Category: Techno Tyranny

15-Minute Tyranny: The Government’s Plans for Oxford (and Everywhere Else)

[All photography in this article was taken at the anti-15-minute city protest in Oxford on the 18th February 2023].

One of the latest schemes coming out of the UK government is the 15-minute city, with Oxford one of the first cities lined up to implement this scheme, supposedly a new form of urban planning that makes every amenity available within 15 minutes of a resident’s house, so they do not have to drive. The establishment claim regarding these 15-minute cities is that they are perfectly benign and just a way to reduce traffic and protect the environment. The establishment also claims that anyone who opposes this plan is a ‘far-right conspiracy theorist’.

Liberal establishment outlet The Guardian, states:

The anti-vaccine, pro-Brexit, climate-denying, 15-minute-phobe, Great Reset axis is a strong one.

Of course, none of those positions is inherently right wing.

A report from the Oxford Mail outlines the plans for Oxford below:

ROAD blocks stopping most motorists from driving through Oxford city centre will divide the city into six “15 minute” neighbourhoods, a county council travel chief has said. The new traffic filters on St Cross Road, Thames Street, Hythe Bridge Street and St Clements would operate seven days a week from 7am to 7pm. Two more filters on Marston Ferry Road and Hollow Way would operate from Monday to Saturday. People can drive freely around their own neighbourhood and can apply for a permit to drive through the filters, and into other neighbourhoods, for up to 100 days per year. This equates to an average of two days per week.

Let’s start with addressing the pro-15-minute city arguments and their inherent problems.

The first claim is that people are opposing things being easily accessible within a 15-minute radius because they are just unhinged and like cars for the sake of it. The reality is no-one is opposing things being locally available per se. What is being opposed is making it much more restrictive for people to travel around the city and the need for ‘permits’ and the potential for that authoritarianism to increase over time.

The second claim is that all people opposed to 15-minute cities are ‘climate change deniers’. Some reject the theory of anthropomorphic global warming, that is correct. However, I don’t think that can be said as a blanket statement of all 15-minute city opponents. The other problem is that the MSM always conflates rejection of the climate change theory with denial of environmental harm in general. These are two separate issues.

I am sceptical of the Official Climate Change Narrative because I am sceptical of every Official Narrative at this point. However it’s obvious that the kind of lifestyle we have has lots of negative effects on the environment. This is the kind of lifestyle that the establishment wants, however, which makes their pleas that this is ‘just to protect the environment’ ring rather hollow. For example, the establishment supports endless wars, one of the most destructive environmental forces on the planet. They used exfoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam and depleted uranium in Iraq. They sprayed glyphosate all over the world and mocked anyone who suggested that this might have a negative environmental impact. They polluted the entire planet with aluminium despite the vast deleterious effects on wildlife. They encourage the use of pharmaceutical drugs regardless of necessity which can have a negative impact when they are urinated out of the human body and get into the water. They encourage endless consumerism of pointless tat. And of course there is a large amount of hypocrisy involved as the establishment does not want to give up their own cars or private jets.

As a result I don’t trust any government proposals to protect the environment.

So what are 15-minute cities about if they are not about the environment?

In short, authoritarian control.

15-minute cities may seem innocuous to some and it may seem as if the restrictions put in place on travel are not very extreme. However, we have to view this in the context of this scheme being promoted by the same governments that put the entire population under house arrest for two years. This is the context being ignored by those who support the 15-minute city schemes. Having put us under house arrest previously, they cannot be trusted to not do the same thing again, this time by stealth and slow totalitarianism, given that more lockdowns have probably become politically untenable.

