A Plan or Just Incompetence — Who Promoted Boris Johnson?

It's been more than a year since "two weeks to flatten the curve", the fortnight of shelter-in-place that we were assured would contain the spread of Coroni. Yet the mantra continues, with tweaks like 0.3%-different variants creating excuses for new bans on travel.  

YouTubers and bloggers point out the inconsistencies but an army of behavioral psychologists goes to work on the fear porn through the state-corporatist media and the majority, it seems, comply.  

How long will it take for momentum to build to the point where the public hold politicians and bureaucrats to account? Polly St George has a clue: this could go on forever because we're reinventing the wheel.

She was part of a group of alt-media researchers that was recently banned. New researchers popped up in their place... but they've gone back to the beginning.

This has gone on for decades. Researchers collect the best evidence, refine their arguments, build on each other's work, develop networks and support each other. They exist as a deeply researched repository of information supporting lawyers and activists.

Then, every so often, the powers that be (TPTB) sweep those researchers off the board and a new crowd of faces emerges.... and begins the long task of educating themselves and the public.

"We're in this constant cycle where so long as we are chasing the laser pointers and asking the same old questions that's fine. It even serves TPTB because the truth confuses and terrifies some people. The moment you get too much momentum, however, TPTB wipe the slate clean, do their smear campaigns or impose strict censorship.

It's really frustrating to see the new crop starting out again at square 1, 2 or 3. You get the sense that this cycle will never end. Many people are willing to accept a few fundamental truths: that this is not incompetence. Yet they can't see this is a long-term, predatory way of operating that has been going on since before WW1."

This raises the question: who is behind it.

Recently I watched an analysis of the origins of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, focusing on his childhood, including the beatings he says he received at school and separate, perhaps unconnected, evidence of sexual predation of children which led to one of his masters being imprisoned. 

The analysis is partly the work of two videographers who call themselves Sheep Farm Studios and it's an attempt to examine the inner workings of BoJo. He is undoubtedly a troubled man who has caused, and is causing, a lot of trouble to others.  It cites the blatant bigotry of Johnson's writing, his frequent sacking, the verdict of former bosses that he lies and is unreliable and it concludes that Johnson regards himself above the law. The question is the origin of this psychology. 

The video makes clear that if Boris Johnson was facing death on the scaffold, by axe or guillotine, he'd escape. Not only that but you’d blink and he’d have snagged the job of executioner, his straw chaff hair poking out beneath the black hood, his droopy features grinning.

Every time he screws up there is always someone ready to rescue "Boris" (real name Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson)  from his mistakes and to give him another job at an even higher salary.  Is that because someone is guiding him as a golden boy, someone who is using him to advance their own plans or — seemingly just as convoluted — do psychopaths look out for each other? 

This article will go on to explore how psychopaths do indeed recognize each other and work together. It's not simply them against us. Psychopaths are aware they are damaged and they try to reorder the world so that it gives them the 'justice' they deserve in their own minds.

Compared with that explanation, the 'golden boy' theory is quite simple, isn't it? Occam's razor might say that given Johnson's wild ways, someone is probably promoting him for their own purposes. 

It seems clear that Johnson is what the mafia call a made man, "an associate first must be Italian or of Italian descent and sponsored by another made man. An inductee will be required to take the oath of omertà, the Mafia code of silence and code of honor" (Wikipedia). When we look at his father Stanley Johnson, he seems to have the same strange coincidence of a wayward character and ever-upwards career trajectory.

He had six children, while writing books about population control, had jobs with the World Bank and the European Commission, and worked closely with Rockefeller representatives like Maurice Strong on environmental issues. His grandfather was an Ottoman radical journalist, Ali Kemal, (son of Haci Ahmet Riza Efendi of Kalfat, near Ankara) and his great-great-grandfather, the founder of the YMCA, George Williams.

Given the Rockefeller connection, that points to a level of consistency that is thinly-disguised by a change of nationality and name: a YO! Sushi conveyor belt of macaroons… any colour you like, same ubiquitous aroma of bitter almonds.

You can see the Sheep Farm Studios video series here: Sheep Farm 10 | Meet The Flockers | PM Boris Johnson Ep.1/3

and here Sheep Farm 11 | Meet The Flockers | The Johnson Gang Ep.2/3 and here Sheep Farm 12 | Meet The Flockers | Boris’s Ex-Wives & Girlfriends 2.5/3.


Polly looks at evil and power, as researched by Andrzej Łobaczewski (1921-2008). In Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (1998) he says that early brain injuries or abnormalities can lead people to behave in a pathologically evil manner.

This made me think of Sheep Farm Studio's video of Boris Johnson's early life. Whatever defects he may have inherited there was enough abuse in British boarding school life to warp his mind.

Psychopaths work as a group because they know they are outsiders. They are aware of their differences and resent them. On the other hand their sense of honour bids them to cheat and undermine the broader world. They feel and act distinctly and recognize this in their own kind. They develop their own laws and customs and they try to impose these on the world. 

They regard other people as weaker than themselves because we are burdened with a conscience and because we make excuses for their behaviour. They know their personalities traumatize others and they learn very early how to use this. 

