system produces them by itself.” But these arguments miss the target, for they overlook how power functions precisely by occupying the ontological inconsistency of the big Other, manipulating it in its favour. Differently stated: if there is an unconscious, conspiracy and manipulation are inevitable. The success of any power-structure depends on its ability to weaponise the self-contradictory status of its universe of sense against the neurotic masses.

For all his Hegelianism, here Žižek misses the speculative character of (capitalist) power: systemic contradictions are the very foundation and lifeblood of any power edifice. The elementary speculative ruse of power is that it turns ontological inconsistency into condition of possibility. This is clearly visible in the ‘authoritarian turn’ of contemporary capitalism as predicated upon the ideological use of emergencies. Ultimately, these emergencies are real only insofar as they are capitalist emergencies, deployed at the right time to further the interests of capital. The assumption that they will escape or subvert the existing power structure ignores the extent to which they already function for capitalist power. My reading of Covid as a product of financial volatility is consistent with this speculative stance: pandemic contingency is capitalist necessity, and as such it was supported from the start by a formidable ideological apparatus.

The rhetoric of exclusion that animates the public discourse on Covid can be described through what Lacan, borrowing from Freud, named “successful paranoia”, which “might just as well seem to constitute the closure of science.”[iii] Essentially, “closure” refers to the positivistic belief in scientific objectivity, which is built on the rejection (foreclosure) of the ‘subject of the unconscious’ as source of questioning, doubt, and error. In the context of Lacan’s discourse theory, successful paranoia aligns with a hyper-efficient belief-system secured by the “curious copulation between capitalism and science”.[iv] The power of what today is unilaterally promoted as ‘real science’ (so real that it bans doubt, prohibits debate, and promotes censorship) is akin to the power of a new religion, as Lacan cautioned in 1974: “Science is in the process of substituting itself for religion, and it is even more despotic, obtuse and obscurantist”.[v] And capitalism banks on science & technology just as it capitalizes on health, one of the most profitable businesses in the world.

The ‘science’ we are ordered to follow is hijacked by the financial elites and their political cronies, thus working as a barrier against the awareness that ‘our world’ is crumbling. Real science, which continues to operate behind the thick curtain of censorship, would never impose dictatorial mandates like those still in place in democratic countries around the world. Blind faith in ‘Covid science’, then, betrays a desperate desire to hang on to capitalist power, inclusive of its authoritarian mutation. Yet the history of scientific progress shows that science is, fundamentally, a discourse emphatically centred on what it lacks. All major scientific advances are based on a principle of insufficiency: the awareness that truth as cause of knowledge is ontologically lacking. Or, to quote Lacan: “Il n’y a de cause que de ce qui cloche” (“There is cause only in what doesn’t work”).[vi] This is the science worth fighting for.

While the system’s driving presuppositions (the value-creating relation between capital and labour) have stopped working, the Covid decoy allows capitalism, once again, to suspend any serious enquiry into its structural sickness and ongoing transformation. The clinic of neurosis shows us the extent to which the average neurotic wants a master, whose role is to reassure them that their world lies on solid foundations. Neurotics are often so desperately attached to their power-structure that they turn into perverts to secure its functioning – like a masochist eagerly handing the whip to his dominatrix. Perversion works as a command to enjoy the power relation, and contemporary subjects often readily submit to power in a desperate bid to consolidate it. Unfortunately, the conservative structures of neurosis and perversion are often shared by ‘progressive minds’ (including liberal and radical leftists) whose commitment stops at virtue-signaling or participation in conspiracy theory shame games.

And yet, not all is lost. Despite the unstoppable convergence of science and capitalism in establishing a watertight belief-system that excludes dissent, our successfully paranoid universe will fail to totalise its structure. Paradoxically, the current crackdown on humanity may be the best chance yet for radical opposition to the coming regime of capitalist accumulation and its relentless emergency blackmail.


[i] Ole Bjerg, “Conspiracy Theory: Truth Claim or Language Game?”, Theory, Culture & Society, 2016, pp. 1-23 (6).

[ii] Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, book 17, The Other Side of Psychoanalysis, trans. Russell Grigg (New York: Norton, 2007), pp. 177-78.

[iii] Jacques Lacan, Écrits. The First Complete English Edition, trans. Bruce Fink (New York: W. W. Norton, 2006), p. 742.

[iv] Lacan, 2007, p. 110.

[v] Jacques Lacan, Freud Forever: An Interview with Panorama, trans. Philip Dravers, Hurly Burly 12, 2015, pp. 13-21 (18).

[vi] Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book 11, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998), p. 22.