Belarus: Regime Change Target

[A note on names. People did not like the Belarusian spelling Lukashenka that I used in my previous article. I did not use this spelling for any other reason than that I am used to spelling it that particular way. I have used the Russian spelling, Lukashenko, in this article to take this into account.]

[Another note on flags. For those who aren’t aware the opposition uses a different flag of Belarus to the government, referenced in the drawing above. The actual Belorussian flag is the one on the left (green and red). The flag used by the opposition is white-red-white.]

On the 17^th April 2021, news broke of a planned coup against the leader of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko. Russian intelligence released videos of the plotters discussing plans to eliminate the Belorussian leader during the 9^th May Victory Parade. This failed coup, however, is far from the first attempt to have Lukashenko replaced. There has been more than one attempt to remove Lukashenko through the Colour Revolution method due to his rejection of privatisation and neoliberal economics. The 2020 presidential election created another opportunity for regime change operators to cultivate a protest movement against the result. However, it appears that this movement has failed, leaving only the possibility of a coup to remove Lukashenko.

The History of ‘Colour Revolutions’ In Belarus: A Story of Failure

Due to Aleksandr Lukashenko’s overwhelming election victory in 1994, Belarus maintained a quasi-Soviet economy despite the collapse of the USSR. The ‘commanding heights’ of the economy, such as large industrial plants, remained under state ownership. The Belorussian system maintained high levels of employment, stable jobs, and comparative income equality. Lukashenko’s policy contrasts with countries such as Ukraine, where neoliberal privatisation led to the creation of a class of oligarchs. Furthermore, Belarus has aligned more with Russia than the West geopolitically, although there is more nuance to Russian-Belorussian relations than portrayed in Western media. Thus, the West has long been hostile to Lukashenko’s government.

The Colour Revolution model has been employed by Western leaders to remove governments that resist their ideology and demands, particularly in the post-Soviet space. This model ensured pro-Western leaders came to power in neighbouring Ukraine in 2004 (the Orange Revolution) and 2014 (The EuroMaidan). This model has also been attempted in Belarus. The approach has been simple: back a particular candidate against Lukashenko in elections, claim that that candidate lost due to fraud, and attempt to use the ensuing street protests as a means by which to get rid of Lukashenko.

Prior to 2020, the clearest example of a Western regime change operation in Belarus took place in 2006, that is, shortly after the successes of other colour revolutions in the post-Soviet space. The 2006 elections were contested between Lukashenko and Aleksandr Milinkevich, a pro-Western, pro-economic liberalisation candidate. The West gave some backing to Milinkevich, both in terms of funding for ‘democracy promotion’ in the country and working with Milinkevich’s election team. The New York Times reported that:

The Bush administration, which has labeled Belarus the only “outpost of tyranny” left in Europe, spent $11.8 million last year on democracy promotion and plans to spend $12 million in 2006. The National Endowment for Democracy, the Congressionally financed nonprofit organization that promotes freedom overseas, is spending $2.2 million more on 49 grants related to the Belarus election.
The leaders of the democratic opposition of Belarus were there to discuss politics with Terry Nelson, the national political director of Bush-Cheney 2004. In that campaign, Nelson oversaw the president’s strategy of creating a vast get-out-the-vote network by organizing volunteers. “We have neighbors talking to neighbors, and that’s the way to win a close race,” he said at the time.

The official results of the election gave Lukashenko 84.4% of the vote whereas Milinkevich received only 6.2%. The opposition immediately called the election rigged. There is no evidence that Milinkevich won the election, though the margin of victory may have been exaggerated. For example, in this poll after the election 58.2% stated they voted for Lukashenko.

The protests after the election were dubbed the ‘Jeans’ or ‘Denim’ revolution, the term deriving from one person using denim as a flag. This term was not only designed to invoke other Colour Revolutions, such as the Orange Revolution and the Rose Revolution, but also the idea of Westernisation (denim is often associated with the West in post-Soviet countries). These protests took place between March 19-25, 2006. US funded pro-regime change outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL) estimated the protests as being between 20,000-30,000 at the largest. These protests were able to be successfully dealt with by the government, including the use of arrests, and they did not at any point create a real threat to Lukashenko’s rule.

The 2020 Election: The Latest Attempt at Regime Change

The 2020 Belorussian election provided another opportunity to try to have Lukashenko removed through the colour revolution method. Lukashenko has broadly continued the same economic and geostrategic policies that caused the West to be hostile to his leadership.

However, 2020 also offered another compelling reason to be rid of Lukashenko. As outlined in my previous article on Belarus, Lukashenko employed a limited response to Sars-Cov-2, rejecting lockdown policies as a solution. Furthermore, Lukashenko claimed in July 2020 that the International Monetary Fund demanded he carry out these policies, and he made clear that these terms for any loans were unacceptable to him.

Lukashenko stated:

The IMF continued to demand from us: bring forward quarantine, isolation and a curfew. What is this stupidity? We will not dance to anyone’s tune. The demands appear: you, they say, should do in Belarus what Italy did in the struggle with the coronavirus. God forbid, I do not want Belarus to repeat what happened in Italy. We have our own country and our own situation.

In terms of the reasons for his removal, Lukashenko is most analogous to President John Magufuli of Tanzania. Magufuli rejected the privatisation of mineral wealth as well as the Official Covid Narrative. Magufuli disappeared and then was pronounced dead several weeks later. He was replaced by Samia Suluhu Hassan, who seems to have the approval of Western capital and global institutions such as the World Economic Forum.

The mechanism for attempted regime change remained the ‘contested election’ model. The West’s candidate in the race was Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, celebrated in the media as the ‘housewife taking on Lukashenko’. Tikhanovkaya claimed to have limited aims. The BBC stated that:

The women have no political programme, just one plea: vote for Svetlana to oust Mr Lukashenko then she’ll call fresh, fair elections and free all the political prisoners.

Now deleted webpages seem to show, however, that economic privatisation and joining the EU and NATO was part of the opposition’s agenda. It is also worthy of note that although Tikhanovskaya became a candidate due to the arrest or exile of other figures, she speaks excellent English, making her well positioned to deliver press conferences to a foreign audience.

The election took place on August 9, 2020. The official results showed a landslide win for Lukashenko, with 80% of the vote, Tikhanovskaya receiving 10%. The opposition claimed that the election was rigged, and that Belorussians should get out in the street to overturn the fraudulent result. The actual truth of the result is not the main concern of this article, although the Russian opposition outlet Golos states that in the 1310 polling places available for analysis, Lukashenko received 61.7% and Tikhanovskaya 25.4% (though they still believe this to be doubtful, they do not present any further evidence on the question).

Regardless of the truth, there were significant protests after the election result. Looking to US regime change publication RFERL again, it refers to more than 20,000 people on August 14, ‘tens of thousands’ on August 13, but referred to the protests on the night of the election as ‘difficult to estimate’. The opposition also created a ‘co-ordinating council’ as a government in waiting. There were calls from Western leaders for Lukashenko to step down.

What is the evidence of Western involvement in Belarus? USAID, one of the key operators of the American regime change complex, has given funding to several ‘partners’ in 2019-2020 in order to undermine the Belorussian government. These include many organisations that are interconnected with the US state. For example, Freedom House was one of the organisations that received the most funding. This money went towards things such as ‘supporting a free media’ and ‘developing political parties’. Another key member of the regime change complex, the National Endowment for Democracy, gave out multiple grants in Belarus during 2019. This included, for example, $16,000 to ‘sponsor an independent periodical’ and $50,400 for ‘strengthening independent online media’. The EU has also announced funding for Belorussian activists. The EU announced back in November that they were going to be spending money on bloggers, ‘independent’ media, and students.