In the psychopath, a dream emerges like some Utopia of a “happy” world and a social system which does not reject them or force them to submit to laws and customs whose meaning is incomprehensible to them. They dream of a world in which their simple and radical way of experiencing and perceiving reality would dominate; where they would, of course, be assured safety and prosperity.
In this Utopian dream, they imagine that those “others”, different, but also more technically skillful than they are, should be put to work to achieve this goal for the psychopaths and others of their kin. “We”, they say, “after all, will create a new government, one of justice”

They are prepared to fight and to suffer for the sake of such a brave new world, and also, of course, to inflict suffering upon others. Such a vision justifies killing people, whose suffering does not move them to compassion because “they” are not quite con- specific. They do not realize that they will consequently meet with opposition which can last for generations.

Subordinating a normal person to psychologically abnormal individuals has severe and deforming effects on his or her personality: it engenders trauma and neurosis. This is accomplished in a manner which generally evades conscious controls. Such a situation deprives the person of his natural rights: to practice his own mental hygiene, develop a sufficiently autonomous personality, and utilize his common sense. In the light of natural law, it thus constitutes a kind of crime – which can appear at any social scale, in any context – although it is not mentioned in any code of law.

Essential psychopathy has exceptionally intense effects in this manner. Something mysterious gnaws into the personality of an individual at the mercy of the psychopath and is then fought like a demon. His emotions become chilled, his sense of psychological reality is stifled. This leads to de-criterialization of thought and a feeling of helplessness, culminating in depressive reactions which can be so severe that psychiatrists sometimes misdiagnose them as a manic-depressive psychosis.

Many people rebel against a psychopathic domination much earlier than such a crisis point and start searching for some way of liberating themselves from such an influence. 

They gain control says Łobaczewski through a form of natural selection. The good people suddenly realize the environment is toxic and they leave. The psychopaths impose new hiring practices until it becomes a complete takeover. Entire institutions come under their control in government and civil society, charities and NGOs.

"Oxfam and Amnesty, human rights bodies, anti-corruption campaigns, the media, the economy, even the justice system, are Potemkin institutions at this point. The facade is there. Anyone who doesn't look closely will be fooled by the buzzwords, pretty web sites and the spokespeople repeating their mantras.

Now they say look at all these corrupt organizations... we must replace them with The Great Reset and social justice and equity! And look at all the corporations: they're all on board.

Any time people a group of people get close to pushing down the cardboard cutouts and the facade, we get wiped off the map. Then the whole process of discovery begins again."

Polly's video, A Small Number of Psychopaths Control Society, starts @09:00 minutes


Forget Mars: It's Our Planet They're Taking

Thomas Harrington has written a must-read article, “You are Damaged and Only We Can Repair You” in which he looks from a literary angle at the end of our era. 

This is an agonizingly true take, from a bookish perspective, on something that has been clear from an industrial and economic angle: that society has come to the end of a wave and there is no sign of the next one. We are beached, and for the first time there is no industrial or cultural revolution on the horizon.

Despite the hype there was no Age of the Internet. There was only the continuation of data over wires, that began with the telegraph two centuries ago, but which now flowed in greater volume, becoming an tsunami of bits that no-one really knew what to do with. Instead of revealing new industries, the most powerful impact of the Internet was to kill price discovery and arbitrage by destroying the fine mesh of business that interweaves society, thus unleashing a penny-pinching race to the bottom.

In place of the architect of the universe we got the infernal accountant, ever slicing and dicing the numbers, driving forward at full tilt with his eyes glued to the rear-view mirror.

Harrington’s article shows how this was no mere economic phenomena. It destroyed the balance of our market economy — which was more vulnerable than we thought — when it broke the connection between production and consumption. It trashed the relationship between time, experience, labour and care, and the value that society put on that investment of effort. The work ethic being the last leg that provided support to culture and society, the latter soon collapsed.

Indeed we can also lay the blame on the Enlightenment which was far less enlightened than popularly imagined. The canon of liberty and human rights that we celebrate was the work, as ever, of dissidents. The fetishization of science led people out of the dark only to lock them in a cupboard — bereft of their spirituality, of any responsibility to heal themselves, of any understanding as to why they were conscious and, therefore, what they should do. Whatever the reader’s religion or philosophy, it is clear that “as much as you can afford” was a very poor answer.

What about the Fourth Industrial Revolution, you might cry. Look closely and you will see it is about resisting revolution. It is an attempt by bankers and billionaires to lock in their current advantage by seizing assets and utilities: from water and farmland to energy and living space. This is accomplished by the mass generating of money under the excuse of Covid stimulus, most of which is going to the billionaires, their corporations and foundations. Inflation will soon render this money worthless, but not before they've bought out Main Street and the locked down middle class. 

Real industrial upheaval, like political revolution, is a time of tumult in which the leaders of the existing order risk their wealth and their heads. Look again at the Fourth Industrial Revolution and The Great Reset and you will see a kleptocracy desperately trying to turn their monetary gains into control of the physical world, while dispossessing the rest of us.

This small mindedness is the opposite of the grand vision of revolution, political, industrial or otherwise. That is why, spiritually and culturally it is, in the phrase I used earlier, a race to the bottom.


Through the ages people have fought to impose their world view: bishops clashed with monarchs, popes with emperors, philosophers with the bureaucrats policing the thought of the day. There was deception aplenty. Bankers cloaked themselves as pontiffs, high officials served one monarch with an eye to the next, university prelates rewrote religious texts to the regime's order and the new profession of mass media propagandist spread like ink from the playwright's pen.

