A Critical Assessment of the Feminist Case for Occupying Afghanistan


Official narratives coming from the White House and media are stating that American president Joe Biden is fully withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and ending the 20 year war on the country. Many neoconservative pundits are condemning this decision and essentially arguing for permanent occupation. However, another group not associated with neoconservative ideology have also been advancing an argument for the essentially permanent occupation of Afghanistan: feminists. This article will offer a critical assessment of the feminist case for the occupation of Afghanistan.

What is the Feminist Case for Occupation?

Many feminists are making the case that Afghanistan needs to continue to be occupied by Western military forces in order ‘to protect women and girls from the Taliban’. While this commentary is common among war hawks, some individuals who are critical of the mainstream (at least in some respects) are also making this argument.

One example is Marianne Williamson, a critic of some elements of the establishment who nevertheless ran in the Democratic Party Primary in 2019-2020. She posted the following on Twitter, referring to the situation in Afghanistan.

Tolerance of systemic violence against women can’t be justified in the name of anti-imperialism, helping other human beings isn’t “a savior complex,” and leaving the most powerless & desperate people to fend for themselves in the hour of their agony isn’t political sophistication

This kind of sentiment is common among feminist and gender critical accounts, many of whom are anonymous. I am going to discuss three key problems with this argument: historical ignorance, whitewashing war crimes, and reinforcing misleading official narratives.

Problem #1: Historical Ignorance

The first problem with this argument is that it ignores historical context, and particularly the role the West has played in undermining women’s rights in Afghanistan.

On the 27th April 1978, there was a political change of power in Afghanistan, known as the Saur Revolution. This brought left wing groups to power, and they sought sweeping changes to the way Afghan society functioned. One of the ways in which they did this was to get rid of misogynistic laws and to create a more equal legal basis for women.

However, the West opposed the Saur Revolution, because it was a leftist government that would prevent future imperialist exploitation of the country. They sought to destroy this government. They also wanted to bait the Soviet Union into military intervention there and thus create the ‘Soviet Vietnam’ – which would squander Soviet resources and bog them down in an unwinnable conflict.

The US decided to do this by funding reactionary Islamist fighters called the Mujahideen. This CIA operation was known as ‘Operation Cyclone’. The Mujahideen has the same ideology as the Taliban – reactionary, misogynistic, homophobic, and demanding compliance to Islamic law. Not only do they have the same ideology, but some of the same individuals:

Notably, the Taliban’s own top negotiator of this new [Trump] “peace” deal, Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, was among those trained and armed as part of the Mujahideen force created during Operation Cyclone.

The fact that Western countries were more than willing to support Islamic fundamentalism when it suited them geopolitically demonstrates that the idea of promoting women’s rights is a Western fraud.

Problem #2: Whitewashing Western War Crimes

The feminist case for occupation of Afghanistan also has has an (implicit) tenet that Western intervention is basically benign. This ignores the reality of war crimes committed in Afghanistan. This narrative essentially erases the war crimes from existence.

We know about the multitude of offenses committed by Western troops and companies in Afghanistan due to the Afghan war logs and US diplomatic cables, material leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning to Wikileaks journalist Julian Assange.

This information showed the reality of the war, and its unwelcome disclosure led to the imprisonment and torture of Manning and Assange.

Let’s look at some examples. One crime that was discovered thanks to the disclosure of these documents involved the Dyncorp corporation. The business had helped arrange ‘dancing boys’ for Afghan warlords – meaning underage boys to be raped by these warlords as part of Afghan traditional practices.

The Afghan puppet government was concerned about the exposure of this fact, as the cable refers to the ‘Kunduz Dyncorp problem’.

On the Kunduz Regional Training Center (RTC) DynCorp event of April 11 (reftel), Atmar reiterated his insistence that the U.S. try to quash any news article on the incident or circulation of a video connected with it. He continued to predict that publicity would “endanger lives.” He disclosed that he has arrested two Afghan police and nine other Afghans as part of an MoI investigation into Afghans who facilitated this crime of “purchasing a service from a child.” 

This is far from the only crime perpetrated in Afghanistan. Here is one example that involved the Polish contingent:

The day centered around consequence management plans and actions regarding the PBG [Polish Battle Group] mortar incident in Waza Kwah (Naghar Khel village) yesterday evening which killed 6 LN [Local Nationals] and wounded 3 LN. A detailed report is in the Political section.

The detailed report goes on to clarify that 4 of the people killed were children. When addressed, the village said:

The crowd was flabbergasted at how the CF [Coalition Forces] could fire on a village with women, children and old men without cause (i.e. no fire coming from the village) using mortars in an attempt to hit Taliban insurgents instead of coming up to the village and questioning the owners on the presence of insurgents.

This is just one example of civilians being killed during this conflict.

Problem #3: Failing to Question the Official Narrative

Uncritically believing what the mainstream media reports is a terrible idea, given that they twist the truth on any and every topic.

The first point that can be raised regarding official narratives is that the argument that ‘we need to remain in Afghanistan to protect the women and girls’ is itself an official narrative. A CIA document, leaked to Wikileaks, about shoring up support for war in France and Germany states that:

Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing the ISAF role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory. Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission.

Furthermore, the way that the media presents the Afghanistan withdrawal itself is highly misleading. In an article for OffGuardian, Kit Knightly points out the continuing presence of mercenary forces in Afghanistan, and the fact that air strikes will continue. Knightly concludes:

“Private security firms” will carry out “targeted anti-terrorist operations”, or “precision strikes” will take out “known international criminals”…but no one will use the word “war”.

The US troops might be leaving the borders of Afghanistan, but the Imperial influence will remain, the corporate exploitation will continue, the fire will still fall from the sky, and there will be no peace.


The war in Afghanistan is a conflict that has always been about geopolitical and economic motivations, for example, the profits to be made from rare earth metals and opium. The framing of human rights is merely a shield for these fundamental interests. To argue that we need to remain in Afghanistan ‘to protect women and girls’ ignores those killed in Western war crimes and how the West sought to undermine women’s rights in Afghanistan, as well as uncritically affirming misleading narratives about reality on the ground.

Unite for Freedom March 28th August 2021

So I finally, after months of saying I was going to go to one of the big anti-medical tyranny protests in London, actually went to one.

I arrived at Hyde Park about 1 o’clock, so most of the crowd had already gathered at this point. I don’t want to hazard a guess as to the size. Later on, I filmed some of it walking past but I don’t think I got close to the actual size.

The approach taken by the organisers this time was a march throughout London (a long one at that). There was criticism of the last event for having speakers not likely to appeal to ordinary people (such as Gareth Icke) and having the same line up as a year ago. It was also criticised for bringing up issues that don’t seem obviously related to medical tyranny to the ordinary person.