US ally Poland is also playing an important role in undermining the Belorussian government. According to Covert Action magazine, Poland “became the base for two popular Belarusian-language news channels which have been leading a propaganda onslaught on the government in Belarus.” One outlet, Nexta, appears to have some financial backing as it is able to produce a large amount of content despite allegedly being a grassroots operation run by four people. Some of the individuals involved in these media outlets have links to the far right. One individual, Roman Protosevich, has significant connections to the Ukrainian fascist movement, including personally taking part in the Maidan protests. There have also been allegations that Ukraine has been involved in promoting disorder in Belarus made by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Lavrov claims that 200 far right extremists from Ukraine have been carrying out provocations in Belarus, and that these individuals have been part of training camps for such purposes in Ukraine.

The West is also seeking to assert leverage over the country through the mechanism of sanctions. For example, the European Union has placed sanctions on Belorussian officials, putting a travel ban and freezing their economic resources. The UK and US also have sanctions regimes in place against Belarus. As of yet, it seems these sanctions have been largely focused on officials, but Biden recently announced he would be putting sanctions on 9 Belorussian firms, indicating a possible ramping up of pressure on the government.

The End of the Colour Revolution and Plans for Murder

This regime change effort initially looked superficially promising for the West, due to the significant turnout at protests and persistence in the presence of protest events. However, the regime change effort has not been successful.

Lukashenko was able to deal with the protests through some use of repression. The members of the ‘Co-ordinating Council’, designed to transfer power from the Belorussian authorities to itself, were either arrested or fled abroad. There was never a point where the government was significantly weak to be at risk of collapse or overthrow. Nor have there been any divisions within the Belorussian authorities that could have benefited the protesters. The far right – vital in the success of the EuroMaidan coup – is less prominent in Belarus than Ukraine. There have also been some protest events in support of Lukashenko. Significant numbers of Belorussians are aware that Lukashenko’s replacement with a pro-Western candidate will likely lead to huge economic problems for their country, mass unemployment and the creation of a class of wealthy oligarchs.

Opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya admitted that the protesters had ‘lost the streets’ after a decline in events in the beginning of 2021.

However, on the 17^th April, there was a new development. Russian and Belorussian intelligence claimed to have foiled a coup planned for Victory Day, and Russian intelligence released video evidence of the plotters discussing having Lukashenko eliminated.

One of the videos, presumably recorded by a Russian bug, shows a meeting in Moscow, involving oppositionists Zyankovich and Feduta, along with figures believed to be Belorussian generals by Russian intelligence (an English transcript is available here).

In the clip, Zyankovich does most of the talking, outlining in detail what needs to be done to cause regime change:

Task number one is to eliminate the main leader [it is clarified later this means physical elimination]. Task number two is to block internal troops, to block OMON [riot police/anti-terrorist police]. Task number three is to occupy several symbolic locations in the city centre, in particular, radio station, television station, so that we can read out our address…and preferably – to block Minsk in order to prevent the bringing in of foreign troops.

How many people would need to be quickly interned is discussed, as well as the possibility of disrupting the power grid. They want to use their power to carry out reforms, such as judicial, constitutional, and within local government.

The plotters also show contempt for ordinary Belorussians, as Zyankovich states:

Our task is to transform society and the state. Because if now we were to hold an election, instead of Lukashenko, they will elect [another] Lukashenko, and we will still be in the same position in twenty-five years.

They even discuss possible ill-gotten gains belonging to ‘Our Sasha [Lukashenko]’ that they could ‘quietly take’ if available, and where they might be stored.

Other videos show Zoom meetings, where a possible transfer of power in Belarus is compared to the case of Anwar Sadat in Egypt (implying assassination). One of the alleged plotters in the Zoom meeting footage, Pavel Kulazhenko, stated that it was not a coup plan and it was simply a discussion about “the same things that are discussed every evening in every Belarusian family – how to speed up Lukashenko’s retirement.”

Lukashenko claims that the US Government is behind the attempted coup. While this claim is not proven, it does fit with past US behaviour of removing leaders that resist American hegemony. It is beyond doubt that the US would have immediately backed any post-Lukashenko regime that pivoted to the West.

It is also worthy of note that on the same date the coup plot was discovered by the Russians, the Czech government attempted to revive the Skripal narrative by bringing back Boshirov and Petrov, claiming that they were responsible for an ammunition dump explosion in 2014. The sheer ridiculousness of this story – for example, the idea that the Russian secret services just happened to deploy the same two agents for two completely different ‘missions’ – suggests that it was invented at short notice as a distraction from the coup story.

Conclusion

There is a concerted effort to have Aleksandr Lukashenko removed from power and replaced with a leader more pliant to capital. While claims from any leader and intelligence service cannot be taken at face value, and this applies as much to Russia and Belarus as it does the West, the evidence in this case makes it likely that the West is involved in fomenting discord against Lukashenko and possibly even in plotting his liquidation.

Election Nonsense

I suppose that I had better comment on what went on in the UK on Thursday, an election in which we had the grand choice between the pro-lockdown Conservative Party and the pro-lockdown Labour Party. And if you live in Scotland, you can toss the pro-lockdown Scottish National Party into the mix as well.

The Media Blather

The media was quite excited about the fact that the Conservatives won Hartlepool from Labour in a by-election. Hartlepool is a traditionally Labour constituency, part of the so-called ‘Red Wall’ that went partially Conservative in 2019 due to Jeremy Corbyn’s failure to stand up to the centrists sabotaging his campaign and endorsing a second Brexit referendum.

Of course, many liberals in the media claimed that if Labour got rid of the ‘loony left’ Jeremy Corbyn and replaced him with the ‘moderate and forensic’ Keir Starmer they would be much more likely to get elected. Now of course it’s good to poke fun at the media for promoting this nonsense. But really, what difference would it have made if Labour would have won this seat? None as far as I can tell – we would have a pro-lockdown Labour politician instead of a pro-lockdown Tory politician.

How Many People Voted for House Arrest?

I think what is significant about these elections is the amount of people who voted for pro-lockdown candidates, i.e. people that were willing to put their vote towards job destroying, working class impoverishing lockdowns. The answer seems to be: quite a lot.

I will focus this analysis on a couple of mayoral elections, simply for reasons of space and patience.

Let’s start with the London Mayoral election. The standard 4 pro-lockdown options were available: Labour (the utterly dire Sadiq Khan), Conservative (Shaun Bailey), Liberal Democrat (Luisa Porritt) and Green (the uber woke Sian Berry). However, there were several other candidates: The anti-lockdown, anti-woke actor Laurence Fox; the independent media personality Brian Rose (who I have to say I am not familiar with, though I have heard of London Real and am aware they oppose the ‘pandemic’ narrative); the anti-lockdown, climate change critic and vaccine sceptic Piers Corbyn; and the anti-lockdown, socially conservative David Kurten. In terms of other options, there was also a Rejoin EU party candidate (yawn), a Women’s Equality Party candidate, and some random joke candidates. And some others.

Sadiq Khan was re-elected as London mayor, but that’s not really my main concern here. I am going to add up the vote for our four main pro-lockdown candidates. 1,013,721 for Khan (seriously?), 893,051 for Bailey, 197,976 for Berry, and 111,716 for Porritt. This puts the pro-lockdown vote at 2,216,464. The anti-lockdown candidates (the four mentioned above), when totalled, add up to 110,374. I do find this to be utterly depressing, especially as mayoral elections have first and second choices so you can still vote against Lab/Con for your second choice and pick an anti-medical tyranny candidate for your first choice. However turnout was only 42.1%, so nearly 60% did not vote at all.

I will look at one more mayoral election, the West Midlands election. In this election, there were 5 candidates, the four standard pro-lockdown party candidates and a Reform UK candidate who is anti-lockdown. The total for the four pro-lockdown parties was 600,722. Pete Durnell, the Reform UK candidate, scored 13,568 votes. Turnout was even lower in this election at 31.2%.