Blood flowed freely. Deceptions rarely stayed hidden for long — being not the object but a means to an end. They were resolved in assassinations or, if the playwrights had done their work, in mass hangings, drawings and quarterings, to rally a righteous public. The rulers require drama!

Those who molded the Earth did not hide; on the contrary they brandished their accomplishments. Architects built cathedrals into the skies. Engineers shackled the elements to the Age of Steam. When challenged to prove their inventions they publicly demonstrated their claim to industrial leadership, unleashing the hissing and spitting propulsive power of fire and vapour. 

Today it seems that deception is the object. We are urged to stare at computer animations that promise a grand future, but always around the corner. This will happen, that will happen. Yet the advances are absent from the here and now. You cannot touch them or use them. In our daily experience we know that services have declined and civilization is a shadow of even the recent past, and that there is no technology that can take its place. 

Reputable analysts of a dissident streak point to the missing millions and insist that "they" must be doing something: assembling a secret space force, populating a planet, building a networked, resilient, interdependent, sustainable, ecosystem of aliens and billionaires. This is no future world as dreamt by Jules Verne or Fritz Lang. This is desperation clinging to hope, wishfully thinking that "they" must be doing something with all that money we pay in taxes. That as the living standards of ordinary people hang by a thread, there must be salvation on the way. Look up at the stars: we're going to Mars.

Well, I suggest "they've" done nothing of the kind. They are building bigger yachts and hillside bunkers, buying up works of art and stashing them away behind private armies and airlocked doors. Giant commodity trading companies have moved from storing grain to hoarding the land, seeds and water itself. The only thing that is becoming ever more interdependent, networked and interlocked is the ownership, hidden behind Swiss banks.

And the freshly-polished Tesla car beaming dash-cam footage from space? Images clearer than anyone has ever sent from the Moon, now including helicopters in the spartan air of Mars? Is that where you are looking?

Orson Welles, arms upraised, directing a rehearsal of CBS Radio's The Mercury Theatre on the Air (1938) - Public Domain

These are the time-tested legends of aliens "out there". Friendly for now but always threatening wanton destruction in the dome above us. Zeus hurling thunderbolts. Chicken Little in a space suit. Archetypes that send us scuttling into the arms of our earthly protectors seeking protection from divine wrath.

These tales are our version of H.G. Wells and Orson Welles'. Both men worked closely with the richest financial powers on the planet; the former with the Fabians, the latter with Rockefeller* very probably with a mandate to manipulate the people. Each was in his way a propagandist, a playwright, bleeding his ink blot in our consciousness. 

And the purpose? It's not in the stars. It's not even in the skies. It is about who we answer to in the here and now.

  • From the Rockefeller Archive Center: Did you know that Orson Welles broadcast “The War of the Worlds” on October 31, 1938? The General Education Board, a Rockefeller-funded philanthropy, supported the Princeton Radio Project, a study of the hysteria created by the broadcast. For more information, check out the Rockefeller Archive Center’s lesson plan on the project: “Understanding Mass Media News – The 1938 ‘War of the Worlds’ Broadcast and the Power of Radio in the 1930s.” 


Afghanistan's Rare Earths and Opium lock in U.S. Troops

Joe Biden is under growing pressure to answer questions about the future of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  He's under pressure to answer any questions at all, nearing 50 days since his installation without fending inquiries from the press corps. Even his fan club at CNN has noticed. 

The State Corporatist media presents the Afghan options within the narrow sliver of acceptable opinion -- in other words the view of the corporate-funded, tax-exempt foundations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House that tell journalists what to think. Writing in Off-Guardian, Binoy Kampmark illustrates just how narrow this range of opinion is: 

The Guardian claims that he is “trapped and has no good choices”. The Wall Street Journal opines that he is being “tested in Afghanistan” with his opposition to “forever wars”. The Washington Post more sensibly suggests that Biden take the loss and “add it to George W. Bush’s record.” 

On the surface that sounds like the big issue: "should I stay or should I go, now". Yet to talk only of terrorism, refugees and displaced persons is to adopt the paradigm of the NGO and UN institutions that are the handmaidens of interventionism. It misses a much bigger picture, summed up in one word: resources. And that is why the U.S. and its British and corporate allies are unlikely to leave any time soon. 

Iraq was invaded in 2003 on the basis of a lie, not a misunderstanding. The parallels go back decades. Even before the CIA, in the 1950s, entered South East Asia covertly, which in turn predated the overt Vietnam War, teams of U.S. geologists were mapping Indochina, knowing how highly the French valued it. Afghanistan's just the same.

Afghan resources are far more interesting than oil. In fact, the country suffers a variant of the oil curse (oil riches tend to hurt diversification, crowding out other businesses, creating over-dependence on one raw material). Afghanistan makes so much money from opium that hydrocarbons can't compete (see below). In addition, rare earths are what makes the corporate mouth water nowadays anyway. 

Mining in Afghanistan has much bigger prospects. Photograph Jerome Starkey/ CC BY-SA 2.0

Smart cities and 'electric everything' demand a exponential increase in mineral mining over the next few decades. If the UN is serious, Western countries will abandon petroleum-fueled cars within a decade and Afghan deposits of copper, neodymium and lithium will be vital.