Once you understand the desire for ‘digital identity’, as is currently being promoted by such establishment figures as Tony Blair, and the desire for ‘Smart Cities’, as promoted by the World Economic Forum, the desire to set up zoning within cities makes perfect sense. The zones will probably be implemented without too much coercion – initially. But soon – it will be considered ‘more convenient’ for the zones to be linked to digital identity checkpoints, which will form part of the ‘Internet of Things’ beloved by the transhumanist-promoting WEF. This will physically prevent travel outside of the ‘zone’ via computer as the digital systems will simply refuse to let one through the checkpoint. This digital identity can store all sorts of information, not just about ‘carbon footprints’ but also about ‘vaccination’ status and other purported information that they may wish to use to block your access to areas outside of your ‘zone’.

It is here we see the real potential of the 15-minute city and why the establishment has an interest in promoting it. They may dress it up in fluffy terms like ‘protecting the environment’ but what it means is an ever more intrusive surveillance state. This is the goal of these psychopaths.

The Fundamental Misogyny of Transhumanism

Introduction

Transhumanist ideology has been growing in prominence over the past several years, as global elites (such as Klaus Schwab), businessmen (such as Elon Musk) and those who promote synthetic sex identities (such as Martine Rothblatt), publicly defend such a view. This ideology is the exultation of the anti-human and the unhuman over the human and nature. Transhumanism is at its root a misogynistic ideology that seeks to purge the female, associated with nature in male typologies of the world, from existence.

What is Transhumanism?

Transhumanism can be defined as an ideology that seeks to overcome humanity through augmentation: genetic engineering and a melding with technology. This is pushed by a wide spectrum of players within the elite. Klaus Schwab, the leader of the World Economic Forum, has openly said that he desires “a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.” Elon Musk, a businessman who is admired even by some in the alternative media, founded ‘Neuralink’ to create human-brain interfaces. Martine Rothblatt, a man who pretends to be a woman, on the other hand, promotes synthetic sex identities and the creation of ‘billions of sexes’ as a method of overcoming human biology.

The concept is pushed by more than crank billionaires but also by governments. It is well known that the US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is interested in genetic engineering. The mRNA ‘vaccines’ were another way for governments to advance this agenda, as it has meant that the category of vaccination has been redefined to include genetic engineering products that force the human body to produce the unnatural spike protein. Furthermore, the US government just announced a Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation Executive Order:

For biotechnology and biomanufacturing to help us achieve our societal goals, the United States needs to invest in foundational scientific capabilities. We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale‑up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.

White House

A Misogynist Driver of Transhumanism: Synthetic Sex Identities

In the transhumanist ideology/pathology, man conquers nature so extensively that he is able to subvert/overcome even his own nature. So how does transhumanism link to misogyny? At first, the link doesn’t seem obvious, as couldn’t woman adopt transhumanism just as much as men could? In fact, there are some female thinkers who have advocated aspects of transhumanism.

However, when we look under the hood of transhumanism, we see that it is in fact a deeply misogynist ideology. I will start by briefly outlining the fact that the concept of synthetic sex identities is being used to drive transhumanism, by psychopathic ideologists such as Martine Rothblatt. Rothblatt is a pharmaceutical CEO and cultist, who started his own religion, the Terasem movement, to push transhumanism. As detailed by Jennifer Bilek, Rothblatt is one of the key ideologists driving forward these two concepts. In his book From Transgender to Transhuman, Rothblatt claims that “choosing one’s gender is merely an important subset of choosing one’s form.” The man even made a ‘robot’ of his wife, Bina48, the ultimate representation of Andrea Dworkin’s ‘Men Possessing Women‘.

This ideology – that biological sex is something to be muddied and ultimately transcended – is misogynistic because it seeks to destroy the category of woman. While it seeks to destroy sex categories altogether, there is much more emphasis on the driver of destroying the word woman and making it into a meaningless term that anyone can opt into or out of. For example, the mantra ‘trans women are women’ is repeated much more often than ‘trans men are men’. The inclusion of males in, for example, female sport, is driven much more intently than its opposite. This destruction of the concept of womanhood is then used to drive transhumanism.