Conclusion

These elections show that there are a heck of a lot of people who are willing to vote for the destruction of their freedom, the destruction of their mental wellbeing, and the destruction of their children’s education by supporting pro-lockdown candidates (yes I am aware they may not have voted for the candidate on the grounds of their support for lockdowns, but there are some things that you just don’t endorse at the ballot box). I am hoping that the lockdown sceptics are more prominent among the non voters, because given the London protests, there has to be quite a lot of us.

Big Pharma Is No Different From Any Other Capitalist Corporation

A left-wing perspective offers a structural critique of capitalist firms, arguing that they are focused only on profit, and not issues such as safety or the common good. In reality, however, the modern left has failed to sufficiently apply this critique to Big Pharma and their operations in creating medications – although they will sometimes acknowledge it in a haphazard way. What is not taken into account is the way that Big Pharma – in allegiance with the state – creates new medical ‘needs’ and new markets based on these needs, particularly in relation to the Covid-19 vaccinations.

The General Anti-Capitalist Viewpoint

The concern of any business is to make profit. The only way for any corporation to make profit is to effectively exploit their workers and extract excess labour from them (or to extract excess labour from other people’s workers – for example, banks). Other concerns must be subordinated to the need for profit. For example, product safety is not in itself a concern for a business. It would only become a concern to the extent that it affected profit – for example if people refused to buy a such a product, or if a government fined the company more than the profits made on the product for producing something unsafe.

In order to keep making profits, capitalist companies must create new markets. It is in the inherent nature of capitalism that it must keep expanding. The entire history of capitalism demonstrates this, as it expanded from Western Europe to the whole world. This is also why the capitalist world was locked in a death struggle with the USSR: not only because the socialist USSR offered a viable alternative to capitalism but also because the USSR and its allies represented untapped markets and resources. New inventions and the creation of new ‘needs’ can also be seen in the history of capitalism. Items like automobiles and mobile phones have become ‘necessary’ to human life in the West despite not actually being necessary in the technical sense.

Big Pharma and Capitalism

This logic applies as much to Big Pharma as any other corporation. One of the most important points to make specifically regarding Big Pharma is that the main market in Western countries is the state rather than individuals or private companies, due to state run healthcare services. This is different in the US due to their health insurance system. The relationship between the state and Big Pharma means that the attempt to sell more products will be centralised rather than dispersed, as it is with consumer products (this is similar to the arms industry).

There is a certain amount of genuine health issues within a population, whether caused by genetic factors or environmental factors. These health issues create demands for medications and other products sold by Big Pharma. While on the surface, the idea of a health issue is objective, in reality there is an element of subjectivity. This allows for the creation of new medications to treat these issues. If one wants to get more cynical, we can consider the idea of iatrogenic conditions, i.e. those that are created by medical treatment. This can create a market for more medical interventions to correct these iatrogenic conditions.

The construction of the deadly disease ‘Covid-19’ has multiple uses, as I have discussed in previous articles. It is without doubt that this narrative massively benefits Big Pharma. Capitalist companies have ‘developed’ Covid-19 vaccines as quickly as possible in order to cash in on the market of selling these vaccines to the state for mass distribution. The Covid-19 narrative also promotes the idea that every single person in the country needs the vaccine which creates a massive market.

However, the Covid 19 narrative is more than just opportunistic. One function of the construction of this narrative – along with the pushing of transhumanist totalitarianism – is the transfer of wealth upward from ordinary people to capitalists. As has been known since the days of the early bourgeois economists such as David Ricardo, the rate of profit declines over time under a capitalist system. As capitalism has existed for centuries at this point this tendency has become significantly advanced. The recovery from the 2008 crisis was weak.

The ‘pandemic’ narrative was used to justify lockdowns, which have been an absolute disaster for the working class in terms of lost income. Importantly, lockdowns have helped to destroy small businesses, which has increased wealth centralisation. Under capitalism, capital becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer companies, banks, etc. as more successful firms drive weaker competition out of business. Lockdowns accelerate this process in several ways: closing small firms’ premises so forcing people to buy online, channeling purchases through a small number of businesses; causing small businesses to go bust so their assets can be bought on the cheap; and encouraging small businesses to take loans to ‘weather the pandemic’ which will mean their assets will be appropriated by banks.

The Covid-19 vaccinations then are just one part of transference of wealth into the pockets of a few large firms created by this narrative. Some might question this argument by saying that the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was not developed for profit. However, as explained by Whitney Webb, AstraZeneca plans to make their profit further down the line through boosters given to people who received the original AstraZeneca jab. Their hope for profit was based on getting a wider spread of the vaccine due to the initial lack of profit, then doubling up on profit later – just another means to the same end.

Isn’t This Obvious?

Yes, I would consider the points raised about Big Pharma profiteering to be rather obvious. However, it seems that the Left needs a reminder of the realities of Big Pharma, and that they do not care about individuals’ health, only profit.

This is because many on the Left have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Official Covid Narrative, advocating any and all forms of capitalist ‘health’ authoritarianism so long as the government justifies it as ‘protecting us from a deadly virus’. Furthermore, the left has mocked anyone who questioned this narrative as a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

This puts the left in awkward position in terms of the profit motive behind the vaccines. The left has really pushed the idea of endless lockdowns, to the extent that it is difficult to see what would satisfy them (welding us in our homes, maybe?) This puts them in a position of having to support the vaccine because they are going to look ridiculous if they advocate for 50-year lockdowns until there is no more Covid (though of course, that doesn’t stop some of them – see the ‘Zero Covid’ fanatics).

People who question the vaccine, according to the left, are thus put in a bucket of being ‘Conspiracy theorists’, despite the obvious point that there is a certain motivation behind these vaccines that the left would have to admit: profit.

The left resolves this by unconsciously/cynically (take your pick) recognising the fact that profit is important for Big Pharma but only in terms of denying people the vaccine if they do not have the money to pay for it. The narrative involves criticism of Big Pharma in the sense that they have patented these vaccines and will not let generic versions of the vaccines be marketed because of their profit margins. The idea that the vaccine itself could be contaminated by profit motives is not considered.

Conclusion

The Covid-19 Narrative has created a windfall for Big Pharma, which is minimised by the left because they have fallen for the Covid Narrative. Although this minimisation is required given the support for the Covid narrative, it also warrants further explanation.

Kill The Bill Birmingham 1st May 2021

In a previous article about Kill the Bill, I expressed my reservations about this movement. The article, hosted on OffGuardian, agreed that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is an assault on human rights and the right to protest. My disagreements with the Kill the Bill movement focused upon its failure to challenge the Official Covid Narrative – and indeed, their reinforcement of that narrative via compliance with masks and speeches supporting that narrative.

For this reason, I believe that the anti-lockdown/vaccine passport movement is the most important movement to support – along with the Free Julian Assange movement – in order to truly protect our freedoms. (In my own activism I largely focus on Assange).

I decided to attend this event in order to cover it for this website.

I was pleased to see that someone had taped up a ‘Don’t Extradite Assange’ sign among the various other taped up signs (mainly ‘Stop the War’ Coalition signs).

Spotted at #KillTheBill Birmingham👍

NOT my placard! #FreeAssange pic.twitter.com/OxVwu4KSPE
— Bham4Assange (@Bham4A) May 1, 2021

Tweet from my Assange account

There were not many there until about 2:10. It was tipping it down between about 1:00 and 2:00, meaning that the only people in Victoria Square were huddled at the back:

A wet Victoria Square with a few people walking towards the camera — Victoria Square about 1:30pm.

The speeches started about 2:15 and lasted until about 3:15. The rain stopped, fortunately.

The crowd size was not that large. I would guess a bit smaller than the two anti-lockdown events I have attended at Victoria Square. Guessing how large a crowd is is notoriously difficult and annoying. I would give a ballpark of 500.

