What are we up against? How did we get here? What can we do about it? Presentation to the Think Twice Symposium

©Bob Moran, Not Our Future (2022)

Think Twice symposium, 20 January, 2023
Organised and chaired by Abir Ballan and Sinead Stringer
Panellists: Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Simon Elmer, Dr. Daniel Broudy, Dr. David Thunder

What are we up against?

When I started writing my book, The Road to Fascism, in February 2022, people I told about it were confused and even angry at my use of the word ‘fascism’ to describe the world being built on the justification of the coronavirus ‘crisis’. By the time I published it, last September, more readers understood why I had drawn this comparison with what happened in Europe a century ago, but said that we needed a new term. This week, in response to the extraordinary speeches coming out of the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, I asked, on my Twitter account, what word people would use to describe the future being planned for us by this terrorist and increasingly openly genocidal organisation. My question was meant rhetorically — as in: if this isn’t fascism, what is? It’s a testament to 50 years of neoliberal propaganda that some people, still, continue to describe what the WEF calls ‘stakeholder capitalism’ as ‘communism’ or ‘international socialism’ — this, despite the fact that the working model for this new political economy of Western capitalism is the COVID-19 Action Platform, which was launched by the WEF on the same day the World Health Organization declared the ‘pandemic’, and whose partners include more than 1,100 of the most powerful companies and banks in the world. Other answers to my question included ‘technocratic-feudalists’, ‘oligarch-sociopaths’, ‘corporatists’ and ‘plutocrats’. There are elements of truth in all these descriptions, but the most interesting answer I received was that the word ‘fascism’ is too weak a word to describe what we are facing.

The term I was invited to discuss today, however, has a more descriptive and less emotive value, and that is ‘totalitarianism’. It doesn’t seem to me contestable that the aims, at least, of Digital Identity, Central Bank Digital Currency, Universal Basic Income, a system of Social Credit, Sustainable Development Goals, Environmental, Social and corporate Governance Criteria, the Pandemic Prevention, Response and Preparedness treaty, 15-minute Cities, Artificial Intelligence, Facial Recognition technology, the Internet of Things and the Internet of Bodies, and all the other programmes and technologies of the Great Reset of Western Capitalism, are totalitarian control over the populations, governments and economies of the world.

However, the evidence for the totalitarianism of the Global Biosecurity State in formation is not only in its programmes and regulations that are fundamentally changing the social contract between citizen and state, but also in the changes in the new social practices and behaviours, the new meanings and values, the new relationships and kinds of relationships embraced by the populations subjected to the past three years of terror. It’s on these changes in ideology as much as the changes to our laws and state infrastructure — both of which are being expanded and entrenched by multiple manufactured ‘crises’ — that the new totalitarianism of global governance has risen without significant challenge.

Whether or not we are living in a totalitarian system of governance doesn’t seem to me to be the most important question confronting us today. The political theorist, Hannah Arendt, argued that, although the programmes and regulations of the Third Reich began to be implemented as soon as Hitler was appointed Chancellor, Germany didn’t become a properly totalitarian society until 1939, when the war gave the NSDAP Government the cover it needed to perpetrate its crimes against humanity on an international scale. I would argue that, since 9/11 and the colonisation of neoliberal democracies by the US model of the National Security State, we have been living in the West in a proto-totalitarian society; but that the so-called ‘war’ on COVID — which has been followed by the equally chimerical ‘war’ on global warming and now the ‘war’ on Russia — provided the cover for the international technocracies and national governments of Western capitalism to implement what it is now a properly totalitarian society.

That doesn’t mean it is complete. There is no such thing as a definition of totalitarianism to which a society must adhere before it can be called ‘totalitarian’. Numerous definitions have been put forward to do just that, but these are a product either of the fetishism of academic discourse and its refusal to look at the present or of a deliberate political strategy often employing the former. There are different forms of totalitarianism just as there are different degrees of their formation.

I would argue, therefore, that the most important question we are facing today is not whether the global biosecurity state is ‘totalitarian’, but the following:

• What forms of surveillance, control and domination is the Global Biosecurity State imposing on us?
• What are its immediate aims and long-term goals?
• How will it go about implementing and enforcing them?
• What scientific discourses, legal framework and political strategies will it employ to do so?
• What changes to our current and already residual forms of government will this process entail?
• How will this process differ according to country, nation, ideology and culture?
• How are the unquestionable, institutionalised and increasingly legally enforced orthodoxies of woke being deployed as the official ideology of Western capitalism?
• How has this subsumed potential opposition from, for example, the Left into eager collaboration?
• What models will the new totalitarianism adopt from the past (e.g. The Third Reich and Stalinist USSR) and the present (China and the USA)?
• Will the Global Biosecurity State operate within the existing geo-political framework of West and East, or must it be implemented on what contemporary leaders in the West are describing as a ‘unipolar’ axis of power?
• Does that mean something like a Third World War, and if so between which nations, economies and militaries?
• Who and what are the primary drivers of this policy?
• What organisations of global governance are fronting them, and what economic forces are driving them?
• And, most importantly of all, what are the possibilities and realities of opposing this new form of totalitarianism?