I don’t know the organisers, but I would guess that they took this criticism into account when organising this protest. There were no speakers this time, just a march that lasted from 1.15 until 4.00. The advertising also seemed a bit more focussed on specifically vaccine passports and medical tyranny. Before the march, there were also people handing out free t-shirts stating ‘Against Vaccine Passports’ (this is the website). Quite a few people had them on. It did make the message a bit more focussed, although the signs still varied.

I ended up near the front of the march because I arrived near dead last.

The walking route from Hyde Park to Clapham Common is quite long anyway, over an hour apparently. The route taken by the march was not the most direct one, as it went via The Oval and Brixton.

The march started off going through Wellington Arch.

I don’t exactly know what route the march took, all I can say is that I wasn’t familiar with the landmarks. Which doesn’t mean much as I’m not a Londoner.

Instead I will offer some reflections on the march.

The mainstream media like to portray people who are sceptical of the Official Covid Narrative as fitting into a particular box – generally middle-aged white people sympathetic to Brexit (or ‘Gammons’ as they are mocked by the woke brigade). Having attended this march, and other previous anti-lockdown events in Birmingham, this is not true. The mix of people was pretty broad, including all ages and races and different religions.

As far as I could tell there were also different political ideologies at the march – though of course you cannot tell political ideologies by looking at people. Right wing people were more prominent in the symbols displayed. There were a couple of pro-Trump flags and the Heritage Party – led by David Kurten – were also in attendance. There were also a few signs referring to medical tyranny as ‘communism’ – though also some (more accurately) analogising medical tyranny to Nazism.* The established left wing groups – as I have pointed out in previous articles – are supporters of medical tyranny making any left wing presence there much less obvious. But there were a few indications of anarchist presense there as well. Independent media – such as UK Column and 21 Wire – were also represented in the tshirts. Most people did not seem to be promoting a specific ideology.

The second impression that mainstream media likes to give of people sceptical of the Official Covid Narrative is that they are a crazy mob of people that are full of hatred and want people to die. Again, this is not true. I saw no examples of violence or any aggression towards police or bystanders. There were a few examples of a random person from the march telling people to take off the mask, that is the most ‘aggressive’ that it got.

The third impression the mainstream media likes to give is that people who question the narrative are an extreme lunatic fringe. Again, this is not true. Of course there were people there who believe in ‘conspiracy theories’ that the general public reject (or even that I personally reject).

However, most passersby seemed either neutral towards the march or supportive of it. There were several examples of bystanders cheering the march that I saw, however I saw no examples of hostility such as people calling us covidiots, anti-vaxxers, or any other slurs used by the mainstream media. Now, of course, individuals could have thought that privately and not expressed that view.

In terms of the approach to the protest, I think that a march may have helped to get the anti-vaccine passport message out to more people. It would have been helpful, however, for the organisers to have announced where the march was going to end up beforehand. I did not know where I was going, which is why I stayed relatively near the front, and the only plan I had to get home was hoping that I ended up by a Tube station. Fortunately Clapham Common is on the Northern Charing Cross route so it was okay in the end, but it would have been much more convienient to know, especially for people with disabilities.

To close I will state that footage of the march is available on my Bitchute account.

[*End note: I know that someone will try to strawman this argument and claim that I am saying that Boris Johnson is Hitler, or disrespecting the Holocaust by stating this opinion. What I mean specifically by stating that this analogy is more accurate is that both Nazi Germany and modern medical tyranny demonise a group of people as unclean disease spreaders that infect the body politic with their mere presense.]

Dr. Fauci, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Big Pharma


In a previous article, entitled ‘Big Pharma is no different from any other capitalist corporation’, I discussed the realities of Big Pharma in relation to the Official Covid Narrative. Pharmaceutical corporations have a vested interest in pushing the idea that we all need a Sars-Cov-2 vaccination, as that makes them more profits. The left, however, has fallen for the Official Covid Narrative – believing that what Big Pharma says is true. Some people who I considered critics of mainstream narratives – such as Graham Elwood – are now promoting vaccine passports. This article hopes to explore the reasons why the left now promotes ‘the science’ that is advocated by the establishment that they claim to oppose.

Kto Kogo?

The fundamental problem is that the left has failed to ask the question: ‘Science for what class?’

The category of ‘science’ can only exist within a particular society. Therefore, the way that the term science is perceived, interpreted, and promoted varies based upon the values of that society.

This is not to claim that science is entirely subjective or none of it is based in reality. It is not to take the position that gravity is not real, the extreme position mocked by Alan Sokal in his famous 1996 parody article in Social Text.

My argument is that what is considered ‘science’ is to varying degrees subject to the effects of the class structure. On a topic that is non political and not subject to profit motives and ideology, such as the topic of gravity, science is much more objective. On issues where profit motives and the ideologies bolstering the profit motives are in play, science is affected by these and often becomes a justification for the social order rather than objective.

This is seen in the racist and sexist ‘science’ of 19th century Britain. Studies of humanity were used to bolster capitalism and imperialism. Racist ‘science’ sought to argue for the inferiority of the African and Native American man as compared to the white man. The skulls of African and Native American men were said to ‘prove’ their inferiority to white men. Sexist arguments posited that women were incapable of studying due to menstruation.

People today – or most of them at least – can recognise this racist and sexist nonsense as pseudoscientific, merely designed to prop up a racist imperial state and to justify sexist laws such as coverture. To see our modern concepts of science as magically immune to similar biases is naïve, especially given the development of the medical industrial complex.

Medical science is an area that is especially vulnerable to societal biases, due to the profit motive and the aftereffects of its origins. Modern medical science evolved out of patriarchal institutions and ideologies. To secure the dominance of the male doctor, traditional female healers were denigrated as ‘witches’ and violently oppressed. Women’s bodies were – and still are – belittled by medical science, who see men as the default kind of human being and women as an ‘extra’. Modern capitalism was able to pick up on the developments within science and turn it into a billions-dollar industry known as Big Pharma.

The Left’s Failure to See This Reality

The left has utterly failed to consider this aspect of the Covid 19 Narrative. Instead they parrot the phrase ‘follow the science’. Why has the left failed to see the reality of ‘the science’ as a weapon wielded in a class war against the working class?

I argued in a previous article that the UK Modern Left has been duped by the Covid Narrative for a few reasons: Boris Johnson’s effective reverse psychology, the conceit of compassion, and the lack of connection to material reality (being from privileged backgrounds, they act as if lockdowns are consequence-free).

This analysis is still relevant, although there are further points to consider when assessing why the left sees the ‘science’ as an inherently objective phenomenon. One reason for this is that the left likes to see itself as the rational ones, who support science as against the right wing who are science deniers. This has manifested on the atheist left (though also among some on the anti-woke right such as Sargon of Akkad). This aspect is more notable in American politics due to the religious nature of much of the American right, where a sharp contrast is drawn between the ‘rational’ left/liberals and the ‘irrational, God-fearing’ right. This distinction has continued into the Trump era despite the undermining of religion (to a degree) as the basis of the culture wars.

