Blueprint for the Voluntaryist Revolution: Part I – Revelation of the Method … And Then What?

What exactly is stopping us from acting?

Wikimedia Commons: Levellers’ Manifest

If enough people in the West know that The System is owned and run by a criminal gang of oligarchs and their lackeys – referred to henceforth as ‘They’, or ‘the Establishment’ – and that it’s only going to get worse unless we do something about it, then what exactly is stopping us from doing something about it?

Some might say that I’ve answered the question by asking it – there aren’t enough people in the know. That might be true, but I don’t believe it’s as simple as that. That answer gives us the excuse to keep talking about Establishment crimes in the hopes that enough people will eventually see the light. But, come the day that enough people see the light … then what? Do we have a plan?

The real answer to the question I posed at the start of this piece is that we don’t have a plan. Regardless of whether we have enough people, we need a plan, because the plan in itself can significantly contribute to getting enough people to ‘see the light’.

We need a plausible strategy for taking back control of our political systems. Not the Farage way of taking back control where you win a referendum and then go down the pub. I mean a proper way of taking back control that entails having a strategy, convincing people that it’s doable, and then executing with courage.

In these next two essays, I will explore this problem from beginning to end: why every successful revolution needs a plan, why we know we need a revolution but don’t have a plan, what the plan hinges on and, crucially, what is the plan – namely, the plan for a Voluntaryist Revolution.

This sounds tremendously grandiose, but it’s not. We already have political systems that could work if only ‘We the People’ were truly running them. The only problem is that ‘We the People’ don’t believe we can run them. There are many ways in which evil manifests, but one sure way is apathy. Specifically an apathy born of a lack of self-belief. If we do not believe in ourselves, then we do not act. And if we do not act, then we must bow to the will of those who do act – the evil ones. Our apathy therefore begets evil, and so our apathy is evil. This is what humanity has been doing for roughly 6,000 years, give or take a couple of thousand.

I’m not denying that numerous confrontations over the ages with the ruling class have not yielded any victories. Of course they have, and sometimes quite stunning ones. But after those victories, we invariably succumb to the counter-revolution. As I said when I reflected on the trap that Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle leaders fell into after winning the war, fighting against something is not enough unless you have a clear vision of what society should look like after you have won the battle. You need a credible plan, and the determination to see it through.

In the battle we are currently fighting, the ‘then what’ problem takes on an even greater significance than, say, a classic liberation struggle against colonialism. This is because the ‘then what’ is not just about how to live well after victory; it is the actual battle strategy. It is how you win the war.

In this first part, I will discuss the following problems:

1. Why we need a plan.

2. The psychological barrier to believing we can get out of this mess.

3. Other plans out there, and why I don’t believe they’re going to cut the mustard.

4. The first hurdle we face – the quantitative and qualitative aspects of “enough people” referred to in the very first paragraph of this piece. This is the sine qua non of the Voluntaryist Revolution.

5. What are the signs that we have, or are at least close to having, “enough people”?

6. The significance of The Revelation of the Method. It is now up to us to categorically reject Their method or bow to it.

7. Why a Voluntaryist Revolution?

8. A hint about the actual plan.

For the avoidance of doubt, when I use the word “battle” or “war” in these essays, they are synonyms for peaceful resistance using non-violent, democratic means.

Why we need a plan

If we don’t already have enough people, then having a credible plan is in itself a way to getting closer to enough people seeing the light. What’s the evidence for this claim? Well, this is how ‘They’ work, and I don’t need to tell you how successful their business model has been.

Let’s take climate change as an example. The Establishment decided on this label as a convenient smokescreen for the damage being wreaked on the planet by the machinery of capitalism. Their next step was to label climate change as an existential threat — and crucially, to give the plebs a narrative and a plan to avert ‘disaster’. This narrative largely involves blaming environmental destruction on the daily actions of other plebs, not on the Establishment.

Up to the point that ‘They’ decided global warming was an existential threat (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), most people didn’t have a clue that climate change was anything to be concerned about. But, when it comes to revolutionary plans, that’s beside the point. People don’t buy into the climate narrative because they’ve pored over the IPCC papers, which, as we know, represent bought science. They buy into it because they need drama in their lives, and crucially, Mummy and Daddy at Establishment HQ have said loud and clear, “Don’t worry, we’ve got a plan.”

The plan is the fun part. The drama-addicted plebs get to hate people for the most absurd things, like driving a car, or eating meat. There are two elements to executing any strategy. You need a pretext and a plan. The pretext to place the planet under house arrest was the ‘pandemic’. It gees the troops up, and helps them to rationalise their absurd behaviour. But the pretext itself is not the reason why the Establishment always get their way. They get their way because they have a plan and, crucially, they execute it. Without the plan, the pretext is just an interesting claim.

The Establishment has a plan for their Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) to usher in technocratic totalitarianism, and they have an array of sugar-coated pretexts all packaged up in their Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. It’s about time that We the People had a counter-revolution for their ceaseless top-down revolutions. If we want a Voluntaryist Revolution to counter the 4IR, we’re going to need a plan.