These, it seems to me, are some of the questions raised by the Global Biosecurity State.

How did we get here?

The short answer is, through fifty years of neoliberalism, which among many other disasters produced the following:

1. Neoliberalism oversaw the triumph of finance capitalism over commodity production as the dominant model of capitalism in the West, and with it the vast increase of the wealth and power of central banks and financial asset managers over national governments, and the increasing influence of ‘dirty money’ and the deep state it funds over the global economy.
2. Either by privatising them, becoming their primary or sole source of funding, or through pushing through legal restrictions on their agency, neoliberalism removed the political, judical, media, civil, union, medical, educational and cultural institutions in which resistance to this globalist coup might have found an organisational, institutional or legislative foothold, instead of which, all these institutions have collaborated unreservedly, willingly, eagerly and obediently.
3. Neoliberalism enabled the rise of information technology companies to become five of the ten wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the world, which now have increasing control over the content of our media, our education and cultural industries, our parliament (which has become the weekly theatre to the daily soap opera of social media), our government and therefore over our politics and ideology.
4. As a result, neoliberalism prepared this revolution in Western capitalism from the nation state and the sovereignty of parliament as the final arbiter of the laws under which national populations live, to the rise of a technocratic form of global governance implementing the programmes of stakeholder capitalism, in which international corporations and banks set the policies implemented by national governments and enforced by all the forces disposed of by the state.

It is on the basis of what the National Socialists in the 1930s called the ‘co-ordination [Gleichschaltung]’ of every sector of Western society, economic, political, legal, technological and cultural, that the totalitarianism of the Global Biosecurity State has been constructed in less than three years. This is what we are up against.

What can we do about it?

As more people have come to the awareness of what we are facing, more and more have asked what we can do about it. The big answer is that we need to overthrow this system of politics and economics, and we need to create a new system of politics and economics. But that’s a very big answer, the most common effect of which is to convince those asking the question that they can’t do anything at all. So we need smaller answers. These are some of them.

1. Non-compliance (individual)

• Never observe ‘social distancing’.
• Never wear a mask.
• Never comply with any of the requirements of ‘contact tracing’.
• Stop using so-called ‘smart’ phones, which are tracking devices.
• Never get tested with an PCR test or any other test that establishes our biosecurity status.
• Never get injected with experimental gene therapies.
• Never use any form of Digital Identity imposed under whatever guise.
• Never pay and always challenge the legality of fixed penalty notices.
• Know the limits of law enforcement (the time of not knowing UK law and our protected rights and freedoms is over).
• Know our employment rights and challenge any attempt to interfere with them (by, for example, asking for a risk assessment on mask mandates).
• Always use cash and human cashiers and boycott businesses that don’t accept or use either.
• Withhold consent for our children to be injected, re-gendered or transitioned by schools, clinics and hospitals, and make it clear to them they do not have the right to make that choice for us or to encourage our children to do so behind our backs.
• Defend the privacy of our homes from illegal entry by the police or council officers or so-called ‘COVID marshals’.
• And whenever we can, publicly demonstrate our rights and freedoms (e.g. by covering the cameras at the checkouts of supermarkets when using them). The cowards in Parliament have forgotten the meaning of the term, but the statue of the suffragette Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square is holding a sign saying: ‘Courage calls to courage everywhere’. Make that call.