Womb Envy and the War on Mother Nature

Death as part of what makes the regenerative process of life possible seems to have escaped these predominantly male transhumanists. They seem inordinately focused on colonizing the reproductive capacities of females for their own purposes, helping to institutionalize the reduction of our half of humanity to period havers, menstruators, chestfeeders, bodies with vaginas, and non-men in an effort to dehumanize women toward this colonization process.

Jennifer Bilek

It is a basic fact of biological reality that only females can gestate life and give birth. This, of course, despite the attempts to muddy the waters, applies as much to human beings as all other species that reproduce sexually. This fact makes males inherently reliant on females to reproduce and create life. This fact has driven patriarchal regimes to control women, in order to exert power over their reproductive capacity and to ensure the preservation of their male lineage. Misogynist men seek to assert this control to this day, although the mechanisms of this control are more diffuse than when human beings were living under the Divine Right of Kings.

Now we have a new form of misogynist ideology: the idea of overcoming womanhood entirely via transhumanism. Patriarchal constructions of reality see man as associated with reason and woman as associated with nature. Transhumanist man seeks to use reason to create life, something previously only given by nature, and by this method finally defeat their reliance upon nature and thus upon woman.

This is the sort of insanity that Rothblatt envisages for his future world.

(1) A conscious analog of a person may be created by combining sufficiently detailed data about the person (a “mindfile”) using future consciousness software (“mindware”),

and

(2) that such a conscious analog can be downloaded into a biological or nanotechnological body to provide life experiences comparable to those of a typically birthed human.

Conclusion

Transhumanism considers the ideal person is one that has overcome biology. This means overcoming the biological reality that only women can create life, to allow men to be able to do so via artificial intelligence.

Roe vs Wade & Abortion Rights Protest 26th June 2022

There was a protest called at short notice after the overturning of the Roe vs. Wade ruling in the US. For clarity, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade doesn’t make abortion illegal, it means it isn’t a constitutional right. It will be banned in all the hardcore conservative states but will remain legal in the liberal states.

Bad Takes from Right Wing Men

In the wake of this ruling there have been a billion bad takes on Twitter from pro-life men, quite a few of whom I follow due to their anti-lockdown and anti-forced jab stance. Most of them are making the argument that it’s people’s fault (primarily women, obviously) for having constant promiscuous sex with a bunch of unknown partners.

This of course completely ignores the reality of rapists and abusive men who will use sabotaging birth control as a means of coercive control over their partners. It also ignores the fact that the ‘young people are going around shagging lots of different people’ is more of a media constructed reality than actual fact. The highly sexualised culture and 24/7 access to violent, misogynist pornography makes the current generations such as millennials look as if they are having loads of sex. Surveys however do not back up that contention, instead they show that millennials have less sex than previous generations. Of course I’m not claiming there is nobody doing this before someone steams in with the strawman.

Then of course, there is the classic of men going around calling pregnancy an inconvenience. Note guys: if it can literally kill you, it doesn’t qualify as an inconvenience.

Supporting or Opposing ‘The Great Reset’?

People are arguing whether this supports the current agenda which we could broadly called ‘The Great Reset’. I use this term for convenience, broadly meaning the pushing of digital identity and transhumanism. Some people are arguing that the ruling is against the great reset because it opposes the depopulation agenda, others because it leads to more decentralisation (as it allows states to decide on abortion and not the federal government).

I’m not really convinced by such arguments for a few reasons. I acknowledge that depopulation is a goal of some members of the elite and that there is elite interest in the topic. For example, Bill Gates’ famous claims:

If we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could perhaps lower [projected population growth] by 10-15%…

Bill Gates

[Note: contrary to ‘fact checker’ claims, I am not making any claim in this particular argument other than that Bill Gates wants population growth to decrease and that he has an interest in these kinds of topics].

There are of course also examples of deliberate sterilisation policies that have been carried out by certain governments, examples of which are too numerous to list. However these efforts have generally been targeted at certain groups especially racial minorities and disabled people so they would not qualify as a full on depopulation plan.