There are other issues in which the ‘science-based’ rational left contrasts itself with the ‘science denier’ right wing, in particular the issue of climate change. The left talks about the scientific consensus that climate change is real, whereas the right that are more sceptical of climate change are dismissed as irrational science deniers.

While relevant, however, I do not believe that this is the main factor in driving the leftist obsession with ‘the science’ as some sort of inherently objective bulwark that needs to be followed without question.

In order to assess this question, we need to return to the issue of the denial of material reality.

The weaknesses in analysis on material issues affect the UK Modern left, as discussed in my articles on their support for lockdowns and transgender ideology, and the US left, as outlined in my article about their ignoring of the censorship of women for stating biological reality.

The fact that the modern left is weak on class analysis means that they are more likely to see science as an objective endeavour. A grounding in class analysis would give a multitude of examples of science being used as a weapon, that many of these people would acknowledge when they are historical. This weakness on the issue of class analysis is also linked to the fact that people from these media outlets are in a relatively privelged position economically, which can also skew perspectives in a more pro-establishment direction.

The cult of the science also puts a psedo-materialist gloss on the failings of these left wing groups to successfully analyse material reality. Because ‘science’ as an endeavour is meant to be based upon material reality, uncritical belief in the science shields the lack of effective material analysis from scrutiny.


The modern left’s detachment from material reality helps to drive forward their uncritical belief in ‘the science’ as an objective tool of analysis. This means that they fail to condier the relevance of the question ‘science for what class’?

The Unmooring of Identity and Klaus Schwab’s Promotion of Transhumanism


Martine Rothblatt, a transsexual-transhumanist planted the seeds to foster a legal construct of disembodiment as identity, forged out of his paraphilia of owning female biology for himself, in the 1980’s. The advancement of his ideology that seeks to deconstruct sexual dimorphism in effort to cultivate the social and legal groundwork for melding humanity to AI, is too big a leap for many people to make.  “Gender Identity” is a bridge to get you there.

Jennifer Bilek

The word ‘identity’ and the phrase ‘I identify as…’ have become buzzwords in the West due to gender identity ideology, the idea that we all have an innate gender identity. This ideology has glamourised the idea of individual identity in society. Critics of transgender ideology, particularly Jennifer Bilek, have demonstrated that gender identity is being promoted in order to normalise transhumanism. This article connects the notion of gender identity as a transhumanist trojan horse with the ideas of Klaus Schwab, one of the main players using the Covid-19 narrative as a means to push transhumanism.

What is an ‘identity’?

We can start this analysis by looking at what the word identity actually means. There are several dictionary definitions which reflect the different aspects of this word.

The Free Dictionary gives the following (relevant) definitions of the word ‘identity’:

1. a. The condition of being a certain person or thing: What is the identity of the author of the manuscript?

b. The set of characteristics by which a person or thing is definitively recognizable or known: “The identity of the nation had … been keenly contested in the period of nationalist opposition to Imperial rule” (Judith M. Brown).

c. The awareness that an individual or group has of being a distinct, persisting entity: “He felt more at home thousands of miles from Britain than he did in an English village four miles from his home … Was he losing his identity?” (Robert Fallon).

The first definition is an objective definition. In the question ‘What is the identity of the author of the manuscript?’ the answer must be a specific person(s). This question would generally be answered with something like ‘Plato is the author of the manuscript.’

The second definition can be objective or subjective. For example, when talking about an object being ‘definitively recognisable or known’ through a set of characteristics, the set of characteristics are observable objectively. If we are talking about a concept such as ‘the identity of the nation’ however, that is somewhat subjective. No doubt several different individuals could give differing answers to a question about the ‘identity of the nation’.

The third definition is even more subjective, as it involves an individual awareness or a ‘group awareness’. The individual awareness of being a ‘distinct, persisting entity’ can start with the Descartes phrase ‘I Think, Therefore I Am.’ (at least if we believe in ego!). Once we get beyond that, however, the term ‘identity’ gets more subjective. Further conceptions of ‘identity’ based on our enduring characteristics can be real, delusional, or a mixture of the two.

The Subjectification of Identity

The key plank of transgender ideology is the idea of gender identity. The idea of gender identity (in theory) is based upon our third definition of identity: having a distinct and persisting feeling of being a particular gender.

NSPCC defines Gender Identity as:

Gender identity is a way to describe how someone feels about their gender. For example, some people may identify as a boy or a girl, while others may find neither of these terms feel right for them, and identify as neither or somewhere in the middle.

In their conception, a ‘trans’ person is someone who does not ‘identify with their gender assigned at birth’ and a ‘cis’ person is someone who does ‘identify with their gender assigned at birth’.

This concept means nothing. Every even hypothetically coherent defining factor of gender identity is rejected by transgender activists.

The most obvious possible definition of gender identity is the performance of masculine and feminine stereotypes. This is admitted by some transgender-identified people, for example, Blaire White in this interview with Benjamin Boyce, states explicitly that his ‘transition’ was about not fitting into a stereotypical masculine role.

This definition is also implicitly used by transgender activists. For example, the ACLU, an organisation that has morphed from defending free speech to being obsessed with transgenderism due to a particularly loopy trans-identified female, Chase Strangio, promotes ‘trans kids’. These ‘trans kids’ are defined by gender stereotypes. For example, the ACLU posted a video from the father of a ‘trans girl’ who states that his son is a girl because of his like for stereotypically feminine toys, etc. There are lots more examples of this, see this article by Lily Maynard.

However, if you were to ask a trans activist, they would deny it is about gender stereotypes. This is seen in memes such as ‘Non-Binary people don’t owe you androgyny’ – the idea that being non-binary is not about presentation but an inner essence. This article from Everyday Feminism also explicitly denies the connection between expression and identity. (Of course, gender stereotypes/expression cannot lead to an objective and unchangeable ‘gender identity’ definition since stereotypes and modes of dress are changeable).

Once this is rejected as a definition, we could fall back on the idea of gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the feeling that one is in the ‘wrong body’, the desire to ‘live as the opposite sex’. Whether or not someone has gender dysphoria, however, is rejected by transgender activists and ideology as a basis for gender identity. They claim that gender dysphoria is not necessary to have a trans identity. Even if they did attempt to argue that gender dysphoria means a different gender identity, this logic would not follow, as the existence of discomfort with a sexed body does not prove that gender identity is a valid construct.

The only criteria that trans activists have for being transgender, non-binary or any other gender identity is simply to claim that gender identity. Essentially, we have a ‘distinct, persistent’ feeling that is based on absolutely nothing objective – by their own arguments. This is different from my ‘feeling’ that I am a woman because of biological fact, as this is grounded is reality.  We have identity unmoored, identity as entirely, completely abstract.