2. Civil disobedience (collective)

• Attend demonstrations, the aim of which isn’t to get reported in the media that continues to censor us while granting global coverage to every corporate-funded activist for Just Stop Oil. They’re about supporting those who are under financial and emotional strain for taking a stand.
• Attend meetings in which we can discuss what we are banned from discussing on social media.
• Create organisations of resistance for what is coming next. There is nothing to stop what is happening in China now from happening to us in the near future.
• Unionise our business, office, workshop or factory. We’re seeing what the Labour-affiliated unions are doing now with the widespread industrial strikes in the travel and health industries, which demonstrates what they could have done against the imposition of masking, lockdown and mandatory injections. That doesn’t mean we can’t unionise ourselves against the re-imposition of these restrictions, and against the future imposition of equally fundamentalist environmentally-justified restrictions on our movement, labour, consumption, etc.
• Create mutually-supporting networks to share information and practices.
• Educate ourselves and others, and never assume that because we know what is happening others do too or to the same extent. Those who get their understanding of the world from the mainstream media know almost nothing about what is happening and about to happen. There is a growing amount of information available now compared to the dark days of 2020.
• In furtherance of which, produce and disseminate counter propaganda that turns that information into an accessible form for those who don’t have the time or ability or disposition to read it.
• Leaflet homes and businesses (see Not Our Future’s model of exponential sharing). When the Online Safety Bill is made law, social media as a forum of debate will effectively be over, and we need to create other means to communicate with and mobilise each other. Most of us have lived most of our lives dependent upon our chains to feel their rattling on others’ wrists. If we’re to free ourselves from them, we need something else to connect us.
• Testify whenever we can, and to as many people as we can, about the negative effects of lockdown, police brutality, censorship, being injected, being fired for non-compliance, etc. Giving voice to our experiences will free the voices of others bullied and scared into silence.
• Create independent economies (with bitcoin, etc.), which Central Bank Digital Currency, among other things, has been created to destroy.
• Collective food production and off-grid energy production.
• Form a collective militia to defend against what is happening in China now and will eventually happen here. Groups that, for example, form protests or carry placards by roadsides or break into ‘vaccination’ clinics or vandalise 5G masts are going to have to become more militant. For example, some groups are already destroying the street-level infrastructure of the illegally imposed ‘15-minute cities’.

3. Reclaim the politics of friendship (societal)

During Nikita Krushchev’s famous speech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956, in which he denounced the crimes of Stalin and his use of terror, a heckler shouted out: ‘You were his comrade, why didn’t you stop him?’ Krushchev barked back: ‘Who said that?’ No hand, of course, was raised to identify the speaker. Krushchev continued quietly: ‘Now you know why I didn’t stop him.’ This cowardice to confront tyranny has returned today in every Parliament in every nominally neoliberal democracy of the West.

Last month, nearly three years into the ‘pandemic’, when a Member of the UK Parliament finally found the courage to point out that more people have reported adverse reactions to mRNA injections for COVID-19 than had from all the other vaccines combined over the previous forty years, and called on our unelected Prime Minister to halt the UK ‘vaccination’ programme, his comments were universally condemned by his fellow MPs, first as ‘dangerous’ and then as ‘anti-Semitic’, and the MP himself, Andrew Bridgen, was dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theorist’, accused of sexual harassment, suspended from Parliament for breaking rules on lobbying (which is a bit like handing out speeding tickets at Silverstone), and eventually expelled from his Party.

In 1959, Hannah Arendt gave a talk titled ‘On Humanity in Dark Times’. Delivered 8 years after the publication of her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, it was her chance to reflect further on how a new beginning can germinate within a totalitarian world, and she did so around a discussion on the politics of friendship, which she elevates in this text to a political relationship both to others and to the world in which we live with others.

Arendt argued that, for the Ancient Greeks, friendship among citizens was one of the fundamental requirements for the well-being of the city state on which Western democracy is based. This concept of friendship, however, is different from that held by the individual in modern or even our postmodern times. For us, friendship is experienced as the intimacy in which we escape our alienation from the world through sharing the details of our private life in face-to-face encounters. Friendship, for us, is the opposite of our public lives within the social and political realm. But for the Ancient Greeks, citizens were only united in a polis — only constituted this public realm — in the constant interchange of talk. The essence of friendship, therefore, consisted in discourse.

It is, I think, a measure of the political potential of this concept of friendship that, for the two years during which we lived under restrictions on our freedoms justified by a politically declared ‘pandemic’, friendship was under unrelenting attack by the state. The space of friendship has been explicitly targeted by biosecurity ‘measures’ that continue to instruct us to maintain social distancing, are trying to erase our faces behind a permanently-worn mask, encourage us to see others as a threat to our health and lives, instructed people to remain in their homes for months on end, have normalised working from home for the middle-classes, still promotes online interaction over personal relations, and more generally and progressively is removing our access to the world in which we live, and whose colonisation by the Global Biosecurity State we have been banned from discussing.