There is also the new evidence coming out about sperm quality and the Covid 19 jabs which has been widely publicised on outlets such as Children’s Health Defense and Substack. Igor Chudov has also highlighted declines in birth rates after the jab rollout. However whether this is a depopulation plan is not proven. There are other explanations – for example that they were determined to push this product obsessively for other reasons (vaccine passports and other control measures) and because it wasn’t tested properly it had this effect.

The downsides to any depopulation argument occur when we look at things from a country based level. A country will be in a weak position if it has a low military/working age population compared to its elderly population. This has been a significant problem in countries such as Russia. Despite some claims to the contrary which completely dismiss the idea of geopolitics, different countries do have different interests despite agreement on the Covid Narrative. This can be seen in the current situation in Ukraine. This would provide an incentive for any country to avoid going along with a deliberate plan. (Depopulation arguments probably deserve their own post).

I can understand a ruling towards decentralisation being seen as a positive but there are difficulties here as well. I don’t know why we would consider state governments any less corrupt than federal to be honest.

It seems much more likely that this ruling will fit in well with what the psychopaths want to achieve. The actual original ruling in Roe vs. Wade used logic that is not intuitive:

the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Overturning a privacy rights based ruling doesn’t seem like a good thing.

I am not a lawyer and I don’t have a particular expertise in assessing legal arguments but this article seems worthy of note.

The state in which Jessica lives prohibits and criminalizes abortion for any reason, defining a fertilized egg as a person. Jessica tells her friends and family that she had a miscarriage at 11 weeks of pregnancy. One of her roommates doesn’t believe her and reports her to the local police for having had an abortion.

The local police investigate Jessica for what they believe is a possible violation of the state’s law criminalizing abortion. Based on the initial investigation, police officers determine that Jessica wanted to terminate her pregnancy and was trying to find the “abortion drug.” They obtain a warrant to search her phone. On her phone, they discover evidence that she searched for information about abortion and purchased mifepristone and misoprostol. These drugs can cause an abortion, but they are also used to help women complete the process of miscarriage. They also find evidence of when she had her last period on a period-tracking app, which further substantiates that she was pregnant for 11 weeks. The evidence obtained from Jessica’s phone is used to prosecute her for violating the state’s law criminalizing abortion.

There is also the question of creating divisions within the country and trying to undermine any possible unity, which could be a motive. As well as a further pile on to the Covid/Ukraine/Monkeypox/God-knows-what narrative mixer we are currently part of in 2022.

Protest Footage

Footage is available from this protest on my Youtube and Bitchute accounts. The protest was a short event, about 45 minutes long, with a pretty good turnout for a short notice protest. I have footage of a few of the speeches on the channel about abortion rights in Latin America, disability and abortion and the strategy being pursued by anti-abortion activists.

Postscript: An Actual Solution

Youtube content producer A Slightly Twisted Female posted the below on her channel for a new project that she will be producing:

Roe v. Wade has been overturned.

As such, I will now turn my attention towards developing a menstrual extraction protocol which would allow women to safely, and inexpensively, extract menstrual contents of their uterus. This is an old midwifery technique that has been used to traditional caregivers since time immemorial, and it’s time to return this wisdom back to women, where it belongs.

I will be reaching out to my contacts of traditional midwives, particularly midwives who serve the Amish and Mennonite communities local to my area in order to develop a protocol for menstrual extraction that can be shared with women across the globe.

Please please consider helping to support my mission by sending a donation so I can develop this protocol for vulnerable women.

I am posting this here to give this project more amplification as it is the kind of solution that we should be supporting – reliance on ourselves and not big pharma and returning to these forms of traditional knowledge that have been taken away from women. In fact we need this kind of knowledge to spread for things other than just this one issue.

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

Introduction

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.

Conclusion

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.

Birmingham Clean Air Zone through the lens of Techno-Tyranny

Introduction

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.

Conclusion

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’.