The Promotion of Transhumanism

Klaus Schwab is the leader of an organisation called the World Economic Forum. The WEF is a powerful global organisation, that has been put under a large amount of scrutiny during the alleged Covid-19 pandemic for its promotion of vaccine passports. The WEF also promotes Smart Cities – cities where every device is hooked up to a massive Internet of Things and where everything is managed and surveilled by AI. At first glance, Klaus Schwab appears to have nothing to do with the discussion regarding transgender identity.

However, Schwab is also attempting to reconstruct the word ‘identity’ to unmoor it from biological reality. There is one line from Schwab which is very interesting, that has been reposted and replayed multiple times on sites critical of the WEF:

What the the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.

Of course, this quote is advocating transhumanism, a position Schwab is passionate about.

The interesting point here is how this sentence is constructed. He does not say ‘The fourth industrial revolution will be a fusion between ourselves and technology’ which would be the most obvious expression of this idea. No, he specifically chooses the word ‘identity’, as if human beings are not actually biological beings based in the natural world but a collection of identities.

Like in the transgender construction, our bodies are merely a ‘physical identity’. In the same way as a transgender identified person takes hormones and has surgeries to change their physical identity, we will all fuse our biology with our online personas, our abstract unmoored selves that can be reinvented at will. (Online I can be a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, anything I say I am. I am an anonymous identity, amorphous, changeable at will.)

The higher self, found through surgery and hormones in the transgender conception, is found by our ‘fusion’ in Schwab’s conception. Schwab attempts to make butchery and blasphemy benign, a mere expression of identification rather than an attack on human nature. It abstracts the concept of identity from any mooring in human nature, cut it loose, make it a name that can be placed at will. Man and woman have no meaning, neither does natural and unnatural. All is merely a matter of identification.


Transhumanism is a wet dream of the elite. They normalise this concept through simple tricks such as using the word ‘identity’ as an empowering term. This applies to the transgender ideologists – such as Martine Rothblatt – as well as the Official Covid Narrative promoters such as Klaus Schwab.

It’s About The Vaccine Passport


The Official Covid Narrative – the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a uniquely deadly virus that requires lockdowns, mandatory masks and everyone in the population to take a vaccine – has no scientific credibility. Multiple sources of evidence demonstrate that Sars-Cov-2 is not deadly to most people, that masks are not effective in preventing transmission of viruses, that lockdowns do not prevent deaths, and that the Covid-19 vaccine has a significant risk of severe side effects. Therefore, it follows that there must be another reason for the continued promotion of the Covid Narrative. This article will demonstrate that the main short-term aim of psychopathic governments is to implement a vaccine passport, even if only in a limited capacity.

The ‘Solution’ for Whom?

The vaccine passport – that is, only allowing people into venues and events if they have had the Covid-19 vaccine – has been put forward as a ‘solution’ to the ‘pandemic’. The idea of a vaccine passport has been floated in multiple countries – including the UK and US as well as Israel.

Boris Johnson announced on the alleged ‘freedom day’ of 19th July that a vaccine passport will be required to enter nightclubs. This is just one example of vaccine passport coercion being pushed by the government. Passports have also been floated for Premier League football matches and other mass gatherings.

Despite claims to the contrary, a vaccine passport cannot be about health or protection of people from Sars-Cov-2 infection. The studies done on these products only purported to show that the vaccines reduce symptoms of Covid 19, not that they actually prevent infection. The studies themselves were not designed to show a reduction in transmission. Tal Zaks, the Chief Medical Officer at Moderna – who produced one of the vaccines – stated that:

Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission, because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.

It follows that one can still catch and transmit the virus if one is ‘fully vaccinated’. For example, the mainstream media has claimed that one Australian man infected 60 people with the virus despite having two doses of the Moderna vaccine. The idea of ‘breakthrough cases’ – where vaccinated people get the virus – shows that the narrative that vaccine passports would protect people from catching Sars-Cov-2 is thus false.

(There are of course questions about the isolation of Sars-Cov-2 and the reliability of the PCR test to detect the virus accurately if it does exist. However, the idea of breakthrough cases shows their own narrative is false within the logic of their own narrative, which is all that is necessary to demonstrate for the sake of this article.)

It is much more convincing to argue that the vaccine passport is the touchstone of the new authoritarian system that is being built around us under the pretext of a virus.

There have been many different agendas that the elite have been advancing through the mechanism of the purported Covid 19 ‘response’. For example, one of these is economic. The lockdowns have had the effect of impoverishing the poor. This applies both in Western and non Western countries. Meanwhile, wealth has been transferred to billionaires like Bezos. These lockdowns are tied into a failing capitalist system, that needs to maintain the rate of profit to survive. Further impoverishment of the poor and the destruction of small businesses will help to prop up the capitalist system through a partially manufactured economic crisis on a grand scale.

The destruction of the economy has already been fairly comprehensive however, so why doesn’t the government declare ‘victory’ over the virus and get us ‘back to normal’? The truth is that the elite are gunning for more than a redistribution of wealth upwards. They want to create a technocratic, transhumanist control system, and the vaccine passport is the first real step in creating that goal.

The vaccine passport being in play has massive benefits in terms of control over a population. It allows them to create a system of inclusion and exclusion that is comprehensive and can be rolled out to every sphere of life.

The first benefit of a vaccine passport scheme is that Western populations are strong believers in vaccination. The fact that most people in the West consider vaccines to be proven science guarantees a significant uptake of vaccination off the bat. This gives them something that they can work with, as society can only function with a vaccine passport with a large uptake.

The second benefit is the fact that populations are known to become more authoritarian in response to pandemics (whether or not the pandemic is genuine). This is called Parasite Stress Theory. This makes the populace more willing to accept vaccine passports for their safety despite the lack of scientific rationale.

Thirdly, they have the benefit that they can be introduced in a step by step manner, beginning with international travel or large gatherings and ending with supermarkets and public services. People will then rationalise each step as not being that bad, whereas an immediate full spectrum passport would be more likely to create resistance.

The fourth benefit that they have for the elite is that they can be switched off at any time. Anyone who dissents from the narrative can simply have their digital passport made invalid. This prevents resistance to the government.

The more people get the vaccine, the easier it is for the government to create vaccine passports. As such, we are seeing a massive campaign on a scale never before seen to get people – particularly young people, who according to their own data are at extremely low risk from Covid 19 – to get the vaccine.

This spreads from celebrities encouraging take up, such as England manager Gareth Southgate, to bribes to take the jab – such as the offer of free food. A vaccine centre was set up in fast fashion outlet Primark, presumably because the elite assume that this is where young people shop.

If it was purely about health, this would not be happening. For a start, even if we granted that the vaccine is effective, people at minuscule risk do not need a vaccine. We also have absurdities such as offers of cheaper unhealthy junk food to get a vaccine supposedly for your health.