A crowd in Victoria Square, Birmingham. On the left woman with a large red flag. A Palestine flag is in the background. — Victoria Square about 2:40.

Most of the speeches were pretty short, a few minutes each.

I did see aspects of the same hypocrisies in terms of Covid-19 as I highlighted in my OffGuardian article, though these were less in-your-face than at the London event. Most though not all of the attendees were complying with wearing a mask. The last speaker was the main person to address Covid directly, saying that the Tories want to ‘make us pay for the Covid crisis’. The correct thing to do, of course, is to oppose the manufacturing of the ‘Covid crisis’, rather than support that narrative. After complaining that there is no opposition in Parliament, the speaker then went on to state he was going to quote Lenin. Say what you want about Lenin, but I don’t think he would have advocated ‘Pandemic’ capitalist narratives.

The first speaker mentioned the repression at the Sarah Everard vigil as the spark for these protests. The fact that the Left reacted to this but ignored the police harassment of Piers Corbyn or even harassment of Assange supporters highlights the hypocrisy on this point. There has been no shortage of police overreach to trigger action, but the ‘nutter’ Corbyn is not deemed worth defending by the left even when he is on the receiving end of unwarranted repression. The left barely defends Assange (the likes of the Socialist Workers’ Party shack up at everything but I didn’t see many people affiliated with these socialist groups outside the Old Bailey in September/October 2020 on the four days I was able to attend the protests).

A couple of side points. Another speaker, talking about Traveller communities, compared Priti Patel to Hitler. The quote was (paraphrasing) ‘Hitler did not succeed in destroying the Romany peoples, don’t let Priti Patel succeed’ or something similar, that was the implication. I can only imagine how quickly I would get cancelled if I used a Hitler analogy in relation to Covid Tyranny. Another person talked about free speech on campuses and honest discussions of colonialism. (I agree with protecting free speech and being able to speak the truth about the British Empire, but given that this is a woke milieu, I have to wonder their view on Maya Forstater).

I did not see any examples of repression from the police though I left at 3:15 and did not go on the march afterwards.

I would rather people protest this bill than not protest it. I do not want this bill to pass because of its restrictions on protests – it says that protests can be shut down for noise reasons, which in reality means any protests that the state does not like will be called ‘too noisy’ and shut down.

But I would even more rather the left get off its arse and realise that the Official Covid Narrative has to be opposed along with the Coronavirus Act 2020. We all need to unite to oppose tyranny, and that is going to involve left wing activists uniting with the anti-lockdown movement. If this does not happen, the left will become even more irrelevant in the face of more and more ordinary people getting utterly fed up of this ‘Covid’ nonsense. Despite media manipulation, this is evident in the hundreds of thousands of attendees at the large London events against lockdowns and vaccine passports. Once you add in people who sympathise with the protests you are looking at millions of people and that number will only likely get larger as the government pushes more and more authoritarian policies.

We are in a race against time to stop the vaccine passport. If the vaccine passport is introduced, even if in a limited capacity, freedom will most likely come to an end. As Neil Clark outlines:

But if vaccine passports are introduced, even for the most limited circumstances, we can be sure of two things. The scheme won’t be ‘limited’ but will be expanded over time into a full-scale digitalised Chinese-style social credit restricted access system, AND it won’t be ‘temporary’.

Without linking up in order to fight against all forms of capitalist state tyranny I can only feel that this movement will be a failure. It’s high time the majority of the left admitted they got it wrong on Covid 19, and work to actually correct their mistake by opposing lockdowns, mandatory masks, and vaccine passports. I am forced to stick with the original conclusion of my OffGuardian piece:

Focusing entirely on this one bill is a distraction that precludes a true recognition of the biosecurity state being foisted on us through lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing and vaccine passports.

Let the Bodies Pile High

A new claim has been leaked to the British media about alleged comments made by Boris Johnson about lockdowns. The Daily Mail reports that:

Boris Johnson said he would rather see ‘bodies pile high in their thousands’ than order a third lockdown, it was claimed last night.
The explosive remark is said to have come after he reluctantly imposed the second lockdown, sources told the Mail.

Covid-19 Psychological Warfare

The Official Covid Narrative – that is, the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a uniquely deadly virus that means that lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing, and vaccines are necessary to avoid mass death – has been a narrative that has been sold to the British public through the use of mass psychological manipulation.

Obviously, one significant part of that is the media. The media ran non-stop scare stories about the ‘deadly virus’, the idea that ‘the hospitals will be overrun’ was spouted endlessly, and in general, we were just all going to drop dead.

However, Boris Johnson delayed the implementation of the first lockdown in order to get the left and liberals, who hated him because of Brexit, to support it. This was exposed in an excellent article by Neil Clark:

Why did they [pretend they didn’t want a lockdown]? Well, put yourself in the shoes of Johnson and his top aide Dominic Cummings. If a Conservative government, and one which has already been denounced as by the liberal-left for being pro-Brexit, and anti-free movement, had said openly in February that they were planning to lock Britain down there would have been an outcry. The big question for the government was: how can we lock the country down, without stirring the liberal-left still further and provoking mass public opposition. What if the answer then was: pretend that we don’t want a lockdown? Then the binary, groupthink ‘culture warriors’ would be sure to press for one! They would end up calling for the government to do exactly what the government had planned to do all along! High-fives all round at Number 10.

I also pointed out in a previous article about the Modern Left’s support of the Covid Narrative that Johnson deliberately made himself look unsympathetic and callous:

The Left generally likes to think of itself as a compassionate group of people, caring about the rights of minorities and the working class, as compared to conservatives, who are apparently racist and homophobic. The idea that ‘lockdown is the compassionate position to save lives’ made the left buy into it, especially as Johnson made it appear as if he was ‘uncompassionate’ (for example, stating that some people would lose loved ones to the virus – assuming the virus exists, a simple statement of fact) which made the left get up in arms about how he wanted to ‘kill people’.

Johnson’s Comments Assessed

Johnson, of course, has stated that he did not say this. However, the argument about whether he actually made this comment is really beside the point. The actual discussion is about the purpose of this leak and what it is meant to achieve in terms of the continued psychological warfare on the British public in relation to the Official Covid Narrative.

We can already begin to see the strategy behind this leak from the quotes above. It seeks to portray the second lockdown in the same light as the first – that is, Boris Johnson as the reluctant, lagging lockdowner who is willing to cause deaths rather than save his country from a deadly virus. It portrays Johnson as callous and heartless, not caring about death.

Why would this be necessary? Other evidence, such as Chris Whitty openly talking about a new wave in late summer 2021, or the India narrative, suggests that Britain is being psychologically primed for another lockdown. This leak supports that contention, by showing that the government still has a need for further psychological manipulation on this issue.

Firstly, the ‘incompetent and callous Boris who locked down too late’ imagery can be used in order to justify more lockdown. Johnson did not do a ‘proper’ job on lockdowns so we need more of them because of his incompetence. Some people have suggested that Johnson is now ‘tainted’ and will be moved out of the way for another leader (who will then be able to do even harsher lockdowns by using this evidence of Johnson as a ‘weak lockdowner’). I make no predictions on that score, but it is possible.

Secondly, liberals, left-wingers, Labour MPs, etc are outraged by Johnson’s alleged comments. This is more psychological priming by the Tories in order to get left-wing people to accept more and more lockdown, exactly as the government did in March 2020. If Johnson is for less lockdown, well, we better be for more lockdown.

This leak was intentional in order to justify more murderous lockdowns, with Johnson at the helm or not.

Zombie Russians

It is easy to forget about official narratives. Even completely bizarre official narratives, such as the Skripal affair. There is just such a tirade of nonsense from governments in the Western world that it becomes difficult to keep track of everything. Especially in the era of the most all-consuming official narrative I have seen in my lifetime: the story of the ‘worst pandemic in a century’ that will kill us all.