If the UN were serious in its promotion of "free trade", Afghanistan would be left free to profit from its own mineral resources but that's not how things work. The U.S. and British conspired, over the Afghan border back in 1953, to oust Iran's prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh because they were not prepared to let Iran sell its oil for its own profit.

These two references to the 1950s shows how little has changed. In November 2019, having just won re-election, Bolivia's president Evo Morales was ousted in a US-backed coup. International corporate interests objected to his renationalization of utilities and mining industries. They also had their eye on Bolivia's lithium deposits, essential to the batteries of electric vehicles.

"We will coup whoever we want" — manufacturer of Tesla electric vehicles, Elon Musk.

Afghanistan has found itself with a weak and divided government, through no particular fault of its own. The reach of central government is limited. Many basic social services are provided by the Taliban. Regional governors are not allowed to challenge the externally-backed central government. If they do, they bump up against the realities of ethnic loyalities and Western interests, as the northern governor and Tajik Atta Mohammad Noor found when he was dismissed  in 2017 by Pashtun president, Ashraf Ghani, who leads the Western-propped central government.

It's hard not to imagine that Western intriguing also prevents the emergence of a unifying force in Afghan politics. Corporations like it better this way. The resource-rich countries of Central Asia and the Near East are littered with failed and faction-ridden governments that are easily compromised, from Libya to Iraq.


For reasons of self interest, if nothing else, the senior cadres of military and intelligence would be reluctant to leave. In fact, they wouldn't. They'd just jump into corporate uniforms and stay.

Call it venality, corruption or empire, the generals expect to profit from the countries they invade. Four-star general David Petraeus, who from September 2011 to November 2012 was the director of CIA, and worked in the Balkans for several years, becoming one of the major owners of Balkans telecom sector. He also sits on the board of investors Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR).

Whom do we find in Afghanistan but the same man: "It has some of the world's remaining unexploited world class deposits of copper, iron ore and some other fairly exotic minerals. And it has some limited natural gas. The estimates of the worth of these deposits are quite substantial," Petraeus told ABC.

U.S. Geologists Discover $1 Trillion in Mineral Deposits in Afghanistan - ABC News, 2010

Opium, too, figures in the calculation of resources. Not mentioned in the pages of the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal, the biggest money spinners are not the ones you read about in the Fortune 500.

A U.S. marine in Helmand province, 2013, photograph by Sgt Pete Thibodeau (public domain).

Follow the money was never more true and leads you to weapons manufacture, the business of war, the eternal business of slavery and sex trafficking, the centuries-long narcotics industry made famous by the Opium Wars, the crossover between the business of licit and illicit drugs, and the oil and gas fields of the hydrocarbon energy business. These are joined by two new sectors: biofuels which require the depopulation of unimaginable hectares of land, as does the mining of rare earth minerals for smart cities.

Opium accounts for more than half Afghan GDP, far outstripping oil. The drugs industry, legal and covert, operates as one big unhappy family.

Again, you won't read about it in the mainstream press, in fact, you'll encounter disinformation such as this article from The Guardian in 2016, Mexican farmers turn to opium poppies to meet surge in US heroin demand encouraging the questionable idea that Mexico is the main source of illicit opium to the U.S. This is a deliberate sleight of hand that distracts the uninformed from the booming production of opium in Afghanistan under the protection of U.S. and British soldiers.

Here's another example from the BBC, Apr 2019: How the US military's opium war in Afghanistan was lost.

"[Afghan heroin] makes up 95% of the market in Europe; 90% of the Canadian market. Perhaps surprisingly, Afghan heroin is reckoned to make up only a tiny fraction of the US market. The US Drug Enforcement Agency claims as little as one per cent of US supply is from Afghanistan. It says virtually all the heroin used in America comes from Mexico and South American countries."

This propaganda tells people what they wish to believe: that the U.S. military would not allow Afghan heroin to poison the American well but sadly, that's now what the record shows. As Gary Webb exposed in his Dark Alliance series, the CIA colluded with mafia drug traffickers who flooded cities with cocaine, while financing its black ops in Central America and Iran. See the late LAPD detective Michael Ruppert confront CIA director John Deutsch

Mexico is not the natural habitat for the opium poppy and anyway is the location of military action and the War on Drugs, most recently described by the U.S.-Mexican academic Oswaldo Zavala in Los Cárteles No Existen.

The American academic Alfred McCoy illustrated back in 1972 the correlation between the black market in opiates and the location of U.S. covert paramilitary and overt military operations internationally in his book, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade.

In reality, the opium is coming from where it grows in abundance. Even if it wasn't reaching the U.S. that would hardly undermine the business rationale: a drugs business that contributes much of the 1.5 million inmates of the U.S. for-profit prison system; a banking business that props up the U.S. financial system.

One reason HSBC and Deutsche Bank took much of the heat from U.S. prosecutors after the 2008 banking crisis was to give the home team time to rebuild their business, and that includes profiting from criminal money flows. The U.S. banks openly admit they fail to stop money laundering. Analysis of bank flows would reveal the extent of the illicit opium trade in the U.S. and the departments of Treasury, Justice and Commerce, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission likely have this information. See also Bank Shares Slide on Report of Rampant Money Laundering -- US News & World Report, Sep 2020


As to the other players on Team America, the infrastructure to control the trade sits slap bang in the middle of the main trade routes, such as Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo.