Then, of course, there are the side effects which the government and media refuse to discuss honestly, instead repeating the mantra safe and effective. The long term side effects of these mRNA/adenovirus vector vaccines are also unknown. This applies even more strongly given that this is not just a new vaccine but whole new technologies that differ from traditional vaccines.

If you assume that the push for everyone to get a jab and the billions spent on marketing the jab is about making a vaccine passport viable, then it all makes sense.


The immediate short term priority of the freedom movement needs to be to demand vaccine passports are never introduced. We need to boycott any business still demanding any form of corona restrictions and making clear a vaccine passport will not be tolerated.

Why The Left is ‘Obsessed’ With Palestine


Some people in the mainstream media, as well as certain alternative right wing or right leaning outlets, accuse the left of being ‘obsessed’ with Palestine. This portrayal of ‘obsession’ implies that the focus on Israel is completely irrational. The only way that it can then be explained is to assume that those focusing on criticing Israel are in fact just anti-Semitic. This article will argue that, contrary to this stated view, anti-imperialists have entirely rational reasons to focus on Palestine.

Western Support for Israel

Many states may do things that I personally disagree with. Many countries, including those in the crosshairs of Western imperialism, have homophobic laws (such as Iran). Those who would like to criticise the anti-imperialist focus on Israel often point to such examples. Bringing up such examples is meant to ‘prove’ that anti-imperialists are hypocritical because they mainly criticise crimes in Western client states.

This argument is misguided. This is because the UK and US directly participate in Israeli crimes through funding and arming the country.

The British group Campaign Against Arms Trade contains information about the arms that the UK sells to Israel.

Since the Conservative government was elected in May 2015, the UK has licensed over £400 million worth of arms to Israeli forces, including:

£183 million worth of ML22 licences (military technology)

£104 million worth of ML10 licences (Aircraft, helicopters, drones)

£20 million worth of ML4 licences (Grenades, bombs, missiles, countermeasures)

£4.6 million worth of ML6 licences (Armoured vehicles, tanks)

£1.9 million worth of ML3 licences (ammunition)

£1 million worth of ML1 licences (small arms)

UK Palestine activists have recently targeted UAV Tactical systems factories, which are part owned by Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. For example, a factory in Leicester was occupied by the group Palestine Action for this reason:

Palestine Action members also “barricaded gates, destroyed property and vandalised the premises to prevent any more British-made drones being sent to commit atrocities in Gaza”, according to a statement from Palestine Action.

The same also applies to the US, which is Israel’s main backer. Reuters reported in 2016 that:

The United States will give Israel $38 billion in military assistance over the next decade, the largest such aid package in U.S. history, under a landmark agreement signed on Wednesday.

The US also sells weapons to Israel:

In addition, the United States is the largest seller of weapons to Israel, whose military arsenal now includes 362 U.S.-built F-16 warplanes and 100 other U.S. military aircraft, including a growing fleet of the new F-35s; at least 45 Apache attack helicopters; 600 M-109 howitzers and 64 M270 rocket-launchers. At this very moment [the 2021 assault on Gaza], Israel is using many of these U.S.-supplied weapons in its devastating bombardment of Gaza.

Mint Press News has also reported that US charities fund Israeli settlements. This is relevant due to the fact that tax deductions for charities in the US mean that the state subsidises this funding.

The scale of their support cannot be determined. A 2014 study of over 3,600 Jewish organizations by the Jewish Daily Forward found they sent $1.7 billion, or 11.9 percent of their budgets, to Israel each year. But like U.S. Zionism in general, organizations voluntarily funding Israel are not exclusively Jewish, nor did the Forward claim to have fully reviewed even the Jewish sector.

The US also protects Israel in the UN Security Council, vetoing resolutions that are critical of their war crimes in Palestine.

It follows that there are two reasons why it is reasonable and logical for ‘the left’ to put special emphasis on Palestine.

The first reason is the issue of moral responsibility. As the UK and US sell Israel weapons, they are responsible for how those weapons are used. The UK and US governments are not ignorant of the war crimes being committed by the Israeli apartheid regime. They know that the weapons will be used against Palestinian civilians, but they sell them the weapons anyway. This means that citizens of the US and UK have a moral obligation to put pressure on their governments to stop arming Israel.

On the other hand, focusing on criticising countries who are targets of Western imperialism – such as Iran or Cuba – is at best pointless. At least in theory, I have some influence over what the UK government does, as I am a UK citizen. I am also in a position where I can actively oppose what the UK government does by protesting against it. This is not the case for things that happen in countries like Iran, where I cannot affect the scenario in any way whatsoever, even if it is a case where I passionately disagree with what the Iranian government is doing.

Of course, there are also significant problems with believing and verifying claims made by imperialist governments against their enemies, and these claims – even if true – being used as a justification for bombing or sanctions.

Neither of these reasons have anything to do with Judaism or anti-Semitism. In fact, people making the argument ignore the heavy criticism aimed at Saudi Arabia by the same people criticising Israel. Saudi Arabia gets criticised for much the same reasons as Israel does: they are armed by western governments and use those weapons to bomb civilians, in the Saudi case, against Yemeni civilians.

[There are further reasons that Israel is focused upon as a subject for critique, notably the fact that Israel helps to further imperialist agendas in other countries such as Syria, but this will not be discussed in detail here.]


The narrative that anti-imperialists are ‘obsessed’ with Palestine – implied or stated to be because of some sort of animosity towards Jews – is false. In fact there are entirely rational and moral reasons why Israeli apartheid is a focus of anti-imperialist activism.

The Censorship of Women for Stating Biological Truth and the Contradiction of Left Wing Independent Media


A large number of women (and in some cases, men) have been censored, and in some cases legally harassed, for stating the fact that biological sex is immutable and men cannot become women. Left wing independent media, though they often decry online censorship, ignore this aspect of the phenomena despite its prominence. Left wing independent media fails to address the fundamental contradiction of maintaining that trans rights are anti-establishment, while its critics are banned by that very same establishment.

The Evidence

We can start with people who have been banned from Twitter for expressing opinions that disagree with gender identity ideology.

Meghan Murphy. Meghan Murphy is the editor of the publication Feminist Current. She was banned from twitter for calling ‘Jessica Yaniv’ – an infamous pervert who unsuccessfully sued female beauticians for refusing to wax his genitals – a ‘he’ pronoun.

Helen Staniland. Helen Staniland is a campaigner for women’s single sex spaces who was banned from Twitter for asking ‘The Staniland Question’. This is: “Do you believe that male-sexed people should have the right to undress and shower in a communal changing room with women and girls.” [Note: While I was in the process of writing this post, Staniland’s account was reinstated.]

Kellie Jay Keen (Posie Parker). Kellie Jay Keen was banned by Twitter for criticising Susie Green, the current leader of the ‘trans-child’ charity Mermaids. Green took her child to Thailand when he was 16 to have genital surgery. Keen accurately referred to Green having her son castrated (the surgery involves castration).