The onslaught of this nonsense has been so all consuming that everything else has been forgotten. Reported Missing: Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, have not been seen since February 2020, please contact Theresa May if you happen to see them doing anything a bit dodgy.

Switch on the news on the 18^th April, however, and you were met with the famous photographs of the two men. Two surly Russian looking, well, Russians back on the nation’s media screens. Makes a change from the ubiquitous “deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive test” figures, I grant you.

You may remember these two blokes from an incident known as ‘The Skripal Affair’ in which the incredibly ruthless, bloodthirsty mastermind Vladimir Putin of The Evil Empire sent in two extremely incompetent assassins to get rid of Sergei Skripal. Putin wanted to do this because he is, well, Putin and possesses more inherent evil than Satan encouraging 12-year-old kids to take heroin.

Being Putin, of course, he was above mundane methods of assassinating people such as shooting them in the head, and instead flaunted his Evil Credentials by employing the uber-Russian sounding Novichok so that everyone would know it was him just from the name. (Fun fact: the word Novichok means ‘newcomer’ in Russian.) Hoping to get extra points for style in the Beelzebub Rankings, he had his assassins smear this substance – also known as the World’s Deadliest Nerve Agent – on the door handle of Sergei Skripal’s house.

Our two assassins, having carried this out, then did a spot of window shopping in Salisbury. Sure, that might sound implausible – you would think assassins would like to leave the scene of the crime as soon as possible – but this is Putin we’re talking about. He likes to make sure his murders have the full effect by really rubbing it in. And what could be better for that purpose than looking in the window of a stamp and coin shop? Assassin Bargain Hunt: What could be better?

Meanwhile, the Skripals were able to wander around without collapsing for several hours, including a dinner at Zizzi’s, despite the fact they had been exposed to Novichok. But maybe the most important point is that our mastermind, playing chess when everyone else is playing Tiddlywinks, failed to assassinate Skripal at all.

Well, why are these two men back on our screens? Well, allegedly because they were involved in an ammunition dump in the Czech Republic exploding all the way back in 2014.

US government funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty puts it this way:

The explosion October 16, 2014, blast in Vrbetice set off 50 metric tons of stored ammunition. Two months later, another blast of 13 tons of ammunition occurred at the same site.

The two alleged suspects have “various passports, including Russian documents in the names of Aleksandr Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov.”

Národní centrála proti organizovanému zločinu SKPV, žádá v souvislosti s prověřováním okolností závažné trestné činnosti o pomoc při pátrání po dvou osobách. https://t.co/SJ5Opg5gXD #policiepp pic.twitter.com/oACMrPYSbg
— Policie ČR (@PolicieCZ) April 17, 2021

Apparently, Russia only has two blokes to send in there regardless of the job, so that these two lucky chaps have to multitask as both explosion experts and World’s Deadliest Nerve Agent experts. I mean, I thought with that oil money Putin could afford a few more secret agents. Preferably some that don’t smoke pot the night before handling Novichok.

I wonder what they’ve been up to while we’ve all been distracted by the Deadliest Plague in a Century that Requires us to Change our Way of Life Forever? Or maybe the claims about the Wuhan Lab are all nonsense, and in fact it was Boshirov and Petrov that came up with Sars-Cov-2 in a Russian lab and then blamed it on the Chinese. Just remember, when the mainstream media comes out with this one, that you heard it here first.

The Kill the Bill Achilles’ Heel

New article on Kill the Bill and their support for the Official Covid Narrative. Hosted at OffGuardian.

The Modern Left is Out of Touch With Reality: Part 3 – Universal Basic Income

As argued in the first two parts of this series, the modern left has lost touch with reality.

In order to recap my definition of the modern left, it consists of those who agree with many left-wing economic policies and share the critique of imperialism with the traditional socialist left, but who have a heavy focus on identity politics. Examples would be outlets such as The Canary and Novara Media. For a more detailed explanation, see the first article in these series.

The first two parts of this article addressed two ways in which the modern left has lost touch with material reality. The first of these, the left-wing support for lockdowns, shows their detachment from the reality of working-class job losses, income losses, and mental well being. The second of these, their support for transgender ideology, shows their detachment from the material reality of biological sex.

The third part in this series will address the issue of Universal Basic Income, or UBI.

What is UBI?

First, we need a definition of Universal Basic Income. Investopedia defines the term as such:

Universal basic income (UBI) is a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money on a regular basis. The goals of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty and replace other need-based social programs that potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement.

UBI is a popular position among many people on the left, including many who could not be considered part of the modern left. In the US, the idea has gained more traction due to the Democratic primary challenger Andrew Yang running as a largely one-issue candidate focusing on UBI.

While there are right-wing cases for UBI, made by individuals such as Milton Friedman, I will not take these into consideration in this article. Nor will I attempt to use the fact that some right wingers support UBI as prima facie discrediting the idea.

The Left Case For UBI

An article published in Novara Media by Andrew Dolan brings up 7 reasons as to why he supports UBI. In short, his reasons are: 1) that wages are too low, 2) full employment is not possible, 3) that it is unconditional, 4) makes working less necessary, 5) It is becoming a mainstream idea, 6) it provides and opportunity to move beyond capitalism, 7) potential to create a unified movement.

At first glance, these seem to offer some good reasons to support UBI. The fact that UBI supplements wages, for example, seems like a good way to reduce poverty, as does the fact that it is paid to everybody, including the unemployed. The fact that it takes the emphasis from paid work could also appear as a positive benefit as it could reconfigure life to be more focused on other aspects of the human condition such as family.

So where is the snag in the argument?

The Biosecurity Context

There are many people who object to UBI on economic grounds, such as that the policy would lead to high levels of inflation, or that it would lead to large levels of government debt. Another objection is that the taxes used to pay for the policy would end up being taken from the poor, particularly if it is funded via VAT (which was a suggestion made by Andrew Yang). However, these kinds of arguments do not concern me, and are not the reason for my objections to UBI. Even if all of these arguments could convincingly be debunked, I would still oppose UBI.

This is because of the capitalist biosecurity state context in which the UBI policy would exist.

We cannot abstract UBI from this context, which is the major flaw in the left case for UBI. So what is a biosecurity state context and why is it problematic for the case for UBI?

We live in societies where the state already has a large amount of control over people’s lives. While the 1940s creation of a welfare state could be said to have had some benefits for working class people, such as improving access to healthcare, it also acted as a control mechanism over the working class, particularly in terms of unemployment benefits.

The working class under capitalism have had the choice of the ‘friendly societies’ that were common in the nineteenth century or state provision of unemployment benefits. Friendly societies were organisations set up by workers as a kind of insurance policy that they paid into and would receive stipends from if they were made unemployed or injured at work. This was a form of self-organisation, but often proved inadequate when capitalist crises happened. On the other hand, workers accessing state-based solutions have been subjected to the long-standing idea of the ‘deserving’ vs. the ‘undeserving’ poor.

The amount of state control over the lives of ordinary people has increased over time and is reaching the stage where alleged Western ‘democracies’ are teetering on full-blown authoritarianism. In the UK, this can be seen in the increase in mass surveillance, and the increasing control over free speech, including the persecution of Julian Assange and coordination between state and social media platforms to remove dissenting opinions. A significant step towards this was the 9/11 event, sold to the public as being caused by ‘terrorists that are trying to destroy our way of life’. This meant that the government was able to pass a range of ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation, aimed at the public. Similar trends exist in the US and some other ‘Western democracies’.

The measures imposed over the past year – allegedly in response to the virus Sars-Cov-2 – are the next stage in this growing authoritarianism. The first step was the ‘lockdowns’, forcing people to ‘stay at home’ and banning them from social interaction. Following on from this policy came the forced masks, used to maintain the image of fear while no-one was dying in July and August. Then came more lockdowns, and now the government is making their play for permanent tyranny – the vaccine passport.