The problem we face in crafting a plan is not our inability to create a truthful marketing brochure to convince people how bad things are, and that voting for another political party won’t solve anything. The problem is that people feel powerless to change it. They don’t believe that anything can be done. And that’s because no-one has presented a credible plan.

The psychological barrier to believing there is a way out of this mess

To illustrate the psychological barrier to getting out of this mess, I will share a recurring dream I had as a child, aged eight-ish. In the dream, I and my siblings are sitting in the back of my father’s car as we tootle along the road. All is well with my father behind the wheel, until suddenly, he’s no longer behind the wheel. He just disappears; there’s no-one driving the car. I had a capacity to lucid dream when I was a kid, so I could get out of dreams when they got too disturbing. This was a semi-lucid dream in that I didn’t create it, but I bailed out when the car became driverless. I suddenly knew I was dreaming and I told myself I needed to wake up to end the disturbing experience.

The recurrence of this dream spoke to a deep-seated fear of the loss of safety provided by those we rely on.

For the purposes of this essay, the car represents the machinery of government. Despite the fact that democratic government is meant to be by the people and for the people, we know damn well that it’s by the oligarchy and for the oligarchy. Western societies have become collectively infantilised by convincing themselves that the people (the children) couldn’t possibly drive the car, and so we rely on our ‘betters’ (parental authority figures) to do it. And then, to deal with the cognitive dissonance of this adult infantilisation, most people tell themselves that mere voting actually means that they are driving the car, despite the fact that the car keeps veering further and further towards a ditch.

But we can actually drive this huge and complicated machine called government, and this plan will attempt to set out in enough detail why and how. At this juncture I want to address the anarchists in the room, of whom I am actually one. Yes, despite saying that we can drive the machine called government, I too have come to abhor the concept of governmental authority.

The end of government, as an external illegitimate authority, is an ideal we aspire to. It is an idealistic aspiration, but it isn’t realistic in the time that we have left. Supposing you get as far as convincing enough people that the entire concept of government is abhorrent in principle. First off, good luck with achieving that before 2030! But let’s say your audience has grown exponentially, and vast numbers are more receptive to your anarchist message. The resistance we will always face is: okay, so we abolish government … and then what? The answer of: “We govern ourselves by mutual consent” demands a how. The Voluntaryist Revolution is the how. The absence of a how amounts to asking people to jump without a parachute.

The machine of government is a beast that’s not going away anytime soon. In theory, it’s our machine. We just have to make it more moral. Given where the collective level of consciousness is, I believe it is asking too much of people to abandon the machine and believe that everything will be fine without it.

Accelerationism seems to be working very well for the pathocracy right now, and we need to respond with a counter-revolution that is just as fast as the one ‘They’ are formulating. We need to put the brakes on the 4IR with a plan to hijack the machine they are using – government. The solution is staring us in the face, and yet we’re advocating running away from it. The only viable option in the time we have left is to use government against them. That option will be fleshed out in Part II.

Other plans out there

There is much good resistance literature doing the rounds, and this piece is by no means intended to dismiss it. Everything must be thrown into the pot, and the whole complicated stew will provide nourishment for the battle against the New World Order.

Much, if not most, of the current thinking on resistance, falls under the heading of building parallel systems, be it food independence, financial independence, escaping the digital grid, and so on. These strategies for surviving the coming fallout are not plans for resistance. Rather, they amount to every man for himself, and God for us all.

Take, for example, growing your own food. In England, 279,000 people make a living off the land. This might provide a rough estimate for the population of people who have the ability right now to be self-sufficient in food. We could bump the number up a bit for people not classified as part of the agricultural workforce by virtue of having sufficient land to grow their own food, but I doubt you could boost this number by much more.

Thus, the percentage of people in England currently dependent on the land is 0.48% (based on the latest population estimate of 58.6 million). Double it if you want but, let’s face it, the vast majority of people reading this piece are statistically likely to be city dwellers who wouldn’t know a tractor from a wheelbarrow, and crucially, couldn’t get access to a piece of land large enough to make them and their dependents self-sufficient.

And if we arrived at the dire point where a minuscule percentage of the population has to grow their own food to survive, how does that tiny minority propose to defend its spud patches from hungry, marauding immigrants from London, like me?

The technocratic totalitarian nightmare is going to be like no other in history. It is a contradiction for us, on the one hand, to warn about how the technology they are building is so comprehensive that it will be impossible to escape the net, and yet, on the other hand, insist that we will somehow have the ability to escape this foolproof net that we are warning about.