Karen Davis. She runs the Youtube channel You’re Kidding Right. She has also been banned from twitter.

Graham Linehan. Linehan is a well-known comedy writer who was banned from twitter for tweeting that ‘men aren’t women’.

Fred Sargeant. A gay activist who was present at Stonewall in 1969. His wesbite states that:

In December 2019 he became active again over his concern that the historical record of the late 60s and early 70s had undergone a significant change that erased the prominent figures and their contributions as well as the primary role of same-sex activism during that period.

On in other words, the reframing of Stonewall to be primarily about ‘black trans women’. He has been banned from Twitter.

Furthermore, whole subreddits have been banned from Reddit. In particular, the Gender Critical subreddit was banned on grounds of it being ‘hateful‘. This subreddit had 65,000 subscribers and 7 years of content.

Books have also been targeted. For example, Abigail Shrier, author of a book exploring Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria in teenage girls called Irreversible Damage, had her book pulled from Target and Amazon refused to allow her publisher to advertise the work. Ryan Anderson, another conservative writer, had his book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, completely removed from Amazon.

Consequences can go beyond censorship. There have been women that have lost jobs and work because of expressing gender critical views. In reality, this amounts to a form of censorship because it prevents viewpoints being expressed. The situation regarding this has improved in the UK with the ruling in the Maya Forstater case that people cannot be fired for gender critical opinions, but it is only through hard work that an absurd original ruling was overturned. Furthermore:

What’s chilling about the cases of Forstater, Keogh and gender-critical feminists who have lost their jobs or been No Platformed from universities is the warning they send to others tempted to stick their heads above the parapet. Say what you know to be true and you might ultimately be vindicated. But you will have to endure the gut-wrenching anguish of thinking your career is over and your livelihood wiped out. […] Despite notable successes the message remains: if you want a quiet life, shut up.

This article, from the highly recommended website Women are Human, provides an excellent list of cases of women losing work and facing violent threats for disagreeing with gender identity ideology. Here are a few examples from the article, I would suggest that you click to read the rest:

Author Gillian Philip, who was part of a team of writers of hugely successful animal fantasy novels for children under the name Erin Hunter, was sacked following a Twitter pile-on when she Tweeted her support for JK Rowling. In the 24 hours after adding #IStandWithJKRowling to her Twitter handle, the Scots author received hundreds of abusive messages.

Stella Perrett: the cartoonist was fired by the Morning Star newspaper and Public and Commercial Services Union after one of her pieces was branded ‘transphobic’. It depicted a crocodile entering a pool of newts with the caption ‘Don’t worry your pretty little heads. I’m transitioning as a newt!’

Another woman, Lisa Keogh, was recently investigated by her university for stating that ‘women have vaginas’ and that men are physically stronger than women. Although the investigation did not lead to any punishment it did lead to two months of unnecessary uncertainty and stress for Keogh.

There are even cases of legal consequences for women who disagree with gender ideology. Marion Millar, a woman from Scotland, was recently arrested and charged with a ‘hate crime’ for tweeting out pictures of Suffragette ribbons.  Kate Scottow was also harassed legally for calling Stephanie Hayden male. She did manage to get this overturned, but as pointed out above, process can also be a form of punishment.

The Contradiction of Left Wing Independent Media

Independent media can be defined as media that gets funding from non-corporate sources or no funding at all. In this article, I am referring to the online video content produced by a particular section of the left – from very soft alternatives such as Kyle Kulinski, to somewhat more critical alternatives such as Jimmy Dore, MCSC Network, Graham Elwood and The Grayzone. There are also some channels that are not independent as they are funded by other state broadcasters but fit in in terms of style and presentation here, such as Lee Camp and Abby Martin (when she worked for Telesur). There are also writers who would fit into this bracket, such as Caitlin Johnstone.

It is a milieu with which I am very familiar, having watched hours of content from Dore in particular. Of course, to what degree some of the people in this milieu are ‘left wing’ can be debated, but all of these market themselves as such, and also market themselves as pro free speech.

Such independent media outlets have a vested interest in defending free speech on the grounds that they are often on the receiving end of censorship, or soft censorship. For example, MCSC Network and Graham Elwood have been demonetised by Youtube. The reason for this is obvious: these channels often oppose certain narratives which the government wish to promote. For example, Elwood has done many videos on relationships between members of the elite and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Many people in this milieu also claim to be anti-censorship on principle.

However, I have never seen anyone in left wing independent media address the issue of women being censored for speaking out about transgender ideology, or not believing that obviously predatory males that declare themselves women are actually women. To be honest, I have seen more people on the left defend Alex Jones’s right to freedom of speech than I have them defending any woman on this issue. The only independent media that sometimes defend women on this issue are on the right.

Why are left wing independent media ignoring this issue despite the fact it fits in with their free speech stance?

The first point to note here is that this environment is heavily male dominated, and there is virtually no overlap with feminist circles. Women in this environment – such as Fiorella Isobel – are the exception. This means that there is virtually no female perspective to push back on the problems with letting men into women’s spaces and the misogyny of men claiming a ‘female identity’ based on gender stereotypes.

Because these spaces have no overlap with actual feminist media, I doubt that the (primarily) men in this milieu could even outline a gender critical or radical feminist position on the question, let alone come up with an argument to rebut it.

Secondly, it is important to note that this environment is largely made up a group that we could refer to as ‘disgruntled liberals’, mainly American ones. The path for people in this group is something like this: they initially supported the Barack Obama electoral campaign, hoping that electing a liberal black man could bring change after the warmongering, homophobic George W. Bush presidency. However, they quickly became disillusioned by Obama continuing the wars and neoliberal economic policies. They turned to Bernie Sanders, but saw even his soft social democratic campaign be sabotaged by the estabishment so Hillary Clinton could be installed as Democratic nominee. Such people began to look at alternatives to the status quo for completely understandable reasons. But they lack the grounding in socialism and feminism to fully understand how women are oppressed as a group due to biological reality as this reality is obscured by liberalism.

There is also a traditional urge among modern American liberals to differentiate themselves from the American Christian right, due to their opposition to policies such as same sex marriage. While the religious aspect of the American culture wars has faded, it was one of the most important aspects of the George W. Bush presidency when these people were forming their political views. Implicitly they think that taking a pro-transgender stance does this, as they believe that trans rights are the new gay rights. (It’s worth noting that there are examples of right-wing Christians that support transgender ideology, primarily to avoid having an effeminate gay son. Such as this parent promoted by the ACLU, and the case of Kai Shappley.)

They, of course, may also have concerns about cancellation, if they are aware of the problems with gender identity ideology. Individuals who receive money from platforms such as Patreon do have to ensure an income stream by playing to what their audience wants. The audience of such programs shares a similar background to the channels themselves and gender critical feminism is not on the audience’s agenda either.