The government is currently attempting to soft pedal the passport by suggesting the idea that it will be temporary, or that it will not be needed for certain businesses, such as ‘non-essential’ shops and pubs. However, once the passport is introduced, it will be impossible to get rid of it without a massive effort, and it will become slowly more draconian over time. Such a mechanism may begin only with international travel, theatres and sports, but will expand to shops and every other possible organisation.

This is the context we need to understand when looking at the reality of UBI as a policy. While fighting for UBI may seem like a good response to lockdowns due to the destruction of jobs caused by this policy, in reality UBI will strengthen this control matrix.

One of the desires of the elite is to create universal digital IDs for the entirety of humanity. There is a campaign group set up to advocate for this called ID2020. This group is associated with Microsoft and the GAVI Vaccine Alliance and thus has ties to Bill Gates. While the ID2020 website tries to portray its strategy of giving every human being on earth a digital identity as empowering people through the promotion of more choice and control, in reality such a system would lead to more elite control over humanity. The ID2020 website links to another site called the Good Health Pass Collaborative, designed to promote the vaccine passport.

The aim of any UBI that is introduced – and the government could use the mechanism of furlough to do so – would be to tie it into this digital identity matrix. UBI would then be used as a control mechanism. It would be ‘universal’ in the sense that anyone could have access to it, but it would require compliance – for example, having all the latest vaccines that Big Pharma demand, or not resisting or opposing the government in any way.

Critics of this argument may object that what I am criticising is not UBI, since that would be without preconditions. However, this argument shows that what would happen in practise when this policy is implemented by a capitalist state. In order to combat this argument, it would need to be demonstrate that this would not be how such a stipend would work in practise.

Conclusion

Universal Basic Income is a distraction for the left, and if any similar policy was implemented by a capitalist state, it would merely enhance the control mechanisms of such a state. The left should forget about demanding this policy and instead focus upon organising to end the draconian ‘Covid measures’ and other signs of an emerging biosecurity state.

The Covid 19 Narrative is About Destroying Our Links With the Natural World (Part 2)

Introduction

In the first part of this article, I discussed the Covid-19 narrative in the context of nature. The article concluded that there were significant signs of an agenda to detach human beings from nature: firstly, in the denial of the reality of death, and secondly, through the normalisation of mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccinations.

However, the discussion of the connection between devaluing nature and the Official Covid Narrative does not end there. There are further significant links which are helping to make Klaus Schwab’s “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities” a reality. This part of the article will discuss the normalisation of nanotechnology through use of the Covid Narrative, as well as the coming ‘Smart Cities’ being pushed by the World Economic Forum.

The NanoTech New Normal

A 2004 report from the British Royal Society can serve as an introduction to the concept of nanotechnology. This report states that:

A nanometre (nm) is one thousand millionth of a metre. For comparison, a single human hair is about 80,000 nm wide, a red blood cell is approximately 7,000 nm wide and a water molecule is almost 0.3nm across. People are interested in the nanoscale (which we define to be from 100nm down to the size of atoms (approximately 0.2nm)) because it is at this scale that the properties of materials can be very different from those at a larger scale. We define nanoscience as the study of phenomena and manipulation of materials at atomic, molecular and macromolecular scales, where properties differ significantly from those at a larger scale; and nanotechnologies as the design, characterisation, production and application of structures, devices and systems by controlling shape and size at the nanometre scale. In some senses, nanoscience and nanotechnologies are not new. Chemists have been making polymers, which are large molecules made up of nanoscale subunits, for many decades and nanotechnologies have been used to create the tiny features on computer chips for the past 20 years. However, advances in the tools that now allow atoms and molecules to be examined and probed with great precision have enabled the expansion and development of nanoscience and nanotechnologies.

Institutions such as the US Government have been interested in nanotechnology for several years. The National Nanotechnology Initiative was launched by Bill Clinton and the organisation has received funding from Congress.

The cumulative NNI investment since fiscal year 2001, including the 2018 request, now totals more than $25 billion. In addition, more than $1.1 billion has been invested cumulatively since 2004 in funding for nanotechnology-based small businesses through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs of the participating Federal agencies.

At first, the kinds of technologies that are being advocated for seem benign or positive developments, such as to improve the functioning of computers. The benign uses of such technologies can mean that they become more accepted in society.

However, certain uses of nanotechnology that are desired by the elite are considered to be taboo by ordinary people. In particular, the integration of nanotechnology within the human body. Much like concepts such as Genetically Modified foods, many people consider interfering with nature in this way to be immoral and playing god. A lot of people still maintain some connection with nature and do not desire nanotechnology to be used within the human body. The inculcation of mass fear around the Sars-Cov-2 virus, and the idea introduced through this fear that nature is the enemy, is a way to get around this problem.

The Covid-19 narrative is being used to slowly normalise the idea of ‘implantable biosensors’ that will monitor your health. Back in 2018, a company known as Profusa claimed to have developed these small injectable sensors that can be used to monitor all aspects of body chemistry, marketing them as a step up from fitness trackers and other wearable watch like products. Their sensors overcome issues with the body rejecting such interventions as foreign and causing inflammation in response. These sensors – injected at the surface of the skin – can be scanned via smartphone devices in order to retrieve the data they have collected. The research carried out by Profusa is supported by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), one of the main institutions pushing techno-tyranny as a ‘solution’ to Covid-19. DARPA have been interested in the notion of ‘predictive health’ for a long time and have been examining the issue since at least 2006.

The link between these technologies and Covid-19 is made explicit in this article. Profusa has developed another sensor that allegedly detects sickness with a particular virus before the person shows symptoms, a concept that Ryan Cristian has usefully called ‘Medical Precrime’. The article acknowledges that some people might be wary of the idea because of privacy concerns but brushes that aside, claiming that the sensors can only transmit information when they are scanned.

The idea of Medical Precrime ties into the War on Death, discussed in the first part of this article. Accepting the need for these sensors to tell you that you are sick involves rejecting the truth of your own body. This is a step up from the focus on RT-PCR testing to see whether or not somebody has Sars-Cov-2, even if they have no symptoms, and the whole narrative around ‘asymptomatic transmission’.

Dissociation from your own body is required to get you to accept transhumanism. If you accept your body as part of nature that you are in touch with and related to, you will not want a transhumanist future. The elite, however, want this transhumanist future whether you like it or not, so they have to develop bridging ideologies and constructs to get ordinary people to accept that future, and The Official Covid Narrative is one of these.

Endgame: The Totalitarian Smart Cities

According to the Smart Cities Readiness Guide, a smart city can be defined as such:

A smart city uses information and communications technology (ICT) to enhance its livability, workability and sustainability. First, a smart city collects information about itself through sensors, other devices and existing systems. Next, it communicates that data using wired or wireless networks. Third, it analyzes that data to understand what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen next.

Another key aspect of the Smart City is the Internet of Things, which connects all devices – from kettles and fridges to computers and mobile phones – to the internet. This kind of system would require 5G to function because otherwise there would be far too much latency within the system.

Searching online for ‘Smart Cities Covid 19’ brings up a multitude of links relating to the issue. For example, this article states that:

Density – it’s part of what makes cities bustling cosmopolitan hubs for transnational commerce and mobility. It is also what makes them particularly vulnerable to the risks of outbreaks such as COVID-19, with some experts arguing it will force a significant rethink of urban planning if we are to achieve long-term survival in a pandemic world.

This article portrays the Smart City approach as a positive way to ‘control the pandemic’ by using the ‘collective intelligence’ of people in relation to the high level of data collected by the sensors embedded within the smart city.