This attack, which continues to this day, has resulted in the widespread breakdown of relationships between the compliant and the non-compliant that has extended from friends and colleagues to families, dividing husbands from wives, parents from children, brothers from sisters. Perhaps most importantly, the concerted assault on friendship by the biosecurity state has served this political form most explicitly in the enforced ban on discussing the New Normal into which we’ve been forced without debate in our Parliament, in our media, and largely in the absence of discussion among ourselves.

The discourse between citizens about the world, that the Ancient Greeks identified as the foundation to the well-being of the state, has not only been repressed but is now criminalised on the justification of that ‘common good’ by which biosecurity has been accorded an absolute value over the now subsidiary values of citizenship, friendship, freedom of speech and democracy. Perhaps the most distinctive character of the consensus on which the UK biosecurity state has been built in a little over two-and-a-half years is the willingness of the vast majority of the population, of almost all our so-called intellectuals and all our politicians, not merely to submit to censorship but to abandon critical thinking.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the regulations of biosecurity have targeted precisely this political dimension of friendship, since it is on the erasure of the political — of that constant debate on which the democratic polis is founded — that the trans-human programmes and technologies of the Global Biosecurity State are being implemented.

If we are to formulate a ‘future politics’ that will, first of all, help us to retain our humanity and, one day, overcome the totalitarian world intent on destroying it, we must start by reclaiming the political dimension of friendship. Without forgetting or, for my part, forgiving, we must continue to try to speak to those who refuse to speak to us, listen to those who long ago shut their ears to anything but the lies and threats of their superiors, and try to educate and persuade those who were and still are willing to ban us from their society for our lack of belief in their fundamentalist dogma. Because if we don’t, fascism will more surely triumph than it will, perhaps, do so anyway, even if we do.

From the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, 2023

The World Economic Forum is an increasingly overtly fascist organisation intent on implementing the technocratic rule of a global government enforcing totalitarian programmes of surveillance and control over the populations of nation states. But don’t believe me, listen to its contributors.

Klaus Schwab, the Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum with a net worth estimated between $25-100 million,  having previously predicted that ‘global energy systems, food system and supply chains’ will be ‘deeply affected’ by ‘systemic and structural changes’ to the global economy, declared that we have to ‘master the future’.

Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the unelected European Commission and Agenda Contributor to the World Economic Forum, predicted that we are facing the ‘greatest industrial transformation of our times and maybe of any time’, and said that ‘those who develop the technology that will be the foundation of the future economy will have the greatest competitive edge’.

Albert Bourla, the Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world, and Agenda Contributor to the World Economic Forum with a net worth of $42 million, announced that messenger RNA gene therapies sold and mandated as ‘vaccines’ for both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza combined will be released to governments later this year.

Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of the UK, war criminal, founder of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change with a net worth of £50 million and Agenda Contributor to the World Economic Forum tipped to succeed Schwab as Director, called for a ‘national digital infrastructure’ for the healthcare systems of not just the UK but of all countries, whether they want it or not.

Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Labour Party, promised that if he becomes Prime Minister of the UK, the state will work actively with the private sector to take advantage of the ‘single biggest opportunity we’ve been given in a long time to transition to the future’.

Christopher Wray, Director of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and former attorney worth $23-42 million, boasted that the ‘collaboration between the US Government and the private sector’ had made ‘significant strides’ in the ‘opportunities’ provided by new surveillance technologies.

Jim Hagemann Snabe, the Chairman of Siemens, the largest industrial manufacturing company in Europe, and Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum, called not for a reduction in production and profits, but for a ‘billion people to stop eating meat’.

Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft with a net worth of $350 millon and Agenda Contributor to the World Economic Forum, said the company is producing software to measure the carbon footprint of small businesses, so that banks can grant loans contingent upon their compliance with criteria of ‘sustainability’ set by multinational asset managers.

John Kerry, the US Presidential Envoy for Climate Change with a net worth of $250 million and Agenda Contributor to the World Economic Forum, observed that the fact the ‘select few’ at Davos have the power to ‘save the planet’ is ‘extra-terrestrial’.

Al Gore, the former US Vice President, Board Member of Apple and senior advisor to Google with a net worth of $300 million and Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum, threatened us with ‘rain bombs’, ‘boiling oceans’ and a billion ‘climate refugees’ that will take away our ‘capacity for self-governance’ — unless we ‘ACT NOW!’

Volodmyr Zelenskyy, the former comedian and dancer and current puppet President of the Ukraine whose government was installed in 2014 by a US-engineered political coup, called on the ‘whole world’ to oppose ‘evil’ and the exporting of ‘terror’ by Russia.

Simon Elmer
Architects for Social Housing