There is a further question we need to ask. Independent media know full well that the stuff that is censored is the stuff that the MSM don’t want you listening to. Why, then, do independent media refuse to question what this censorship states about transgenderism?

Actual human rights movements are smeared by the establishment. Look at how – for example – the Free Palestine movement are endlessly smeared as being anti-Semitic, Free Assange supporters as being Russian assets and rape apologists, and people who question state narratives on Covid are crazy conspiracy theorists. This also applies to historical movements such as the Suffragettes or the Civil Rights movements – the state and media smeared them and in some cases used outright violence (the force feeding of women, the murder of Fred Hampton).

On the other hand, transgender identified people are celebrated in the media. Look at the case of Ellen Page, previously an open lesbian and now calling herself a ‘transgender man’. This is celebrated as brave and progressive and her existence as a woman is erased from all media reports – now only male name and male pronouns are used for her. The extremely lesbophobic message sent by the celebration of Page’s ‘transition’, that lesbians are really men and should have their breasts cut off, is nowhere criticised except by feminist media and a few right wing outlets.

Independent left wing media looks at this issue through the human rights lens. They fail to see the problem because they ignore the lens they apply to other issues – often very well, in the case of people like Robbie Jaeger – that is, Follow the Money.

Transgender ideology is a huge cash cow for Big Pharma. The more people that take puberty blockers, hormones, and have surgery the more money they make. They have a vested interest in making as many people identify as trans as possible and transgender surgery is considered to be a growing market. Not to mention that if children take puberty blockers followed by hormones, or if adults have their ovaries/testes removed, they can no longer produce their own hormones. This makes them lifelong patients of Big Pharma, and as far as the industry is concerned, a lifelong patient is the best kind of patient. The genital surgeries themselves are expensive, and often require multiple revisions because they are riddled with complications – which means even more money is made by unscrupulous surgeons. Women who speak out are threatening to throw a wrench in this gravy train, so they must be shut up.


The censorship of women is a notable facet of narrative control carried out by the establishment that is ignored by the left due to its own internal biases, even when they claim to be pro free speech.

See also: The Modern Left Has Lost Touch with Reality: Part 2: Transgender Ideology. This article focuses on the British left wing alternative outfits such as The Canary. The milieu focused on in this article is a bit different, as these American independent media outlets are a bit different, although they both ultimately fail in following the money.

Boycott Puma Day of Action

A quick post about the Boycott Puma Day of Action that took place on the 10th of July for Palestine.

The Boycott Puma idea comes from the fact that Puma sponsors the Israeli Football Association.

As one of the world’s top athletic apparel makers and the only international sponsor of the Israel Football Association, Puma’s sponsorship brings international legitimacy to the IFA’s actions. The IFA, as documented by Human Rights Watch, includes football clubs based in illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. Puma’s current and past exclusive licensees in Israel have operations in illegal Israeli settlements.

The Boycott Puma action was taking place as part of a set of actions across 8th-10th July. Yesterday there was a student protest in London, going to different universities that support Israeli apartheid.

The Boycott Puma Day of Action was taking place in many different cities around the country.

There was an action in London at the Puma store located there, but most of the other actions were outside retailers that stock Puma products such as JD Sports and Sports Direct.

The Birmingham event was outside the JD sports shop in the town centre.

The event was very small. There was a table for Birmingham Stop the War coalition and one for the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. It mainly consisted of handing out leaflets to passers by. One of the organisers did try to speak through a loudspeaker on a few occasions. Unfortunately there seemed to be problems with the microphone, as it kept cutting out. Here is some footage:

(Bitchute equivalent)

Tinfoil Lizards: An Essay on Conspiracy

The concept of conspiracy is much maligned by the mainstream media, the government, and random liberals on social media. The phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ is used to dismiss people who are cynical about the motivations of government and corporations.

The Concept of Conspiracy

As stated by leftist analyst Michael Parenti:

Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance.

There would be no reason for this to be a concept in law if it was a non-existent phenomenon.

We know that people from all groups and all walks of life can conspire. Everyone is aware of this, as even things like petty office politics can inspire people to get together and plot against each other. To dismiss the idea of conspiracy prima facie is an unwarranted bias. If ordinary people can conspire on a small scale than politicians, bureaucrats, and military intelligence are clearly capable of conspiring on a large scale.

I will address three points that are often invoked by anti-conspiracy analysts, who dismiss the notion of conspiracy as a relevant mode of analysis. I will argue that these arguments are flawed as a reason to reject conspiracy as a relevant factor when examining the operation of government power.

The Invocation of the Ridiculous

The first argument against conspiracy is the ‘Invocation of the Ridiculous’. This involves the anti-conspiracy theorist picking a theory that is absurd, but that has at some point been suggested seriously by a ‘conspiracy theorist’. For example, Alex Jones once suggested that 87-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, supreme court justice, died as a ‘blood sacrifice’ to help the Democratic party get the vote out and to enhance their ‘Satanic energy’.

Anti-conspiracy theorists like to invoke these sorts of examples to dismiss well-reasoned and well evidenced examples of conspiracies, or even critical questions about official narratives. This is a fallacious argument, as it involves attempting to marry the ridiculous to the reasonable in order to dismiss the reasonable.

The Psychological Analysis

Psychological analysis is used as a tool to subtly undermine the concept of conspiracy. I am not trying to argue that analysing why someone believes something, and possible psychological motivations for that belief that stem from other motivations than the factual nature of the belief, is always invalid.  

However, these ‘why people believe in conspiracy theories’ articles are generally framed in a particular way. The articles start by dismissing the idea of the ‘conspiracy theory’ prima facie, leaving only possible psychological motives for belief. This is not the same as demonstrating why a belief is incorrect or flawed, and then putting forward suggestions as to why people believe it anyway.  

In some cases, they will employ the invocation of the ridiculous in their introduction, by providing a list of conspiracy theories that includes the reasonable with the bizarre.

For example, this article:

When people encounter disparate information, it is only natural to look for explanations that connect the dots. Conspiracy theories offer explanations that provide this connection. They also suggest that the underlying causes are hidden from public view. When confusing things happen, believers can then assume that it is because they are being intentionally deceived by outside forces.

The framing of this paragraph implies that explanations are just confusing because life is confusing. The idea of government manipulators is implicitly dismissed, as is the idea of ‘intentional deception’. The role of deception in government, however, is extremely relevant, the best examples being the lies that drove Western intervention in countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

There is also often a tinge of middle-class smugness about such articles. The above article is also quoted as saying:

Lower educational status tends to be associated with higher levels of conspiracy belief.

The most plausible explanation for this is that middle-class people who are doing well out of a particular system have less material reason to question that system.