Another article links Covid to Smart Cities through a false ‘green’ agenda, stating that the lockdowns have reduced road traffic and that smart city technology can be used to continue this reduction in pollution and carbon emissions. For example, they claim that AI can be used to reduce congestion through steering traffic. The article then uses this idea as a lead into normalising alarms going off if people are not ‘social distancing’.

The World Economic Forum, and other elites, are deeply invested in promoting this smart city vision, and using whatever concerns of the public – from pollution to pandemics – that they feel will get people to accept this agenda. While we are allegedly living in the ‘deadliest pandemic in a century’ the elite are concerned about pushing this technology more than anything else. In November 2020, The World Economic Forum selected 36 cities to pioneer these kinds of technologies:

Cities are facing urgent challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and other major disruptions, which are expected to culminate in a budget crisis that could reach $1 trillion in the United States alone. They need data and innovation to become more resilient, responsive and efficient. Yet there is no global framework for how cities should use these technologies, or the data they collect, in a way that protects the public interest.

In reality, despite the PR lavished on Smart Cities, such a system would be a heavily controlled one, where there would be no ability to dissent from what the elite want. Every move and every possible piece of data would be tracked. AI would begin to control more and more of people’s lives through the processing and analysis of the endless data collected from the multitude of sensors. There would be no privacy, and the elite could make rebellion essentially impossible, by cutting off every single device that an attempted rebel owns – even their heating or fridge. And there would be no room for things that the elite are not able to control in this new dystopia – including the natural world.

Conclusion

We must defend the value of nature and the natural, as well as our own connections with nature and the cycles of life, in order to fight the Covid-19 Narrative. This narrative begins with the denial of death as a natural process but ends with everything in our lives being controlled through the mechanism of technology. In a smart city where everything is controlled through sensors, monitoring, and artificial intelligence, there is no room for nature and the natural. Even humanity itself will become modified by mRNA gene therapy and concepts like Elon Musk’s Neuralink which will connect people to computers and thus into the Smart Cities themselves. Here we end up at Klaus Schwab’s dreaded “fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities.”

The Modern Left Has Lost Touch With Reality: Part 2 – Transgender Ideology

In the first part of this series, I discussed the pro-lockdown stance of the modern left and how that indicated a break with reality.

In order to recap my definition of the modern left, it is those that claim to be independent from the mainstream media, advocate for left wing policies on the economy and criticise US/UK foreign policy but have a large proportion of their focus on identity politics. For an expanded definition, see the original article.

The second part of this series will discuss the modern left’s belief in transgender ideology, and how that indicates that their break with reality came earlier than the Covid Narrative.

What is Transgender Ideology?

People who support transgender ideology will claim that there is no such thing as transgender ideology (or alternatively, Gender Identity Ideology).

Transgender ideologists believe that each human being has an innate gender identity. This can either match the biological sex of the person (‘cis’) or not match the biological sex of the person (‘trans’). This gender identity does not have to be male or female; the most popular alternative to male or female identities is ‘non-binary’ meaning not identifying as either male or female. This identity is considered to override biological sex, so if a man ‘identifies as’ a woman, he is a woman, if a woman identifies as non binary then she is non binary.

This ideology seeks to change the way that society is constructed, to change the point of reference from sex to gender identity. So female toilets should be those for a female gender identity and not for the female biological sex. This applies to all other things segregated by sex – they should become segregated by identity (or not segregated at all). Pronouns are also another key part of this ideology. Rather than pronouns simply being used to shorten communication and to avoid contorted sentences, they are used as a form of validation of the individual’s gender identity. It is common nowadays in ‘queer’ spaces to state the pronouns ‘you use’ (i.e. that other people use about you) while introducing yourself to the group. She/her if you identify as a woman, they/them if you identify as non-binary etc. Some use multiple pronouns like she/they or ‘neopronouns’ (new words) like zie/zim.

The Left and Transgender Ideology

The modern left is heavily invested in supporting and defending this ideology and protecting it from criticism. Many of the individuals that I identified in my previous post, such as Kerry Ann Mendoza, Ash Sarkar, and Owen Jones, put a lot of energy into defending gender identity ideology. Here’s a few examples of how that applies in practise.

Sarkar and Jones, in particular, have criticised the High Court ruling in Bell/A. vs. Tavistock. This legal case was brought by Keira Bell, a detransitioned woman, and Mrs. A., the mother of a teenager with rapid onset gender dysphoria. It regarded the issue of whether children can consent to puberty blockers – drugs that prevent natural puberty which are the first step towards medical transition. The High Court declared that children under 16 were very unlikely to be able to consent to the use of puberty blockers.

Both Jones and Sarkar support the notion of the ‘trans child’. Of course, this follows from the notion of an ‘innate gender identity’ which children are capable of ‘just knowing’ by magic whether they are a boy or a girl (I would suggest that anyone who believes this try interacting with some children.) They believe that saying that children cannot consent to puberty blockers is discrimination against the ‘trans child’.

This isn’t the only position that these left wing activists take that is completely out of touch with reality. They also consider the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to be ‘transphobic’ because it requires a waiting time of two years before ‘gender’ can be changed and the presentation of medical evidence of gender dysphoria. Instead, they want this system to be operated on the principle of ‘self-ID’ – anyone can change their ‘gender’ at any time for any reason.

This article criticising Liz Truss for rejecting reforms along these lines from the Canary is a good example. One sentence of this article – talking about the fact that the GRA does not mention ‘non binary’ identities – is particularly revealing:

“Right now, non-binary individuals have nowhere to turn to legitimise their gender.”

The idea that the state and government legislation exists to legitimise an individual’s belief about themselves is of course, absurd and extremely narcissistic. The article does not answer the question as to why the state should consider ‘gender’ to be a valid category at all to include in law, other than that people’s feelings will be hurt if it is not.

Meanwhile, women’s concerns about men in their spaces are dismissed as transphobic. Women are perceived as the oppressors of those poor trans-identified males because we don’t consider them women and don’t want their male bodies in our spaces. This of course is a complete inversion of reality, where patriarchy oppresses women through male violence and the threat of such.

Transgender ideology has become a key plank of the modern left, and one which brooks no dissent, similar to the Covid narrative. The publications that are part of this milieu would refuse to publish any woman talking about the harms of this ideology (even publishing an article by her on a completely different topic) because in their view she is a ‘transphobe’ and a ‘terf’. The mantras are – ‘No Debate’ and ‘Trans Women are Women’. Anything other than full belief is transphobia.

What’s wrong with Gender Identity Ideology?

What’s the problem? Someone might ask. After all, isn’t this just about being kind to people who are suffering from mental distress? Isn’t this just about alleviating an individual’s dysphoria by being polite and kind? Well, no.

It should go without saying that criticising an ideology is not the same thing as expressing hatred towards a person. If one criticises Christianity or Islam, because they disagree with those religions, that is not the same as hating individuals that profess belief in those faiths. Whereas say, abuse towards someone for wearing a religious symbol would be an example of hatred towards the person believing in that religion. It should go without saying, except for the fact that transgender ideologists frame any disagreement with the concept of ‘gender identity’ as personal hatred and denial of their existence. They often abuse women for criticising their beliefs as ‘terfs’ and ‘transphobic’. So what are the problems with this belief? I am going to outline the fact that gender identity ideology is both misogynistic and homophobic.

Misogyny

Gender identity ideology is misogynistic.

How can one ‘identify’ as a woman? Women (and in general, non-gender identity believers) would say that female is a biological sex which is defined by the body type designed to produce eggs (large gametes). Women generally develop certain primary and secondary sex characteristics (womb, vagina, breasts) etc. That said because female is the type of body that is designed to develop large gametes, women who have certain disorders with regards to hormones or differences of sex development are still female, despite some transgender ideology claims that sex is a spectrum.