Other obvious places to look are the known trafficking routes for people, which pass through the Balkans which is also under heavy U.S. commercial influence. See the comment above about who owns the Balkan telecoms network. The tail numbers of planes used by the State Department and the CIA out of the Balkans for purposes believed to include rendition matched with those used on occasion by Jeffrey Epstein who we know was involved in people trafficking. 

One might wonder why, if the heroin is getting through, the people who operate the toll booth and the schlagbaum prefer to regulate the flows rather than to stop them.

As to the people, the architect of the U.S. strategy in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Pakistan was the late Richard Holbrooke. More than anyone he knew the whys and wherefores whereby Congress put its support behind a policy built around the expansion of the opium sector.

Fascinatingly, Holbrooke wore another hat in the legal drugs sector, as a mover and shaker in the world of HIV relief, which channels billions of dollars of taxpayers money through private, tax-exempt foundations like those of the Clintons and Bill Gates. The research site Corey's Digs estimates the value of cash flows under the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) at $90 Billion.

At the center of this, until his untimely death in 2010, stood the architect of the Afghan policy. In 2006, he was reported by the Wall Street Journal as saying:

“I think what you’re seeing is the beginning of what you might call the first super NGO…with overlapping interests and a great deal of resources,” said former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, now president and CEO of the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS in New York City.”

In the strange world of the United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations, donations pledged by nation states end up in the hands of "philanthropists" whose own foundations invest in for-profit research by scientists and often hold the resulting patents. 

Somehow the World Health Organization — which is not a government body but an agency whose biggest private funder is Bill Gates — has a chief, Tedros, installed by the Clintons and Rockefellers, who in turn wields the power to influence governments to open the sluice gates. On the WHO’s say-so, governments release a flood of taxpayer cash to corporations (big pharma) or to charities (run by foundations linked to those corporations). 

These bodies are the same interests driving the Great Reset and the resilient, Smart Cities programme: the interdependent, surveilled domains of technocracy, occupied by a residual population of digitally-looped residents. This high tech Utopia will only viable thorough an imperial-colonial relationship with countries like Afghanistan that will supply the metals and minerals to make the dream "sustainable".


Artificial Intelligence and Schmidt's Law

The Eric Schmidt phenomenon represents the melding of the military-tech-political machine in pursuit of permanent power. 

As Binoy Kampmark notes in Off-Guardian, War Mongering for Artificial Intelligence, the testimony of Schmidt to the  Senate Armed Services Committee was "generously spiked with the China threat thesis". This is the familiar dialectic: we arm China and point to it as a threat, while demanding more money to arm ourselves.

No one has been more central to the technological weaponizing of China that Eric Schmidt's Alphabet, the inside-joke-of-a-company-name that in turn runs Google.

The essence of power is do what I say, not what I do. Schmidt once said: "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place." He didn't agree when CNET researched Schmidt's own salary, neighborhood, hobbies and political donations.

It all comes down to power, which is the primary issue with AI: whose power it serves. As a system for real-time, communal decision making of the People, by the People, for the People, AI could make possible a harmonious future, resolving competing wants with minimal conflict. So why is the debate around AI so often confined to surveillance drones, predictive policing, threatening robots and war machines? 

The problem of AI lies in saying, 'no'. In order for the machines to know what to do, the humans who program them must first also say, 'no'. Eric Schmidt is the poster child for the boy who can't say, 'no'. 

That's been his strength and weakness in his personal life, business relationships and his approach to the boundaries of what is acceptable in technology and politics. If his judgement has sometimes been questionable -- and it may seem unfair to single him out  he has put himself in the limelight. Indeed, he has done society a service by his plain speaking, will to act and open pursuit of power and wealth.

Take Schmidt's quote: "Here is what I call the creepy line. The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."

Photo source: Pixabay. Creative Commons.

Aficionados of horror movies have a good grasp of creepy: an unpleasant, even repulsive, sense of unease. The problem with the creepy line is its other meaning: the line creeps. There are no fixed limits. It creeps as in mission creep. Several times Google employees have protested at the company's involvement in building military drones, China's social credit system and tailoring of the Dragonfly search engine to the CCP's need for censorship. Google's AI work for the Pentagon has attracted particular protest. A dozen employees resigned form Project Maven in 2018. Post-Schmidt, Google fired two scientists from its AI ethics team, one in Dec 2020, the other in January 2021.


Modern government faces a huge ethical challenge once you move from minimal to total control. Presenting humans with free will, subject to firm boundaries, is one thing. The concept of equity, in which you handicap particular humans in the race for academic, sporting, material or political success, and pick the winner, is quite another. 

You have changed the algorithm from freedom:responsibilities to interests:outcomes. There is no room for moral decision in such a system because the moral correctness of the outcome was decided a priori. The only correct behaviour is not moral but political, which is to say you acquiesce in the rules even though they may prompt you to indulge in contradictory, irrational behaviour from one day to the next. 

Guides to life like the Ten Commandments provide a poor metric once you are in the business not of governing humans but manipulating them. 

Schmidt himself moved into the territory of managed outcomes during the 2016 election campaign. He might argue that for all his efforts, his favoured candidate Hillary Clinton did not win. I would counter that perhaps that was considered part of the risk: it was the dry run for the manipulation of elections whose stakes were much higher than the political career of one Clinton. 