Such articles also argue that the need to feel special drives a belief in conspiracy theories. For example, this article:

Big events attract conspiracies because the knowledge the theorist possesses wouldn’t be special otherwise. If the knowledge isn’t special, then they aren’t special for possessing it. The suggestion is therefore that a conspiracy theorist wants to feel special, and this desire emerges from self-worth based insecurities.

This argument would suggest that conspiracy theorists would keep their special knowledge to themselves, rather than trying to convince other people. After all, the conspiracist would no longer be special if he or she convinces others to believe in the conspiracy.

(If I were engaging in my own pop psychology argument here, I would suggest the need to feel special is not observable so much in conspiracy theorists as it is in obnoxious middle-class liberals. In their case, a sense of superiority stems from their faith in government. After all, how could any of us be so stupid as to question the authorities?)

The ‘irrelevancy’ argument

This is an argument that has been made by Noam Chomsky. On this issue he is generally compared with Michael Parenti, another left-wing scholar who believes in the relevance and importance of analysing conspiracy.  

Chomsky states that:

Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination. I mean I don’t know who assassinated him and I don’t care, but what difference does it make? It’s not an issue of any general political interest. And there’s a huge amount of energy and effort going into that.

He believes that a discussion of issues such as the Kennedy Assassination and 9/11 are a distraction:

[Conspiracy theories] draw enormous amounts of time and energy away from serious activism on urgent matters (and may well be welcome to those in power for that reason, as the JFK assassination investigations have been, so internal government documents indicate).

I believe that on this issue, Parenti has by far the superior case. Chomsky is fairly hostile to the idea of high-level conspiracies, believing that they do not play an important role in government and that structural factors matter more when analysing the actions of capitalist states. Parenti rightly argues that this is a false distinction, as institutions such as the CIA are “an institutionalized conspiracy.”

As for such issues being a distraction, this argument is a weak one, because the evidence behind such conspiracies can demonstrate the true nature of power. As Parenti states:

To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects.

The Ulterior Motive for Anti-Conspiracy Thinking

Even an anti-conspiracist would have to acknowledge that certain conspiracies happened because they were exposed. Nixon conspired with his aides to cover up the burglary of the Watergate building. In that case we have extensive evidence of conspiracy due to the existence of recordings made by Nixon. We know that there was a conspiracy to undermine the candidate Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primary election due to the emails that were leaked to Wikileaks.

Why, given these proven cases, is it considered illegitimate to speculate about other events such as 9/11, JFK assassination, or the Skripal affair, where the full facts are not available but where evidence and reasoning can lead to reasonable inferences?

The reason is that the anti-conspiracist wants to keep certain topics off limits. According to the anti-conspiracist, criticism of government narratives can only go so far. When it comes to the current capitalist and imperialist system and the players within it, the reality is that no question should be taken off the table and evidence for all forms of evil should be critically considered.


The consideration of the conspiracy when it comes to analysing the function of governments is a valid approach that is unfairly criticised through the label ‘conspiracy theory’. Rather than reject the concept of conspiracy, we need to critically assess the evidence and motives for a conspiracy on a case-by-case basis. While there are some conspiracies that are not grounded in reality, there are many more that have strong evidence to support them. I will end with a quote from this article comparing Chomsky and Parenti, which is recommended to the reader:

Ultimately, the average conspiracy theorist has a better grasp of how the world works than the average liberal.

Birmingham Clean Air Zone through the lens of Techno-Tyranny


On the 1st June 2021, Birmingham (UK) introduced a ‘Clean Air Zone’. The plan is to charge vehicles that emit too many greenhouse gases a fee for every day that they enter the city centre. The supposed motivation for this is to lower emissions and improve air quality, thus improving the quality of life of people who live in Birmingham. As with any capitalist state initiative, however, we have to look beneath the surface, and in this case there is a link to the Smart City agenda.

Birmingham Clean Air Zone

The Birmingham Clean Air Zone – which came into force on the 1st June – will charge any non-compliant household vehicle that enters into the zone or drives within the zone £8 per day. Non-compliant vehicles are those that are (considered to be) non-fuel efficient and so emit too much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There are various exemptions to these rules, but for our purposes they are not important.

The main aspect which I will focus upon in this article is the mechanism by which the Clean Air Zone will be enforced. According to the BrumBreathes website, the official website for the changes:

Vehicles that do not meet the emission standards for the zone will be detected by an ANPR camera (automatic number plate recognition).

Number plates that are non-compliant with the low emissions zone will be flagged for a fine.

What precisely is ANPR? The RAC has an article discussing the basics of the technology.

ANPR technology converts an image of a number plate into machine-encoded text, this is called optical character recognition.

The technology can be used across CCTV, traffic enforcement cameras and ANPR-specific cameras. Infrared illumination can help cameras to capture a clearer image.

ANPR cameras are used to monitor speeding vehicles and handing out fines based on that basis. The police also use them to monitor stolen vehicles.

A Step Towards Smart Cities

Smart Cities – cities with endless sensors and monitoring managed by AI – are a dream of the global elite. Institutions such as the World Economic Forum are promoting the smart city concept through the creation of a ‘Pioneer Cities’ program. While smart cities are promoted as the solution to humanity’s problems, in reality, they will lead to the end of privacy – as every single device, even a kettle, will be hooked up to the ‘Internet of Things’ for monitoring. One of the main narratives being used to drive the smart city is the Official Covid Narrative – with smart cities being sold as ‘pandemic management’.

However, another idea being used to sell smart cities is the ‘green’ agenda. A significant proportion of Western populations are concerned about genuine environmental issues such as pollution and plastic waste, and this can be leveraged by Smart City promoters to push their agenda. For example, this article from 2018 talks about how the ‘Internet of Things’ is the best way to improve the environment by making everything more efficient. In reality, smart cities would devastate the environment due to the large amount of rare earth metals required for chipping everything and the creation of 5G networks, but that aspect is ignored by smart city promoters.

It is clear that the Birmingham Clean Air Zone is being used in such a manner, due to the fact that its surveillance policies will automatically slap online payable fines on non-compliant cars through ANPR processes. These cameras will be able to collect a large amount of data on drivers which allows for a higher level of privacy violation, a key concept of the Smart City.

On an even more sinister level, the idea of the Clean Air Zone may begin to normalise the exclusion of individuals from certain areas for not meeting certain criteria. This is being pushed extremely hard in Britain at the moment through the attempted normalisation of vaccine passports – preventing people from going to social events unless they have had the Covid-19 vaccine. The Official Covid Narrative and the ‘green’ agenda may merge with the concept of the ‘climate lockdown’ – an idea already being promoted and normalised in the mainstream media.


An initially innocuous idea – that of reducing pollution in the Birmingham City Centre – is actually tied into deeper agendas for the introduction of ‘smart cities’ and ramping up mass surveillance under the guise of ‘protecting the planet’.