It’s clear that males cannot identify as having female biology, because that does not make any sense. Males by definition cannot have female biology (and vice versa). So, if a male identifies as female, what is he identifying with? Males who claim they are female claim to have some sort of inner female essence. What this amounts to in reality, however, is that they consider this female essence to be feminine stereotypes. Obviously, reducing women to feminine stereotypes is misogynistic.

The sexism is also very notable in the discussion around ‘trans kids’. ‘Affirmative’ parents – those who accept their child is the opposite sex – generally make comments about how their male child always liked dresses and dolls or their female child always liked trucks and climbing trees. The implication of this logic being that if a boy likes dresses he must really be a girl inside. This is regressive and encourages medicalisation of children who do not conform to gender stereotypes.

Gender identity ideology implies that women can identify out of their own oppression, as if ‘gender identity’ is the cause of women’s oppression, then women could escape this by identifying as men. This is obviously wrong, as women and girls cannot avoid FGM, forced marriage, rape, domestic violence and prostitution simply by identifying as male. Gender ideology also believes that men who identify as women are more oppressed than women because of their ‘identity’, and because of the fact that women refuse to ‘respect’ this identity. This ignores the male violence that women face, and also equates the oppression of trans identified homosexual males in prostitution in South America – a form of homophobic male violence – with the alleged oppression of middle class white trans-identified males in the West.

This ideology also reduces women’s safety, by allowing men who identify as women into spaces designed for women such as female toilets and changing rooms. It reduces the ability of women to be able to say no to men in these spaces for fear of being accused of transphobia. It also leads to dangerous situations where males are placed in female prisons and attack women.

Homophobia

Gender identity ideology is homophobic.

A lesbian is a woman who is attracted to other women and a gay man is a man attracted to other men. These terms are defined on the basis of biological sex. Gender identity ideology redefines these terms by stating that ‘woman’ is anyone who says they are a woman and ‘man’ is anyone who says they are a man. It follows that lesbians must include trans women in their dating pool and gay men must include trans men in their dating pool. This is imposing compulsory heterosexuality on gays and lesbians, which is homophobic.

Lesbians and gay men are subjected to abuse if they define their orientation as same sex attraction. There are endless amounts of twitter comments that state that if a lesbian refuses to sleep with trans women she is a ‘terf’, a ‘transphobe’ and that she is ‘denying that a trans women is a real woman’. There is even a term used by trans activists for this, the ‘cotton ceiling’, in other words framing lesbian sexuality as a barrier to be overcome by trans women. The same applies to gay men in reverse.

Trans ideology is also homophobic because it encourages children to ‘transition’. Gender dysphoria in children is more likely than not to resolve or decrease if a child is allowed to go through puberty and the number of these children that grow up LGB is higher than statistical average. There are also cases – revealed by whistleblowers at the Tavistock gender identity clinic in the UK – that many parents who do not want a gay child will seek their child’s transition as a ‘cure’ for homosexuality.

Where did Transgender Ideology Come From?

How did the absurd idea that men are actually women if they say so become so popular? After all, it is a laughable idea, or would be, if it wasn’t being used as a basis to undermine women’s rights and give harmful drugs to children.

Transgender ideology would not have been able to have become so dominant in society without a large amount of money behind it. Unlike Civil Rights and Gay Rights, transgender ideology has completely captured society in a small period of time without any real input from the broader society and without any attempts by activists to build public support for their position. The powerful men behind this ideology have captured institutions from the top down.

Stonewall, for example, used to be an organisation for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. It was designed to combat discrimination and to abolish homophobic laws such as Section 28. In 2015, Stonewall added the T to the previous Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual activism that it had been doing. Stonewall started pushing for extreme claims such as that biological sex does not matter and that same sex attraction is actually same gender attraction. The amount of funding that Stonewall has increased since they started promoting transgender ideology.

This idea was able to capture many large institutions in the UK through the mechanism of the ‘Stonewall Diversity Champions’ scheme. This scheme involves organisations paying Stonewall money to have a label placed on their website that shows that they are affiliated with Stonewall. This is then used to push their ideology and silence dissent, as has been seen with the case of Allison Bailey, a barrister who disagrees with gender identity ideology.

It is far more than just Stonewall, of course. Stonewall is merely a footsoldier in this war, the main drivers of this ideology are certain billionaires invested in pharmaceutical companies, and those who seek to change humanity through the mechanism of transhumanism. Big Pharma has an incentive to promote transgender hormones and surgeries as these make a large amount of money as opposite sex imitation requires a lifelong hormone regimen. Trans-identified male Martine Rothblatt has been the most vocal in promoting the intersection between transgenderism and transhumanism. The idea of transgenderism, in the words of Jennifer Bilek, is the “normalisation of disembodiment”, which opens up a path to lead to transhumanism as transhumanism is based on rejecting human embodiment and seeking to upload human beings to the cloud and other similar projects.

So How did the Left Become Duped by this Big Pharma based Ideology?

This ideology is another case – similarly to the Official Covid Narrative – where a detachment from material reality has led to the left supporting something destructive and dangerous, that benefits the billionaires that they claim to oppose. In the case of transgender ideology it also leads to the left promoting ideas that it claims to be opposed to such as misogyny and homophobia.

Both the Covid Narrative and Transgender ideology are able to manipulate the idea of compassion. The left considers itself to be compassionate and caring, so the idea that they could possibly be a ‘bigot’ for criticising transgender ideology is extremely upsetting to them. In fact, many on the left spend a lot of energy on calling other people bigots. When a large part of your identity is wrapped up in not seeming to be bigoted, and you are automatically the ‘kind’ one because you are on the left, the idea of being called phobic is a possible psychological harm to you.

Misogyny also likely plays a role, because trans activism inherently privileges the opinions of men over women. Learned misogyny makes people turning to the left more likely to take men’s claims that they are women seriously. There has been a significant history of misoogyny on the left, and one of the reasons that women created their own movements was because of the lack of support for women’s rights within broader movements. Thus I don’t think implicit misogyny can be ruled out as an influence on the left – as although the left has adopted more women’s rights positions over time, it cannot be expected that they would be immune to misogyny. Misogyny also means that they dismiss women’s counterarguments to transgender ideology as being bigoted and hateful.

The detachment from the reality of biological sex means they fail to see how the ideology harms women. Their detachment from material reality in terms of class and economics means that they fail to examine the massive amounts of money behind this agenda, and fail to see that the more people ‘being their true self’ by taking hormones and having surgery, the more money for Big Pharma.

The left also fails to understand the concept of autogynephilia. If you understand this concept, the behaviour of trans-identified males makes perfect sense. Combine this with big pharma based ‘activism’ for the acceptance of this fetish and the mixture is truly toxic, but the left fails to understand this.

Many trans-identified males, and former trans identified males, have admitted that autogynephilia is or was their motivation to ‘transition’ from male to female. Autogynephilia can be defined as a fetish in which a man is sexually aroused by the idea of thinking of himself as a woman. This fetish can involve being aroused by female clothing, female biology (such as breastfeeding or pregnancy) etc.

The concept of autogynephilia explains male trans activist behaviour exceedingly well. It explains the obsession with entering female spaces (as this involves being validated as a ‘real woman’ and not a man claiming to be a woman and this is a crucial part of the fetish), why they desire to sleep with lesbians, etc. It also explains the anger they show if they do not get their fetish validated – the anger of male entitlement. When men get sexually rejected by women, they often get angry.

People find it hard to believe that there could be men out there that are so sexually obsessed and motivated by their fetish that they could go to the extremes of transitioning. However, there are many cases of men murdering women because of sexual rejection. The idea that there is a subset of men that would take hormones and have surgery for their fetish is really not so extreme.

Conclusion

Transgender Ideology is another sign of the left’s detachment from material reality. In particular, the material reality of biological sex, which is undermined and in some cases outright denied by transgender activists. But also the reality of the fact that this ideology is promoted by Big Pharma as a means to create profit, and has nothing to do with ‘being your true self.’