It is no secret that the Democratic Party has become the party of the CIA. By transforming into the natural home of the politicised bureaucrat and the secret policeman, electoral politics confronts the reality of the  Democratic Deep State  constitutional in that bureaucrats take control through elections; unconstitutional in that it folds the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government into one party of permanent rule. Parallels with technocratic regimes like China are obvious.

In the run up to the 2016 election, Eric Schmidt created the Fake News mantra, according to journalist and ethical researcher Sharyl Attkisson, while he was helping to manage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Schmidt weaponized Fake News through a non-profit called First Draft.

The phrase soon backfired, becoming Trump's daily coin. Within months the Washington Post was writing, "it's time to retire the tainted term, fake news." From the perspective of big tech and social media, however, it set the ground for an assault on the First Amendment. Google would soon be coordinating with Amazon, Facebook and Twitter to declare certain topics off limits. It was a short leap to ban individuals, notably the President of the United States, from public discourse. 

According to Quartz magazine Schmidt recognized "how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs."

He donated $1.5 billion to create for Hillary the U.S. Digital Service which tried to control the 2016 presidential election results. Schmidt also created The Groundwork, "according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists... part of efforts by Schmidt to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election." 

Election studies became a bit of a family business. In an article for The Canary, 13th May, 2017, Serious money is buying and selling our votes, and democracy is the loser, Tom Coburg wrote: 

Previously The Canary reported the links between Britain’s pro-Brexit campaigns and associates of US President Donald Trump. As well as the subsequent investigations by statutory bodies into those links and possible undeclared spends. The Canary also alleged that US-based technology agencies used or advised on behavioural management technologies to ensure a Brexit win. 
Reportedly, Sophie Schmidt advised SCL head Alexander Nix to check out the work of US data intelligence agency Palantir Technologies. Schmidt, the daughter of Google chairman Eric Schmidt, used to work for SCL Elections (which was later renamed Cambridge Analytica).

Robert Epstein, a psychology professor, for several years had been alleging that Google had the ability to swing U.S. election results [American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, PDF]. The allegations appear to have stung Schmidt deeply. If so, his problem with boundaries cropped up again. Google attacked Epstein in the media and even prompted a mock news report in the Huffington Post: "Google Critic Killed in “Ironic” Car Accident: Struck by Google Street View Vehicle

In July 2019, Epstein gave testimony to a Senate Judiciary Committee that Google would be able to swing the 2020 presidential election. Five months later, two days before Christmas, Epstein's wife was killed when her car spun out of control across several lanes, as it came off the ramp to join a highway. An unfortunate accident perhaps. 

In 2020 it was Facebook's turn to "fortify" the election, as Time magazine put it. Mark Zuckerberg and Chinese-American spouse Priscilla Chan invested $400 million to ensure that swing states used the Dominion machines, providing funding if they could not afford to buy them. They also prepared polling stations and counting centres for the dramatic increase in mail-in ballots, including the poll workers who would count them.

After the 2020 elections it became clear that Georgia's Secretary of State had unilaterally and illegally changed the ballot procedures. On Dec 4th, Governor Brian Kemp called on Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to conduct an audit of votes. Simply overturning the Georgia vote could deliver victory to Donald Trump. 

On Dec 8th, Governor Kemp's daughter's boyfriend died in an explosion that observers said was more like a car bomb than a gas tank, the engine block was ejected almost 60 yards away after colliding with a truck. Voters heard no more from Governor Kemp. 

If these deaths were even construed as threats, there are clearly much bigger forces than the Schmidts or Zuckerbergs at play.


We may be witnessing what happens when the state eats itself  or to put it another way, when the rival imperatives of "national security," which in plain English is simply state security, combine with the interest of corporations and come into conflict with the other legs of the octopus.

There is a reason for the separation of powers that has nothing to do with democracy. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted 200 years ago, the voice of the people in the United States is strangely subdued. His enthusiasm for the still-young nation prevented him following his observation to its conclusion: the U.S. is not a democracy; it is a republic and, an oligarchic one at that, as several academic studies have asserted recently. 

Even an oligarchic republic needs the separation of powers in order to save it from itself. A nation is not an operating system and neither is AI. They are protocols governed by a Constitution. In place of 'if this, then that', the Constitution pauses one leg of the octopus and gives priority to another: 'if this perhaps not that, at least, not yet'. The legislature is supposed to provide updates to the Constitution while the judiciary advises the executive on how to interpret them. 

Such a system is already way ahead of AI, and yet even the political system is still only a poor simulacrum of the human mind in the presence of other competing minds, under the system of a shared moral code reflected, imperfectly, in written laws. 


And here we find Eric, toiling away to replicate the human mind but to whose interests? To perfect the republic? To create a working democracy with modern networks that could go some way to replace the clunky political system and balance the popular will in real time?

No, sadly not. While AI is put to work in elections, it is not to create a new participatory systems but to game the existing one. It is the mutual interest of big tech and the military that provides the impetus and the ethical framework to AI  and both are constantly shifting. What's acceptable is what "we" want: more military contracts, more power and the global reach to seize the minerals and raw materials essential to feed those resource-hungry tech and defence projects. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," or a version thereof. 

There are many tangents worth exploring. The reason why Google recently fired two scientist-ethics specialists from its AI team, for example. The impact of monopoly on the shape of the big tech, big data, social media sector and its impact on the political system in return. The trend towards censorship and its effect on science, which is especially topical while YouTube imposes limits to the discussion of vaccines as Google and associated companies invest in vaccines, health care and DNA research.

Google's famous culture of unleashing beta products on the public not only makes the public the guinea pig but also changes the contractual and moral relationship with the end user: you accept the product in an unfinished state with no guarantees (on the customer side) as to performance, while the purposes for which we (Google) offer the product can be changed or withdrawn at any moment. Today my gun shoots a blank, tomorrow a bullet. It's not a different product, just a different iteration. 

Schmidt is working within a nest of interest groups that have evolved from the Military Industrial Complex that President Dwight Eisenhower described in 1961. It is now a military-tech-media-petro-pharma complex that manipulates the political system by military and commercial means. If that requires arming the police, bringing the craft of war to the shores of America, imposing military censors in the press, instigating Color Revolutions at home [sorry, "fortifying" elections] or at the very least influencing search results so that they favour an outcome, social, political or commercial, so be it: success is defined by achieving the outcome. In military-commercial logic, might makes right.

If the creepy line exists at all, it is set by those same State Corporatists: or to put it another way, the end justifies the means. 

What Mr Schmidt represents is not a geek turned activist with budding political ambitions but someone birthed by the military-technocrat complex. With so much at stake, they take no risks with meritocracy. Like the rest of the big tech overlords he is put in a role to do a job. Any system with which he is involved  building Google's data-gathering empire, its Nest surveillance, the Pentagon's AI or the Democrats' election preparations  is bent towards the same aim.

The State Corporatists know what they want and it is not a system emerging ad hoc from scientific debate or political negotiation. As James Corbett reminds us, in this video, the NWO-technocracy-global governance agenda is at least a century in the making.


The Great Reset: Do You Really Want To Go There?

Time to make an educated, perspicacious estimation of where this is heading. The following applies to most countries:

The pretext (problem):

  • Scientific data is being manipulated to drive public fear, out of all proportion to medical and health norms or recent hospital, infection or mortality rates.
  • Mask and social distancing rules have a clearly negative impact on social health.
  • Corporate interests are ‘informing’ government policy: from jabs to ‘immunity’ passports; facial recognition and software that tracks location and distance from other people; to paying hospitals for ‘finding’ Covid and intubating patients.
  • Corporate interests linked to the above censor social media for the ‘public good’.
  • Military and ad hoc bureaucratic committees censor information to encourage ‘consent’. The press is used to deliver wartime blanket propaganda.
  • Lockdowns are extended on numerous pretexts.

The process (reaction):

  • Rules are tweaked constantly, maximizing disruption and uncertainty perhaps with the intention of disguising the objective of preventing resistance.
  • Masks, distancing, gathering limits and even attempts to ban singing or speaking loudly, directly curb fundamental liberties.
  • Economic life is sharply curtailed, killing small and mid-size businesses and rendering the population dependent on government and corporations for support.
  • Military have been put on standby to assist police in maintaining order, to vaccinate the population forcibly (why else would the military be needed), and to isolate politicians from the public.
  • Concentration camps for vaccine resisters have been publicly discussed in countries like Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The silence of other countries like Britain speaks volumes (on the other hand Britain is rather small and previously used Australia as its holding pen for deplorables).
  • The Executive operates by diktat, rules, ‘mandates’ and the misuse of earlier laws. Only sometimes through legislation, often submitted to lawmakers retrospectively or at short notice.

Klaus Schwab's book is only the public shop window for The Great Reset. You need to look at the meetings of central bankers at Jackson Hole in Aug 2019 and, of course, the complete picture requires you go back at least to the founding of the Trilateral Commission in 1973.

The outcome (solution):

Several front organizations, mainly bankers and tech companies drive this part but the ideology is technocracy, as promoted by Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission (see second part of this article, Origins of Technocracy):

  • Food and farming is already disrupted, particularly meat but also soy and other forms of protein. Inevitable impact on diet. Some positive outcome likely, such as reduction in obesity, but may also impact brain health and intelligence.
  • Energy: Considerable shortfall if politicians implement plans to end use of hydrocarbons. Bio-fuel, solar and wind will make up a fraction of the difference, while plans for smart cities and 5G, electric cars and electric heating will massively increase demand.
  • Energy-based accounting could make many products uneconomic or expensive. Hard to estimate as governments may subsidize some items.
  • Innovation to suffer from move to a recycling-based economy where repurposing replaces manufacturing.
  • Service based economy will replace consumption. Personal ownership of cars may cease. Air travel may become a rarity.
  • Rationing and waiting lists are likely, as in the Soviet Union where people waited years to acquire a car (this time you may even wait to borrow a car). No private deals, all transactions to be public, not only tracked and surveilled but regulated. Those raised with electronic gadgets and battery-driven everything may experience material privation.
  • Regulation will see the biggest lifestyle changes. Residence permits will decide where you life. You will need a reason to travel. Social credit scores will determine your access to services.
  • Economic dependence, from income to spending. Jobs may be allocated, with limited choice of location, as in the former USSR.
  • Public services may be interrupted as government transition from tax-based system to energy credits and carbon offsets. Massive decline in wealth. Stuff not made is never regained.
  • Monetary system: Plan to replace money with energy-based credits.
  • Pensions, savings and assets may be lost, seized by government or compulsorily purchased and exchanged at a rate favourable to the authorities.

It seems clear to me where this is intended to lead. Those who willfully ignore reality will not be persuaded by words and we need to stop focusing on the small data. Yes is a fraud but perhaps it is intended to distract us. After all, it is only a pretext.

Do you want to go to this outcome? If not, now is the time to turn away.


Propaganda and Directing The Will

Edward Curtin does a disservice to propagandists: he credits them with being smart (such faint praise). Moreover he errs in assigning them the role of creating leaders, "a master, a prefabricated demigod."  This is not the propagandists' contribution. The leaders are chosen to fit archetypes. 

I can't remember who wrote it, but someone compared a generation of actors from the 1940s or 50s with those of our era. He demonstrated convincingly that each actor could be paired off with an archetypal character actor of the other generation. It's as if you went into a fruitier and requested two examples of each fruit, one fresh, the other dried and mummified. 

Propagandists would like to be thought of as progenitors of our political class but their skills lie elsewhere. They come along later to help burnish the legend. What they value above all -- and what they are valued for -- is the skill to implant a world view and then to switch it on a dime.

Propagandists are generally people with some talent for persuading others but who can't get a better job at what they truly desire: creating whole worlds for the movies, the television or novels in which they can rival the creator himself. So they use their skills to warp, sway and manipulate on behalf of their paymaster. 

They may work in newspapers or what we now call the panoply of media but their job, like a bodysuit of armour, is to defend and protect the state. Of course there are other propagandists who sell toilet tissue. They are better paid but receive less respect. 

You can't blame the people for falling for propaganda. If they didn't fall for it, it wouldn't be very effective propaganda.

To reprise my opening assertion, look at the crossover between novelists and intelligence services or, more specifically, a counterintelligence section that is concerned mostly with concocting narratives since gathering accurate information is so much harder (Christopher Steele, don't call us. We'll call you.)

There are struggling writers (Howard Hunt is a classic example) and those who achieved success (such as Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl) but more accurately we can say, "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em'." 

Event Covid and the uniform and relentless nature of messaging through Corporatist Media has laid bare the extent to which the organs influence journalists, and scientific and mainstream publishers. 

Again, this makes sense if you return to the roster of writers: in a meritocratic world there would be no efficient way to ensure the propagandist reached the target audience. By controlling to a practical degree publishers and broadcasters the organs can promote favoured voices to a pedestal and run the factories of spinners of yarn. 

Do the people seek divine masters? People listen to parental figures which is why totalitarian political systems are so quick to capture the youth and supplant parental authority. So-called progressivism does this. Parental authority is patriarchal and should be dismantled, it says. It doesn't talk about what will replace this patriarchy.

Totalitarians are not against hierarchies or father figures or even politburos full of men. They don't disdain the family, they see it as a rival. Likewise totalitarians are not against religion. They don't disdain God, they see God as a rival. 

Joseph Stalin once had a prayer recited to him each day in school. It was only later that Russian stubbornness persuaded him that he could not crush or replace the Orthodox church and so he set about infiltrating it.

The new cover of Jacobin magazine discusses this theme in pictorial form. 

Propagandists don't just serve up legends for leaders. They can give us each our own personal beliefs, a suite of attitudes that we like to believe are tailor made for us but which are really an off-the-peg suit. We imbibe many of our beliefs while growing up but the majority of our adult persona is worn like a coat and can be changed like one. The only difference between people is how much it pains them to change it. 

Many people wouldn't give it a second thought: fitting in is prized in schools; team players in corporations. The visible symbol of universities are the colours, just as with sports teams, horses and dogs. Conformity is not meant to begin and end with a scarf. 

Here lies the propagandist's trick. He needs you to be ready to switch your allegiance but only at a precise moment in response to an unmistakeable signal. How can people be fanatically roused against a rival team to the extent of going to war and yet about turn in full fury when the enemy is reassigned?

Curtin identifies the key skill and how it is used: "Propagandists’ ability to mesmerize the faithful has increase exponentially as the technological life has increased and been promoted as de rigueur." 

The key to controlling the public mind is not censorship but the replacement of thinking with feeling, exemplified by Orwell's Two Minutes Hate. The publishers, broadcasters and social media play this trick, not surprisingly, by assuming the shape and the belief-forming influence of parents. After all, at a young age we mirror our parents' outlook, driven by bonds of loyalty and emotion not logic.

So the propagandist-as-Mesmer presumes to share our emotions, and our envy and fear. His speech patterns are repetitive and reassuring. He quickly becomes a crutch to our laziness and, having formed an emotional bond, begins to suggest other attitudes we may like to adopt. The other end of propaganda which is marketing plays a role here: are you a Telegraph man or a Mail woman. Be informed, up to the minute, with stories of a reliable consistency of depth and taste: "Be sure to read..."

With this cheery or frightening hourly dose of information comes the mesmerizing: each of those stories is emotionally charged to some degree. By dialing up or down the emotional amperage, and attaching it to this or that topic, those people or their country yonder... the control is effected.

So it is not the appointing of an external deity but the control of our inner response that is the true grail of the propagandist.


Old New Year 2021 — Finding Inspiration in Words


The smog of lies hangs like a mask, 
Truth retches, twists as if she gasps
among these mills.

Her arms outstretched but finding strength
she tears the veil and clears the stench
as clouds unfold.

Our ancestors, they too were bound
yet struck their feet in Common ground
and did not cease!