This leads to a paradox of building parallel societies to survive the technocratic totalitarian nightmare. If these parallel societies aren’t large enough to pose an ungovernable threat to the Establishment, the idea is an escapist fantasy. Someone will need to explain to me how ‘They’ won’t succeed in hunting you down if they succeed in instituting a cashless society and programmable digital money. I believe that what will make a parallel society robust enough to survive is its scale. Perhaps I’m wrong, but on that basis, if you believe that parallel societies will be large enough to survive on their own amid a totalitarian nightmare, it means we might already have the numbers needed to foil the totalitarian nightmare before it really takes off. So we might as well confront them head-on, now, with the Voluntaryist Revolution.

In short, I desperately want to believe that “the only solution is to build for yourself a parallel means of existence that does not involve the internet as we know it”, but I am also too cynical to believe that ‘They’ will just let us live our quiet little lives in our cosy parallel universe.

I’ll wrap up this section with a resistance solution offered by Simon Dixon, a Bitcoin millionaire, who tells us:

“The best resistance is you have to become wealthy. I’m sorry to say that if you haven’t become wealthy yet. But the only people that change the system are the people that can buy the politicians, that can engage in lobbies, and that can create their own companies, that can invest in decentralised technology… those are the next elites, and you need to become one of those.” [emphasis added]

No-one can deny that in the money-corrupted world we have created, the more money you have, the more effective is your cushion against life’s vicissitudes. But The System is designed to ensure that only a very few have that comfort. If a significant proportion of us had it, it would signify that power was more dispersed, and opportunities for exploitation by The Establishment would be greatly diminished. In a system designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few at the top of the pyramid, screaming “Get rich or die!” must surely be music to the ears of our overlords.

Is it realistic to urge those not yet anywhere near the top of the pyramid to just get rich? And is it also fair to say that the further up the wealth pyramid you are, the less likely you are to care about a solution to the current mess because you’ve already found your solution? Expecting the rich to depose the rich from power is a sad contradiction.

I find it tragically ironic that the West is staring into the precipice because its societies have collectively worshipped Mammon. And the solution put forward by ‘enlightened’ financial commentators in alt-media is to…keep worshipping Mammon. A ‘spiritually enlightened’ Bitcoin millionaire, who knows how corrupt the system is, is advocating that we hoard the currency of corruption in order to corrupt the already maximally corrupted System in a ‘better’ direction? Proof, if proof were needed, that to a man with a hammer, everything is a nail. Or, more precisely, to a man with money, the world is one giant market, and everything is a product, including integrity and freedom.

In 2020, the sensible advice was to completely detox from mainstream media. Six short years later, I’m starting to wonder if I need to detox from alt-media.

What does enough people mean?

From a qualitative perspective, we need to get over the idea that we need people to be as knowledgeable as we think we are on all the State Crimes Against Democracy that we’ve learnt about. I’d like to posit that we simply need enough people to realise that things are bad enough, and that voting for a political party is not a solution. In other words, we can’t be purists when applying criteria for assessing whether the people are ready for a revolution.

There are signs that this is possible, more on which later. The concern about abandoning a purist attitude to assessing whether the temperature is warm enough for a revolution is that lovers of the climate narrative may jump on board the train and then drag us into the Sustainability Goals under Agenda 2030, which would leave the Establishment laughing all the way to the bank. The Voluntaryist Revolution will have to have checks to prevent any form of imposed tyranny, climate or otherwise, or it wouldn’t be a Voluntaryist Revolution. I will elaborate on those checks in Part II.

From a quantitative perspective, the first step in the Voluntaryist revolution – a campaign to encourage withdrawal of consent, to be outlined in Part II – must begin even if we don’t think we have a majority. The hope is that starting it will cause the number to grow on the basis that there are always people who are indifferent but will jump on board if… wait for it… they see a credible plan.

We are all aware of the phenomenon of people working themselves up into a lather over ‘the latest thing’ simply because it’s the latest thing. Well, we need to make the Voluntaryist Revolution ‘the latest thing’. So, to all the Freedom marketing gurus out there twiddling their thumbs, I say to you: Ask not what the revolution can do for you, but what you can do for the revolution!

What are the signs that we have enough people?

Although it might be true to say that most people don’t know just how evil ‘They’ are, most of us know that we are governed by a plutocracy. Harvard University, that bastion of the Establishment order, has publicised what it called “one of the most important studies you’ve probably never heard of.” The study was done circa 2015, and here’s the topline from the horse’s mouth:

“Ten years ago, political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University took an extraordinary data set and a small army of researchers and set out to determine whether America could still credibly call itself a democracy. As case studies, they used 1,800 policy proposals over 30 years, tracking how they made their way through the political system and whose interests were served by the outcomes. For small-d democrats, the results were devastating. Political outcomes overwhelmingly favored very wealthy people, corporations, and business groups. The influence of ordinary citizens, meanwhile, was at a “non-significant, near-zero level.” America, they concluded, was not a democracy at all, but a functional oligarchy.” [emphasis added]

Of course, it’s the same throughout the West. There probably isn’t a single country in the world that isn’t run by its oligarchy. We know that we could add an encyclopaedia to the evidence file, but for the purposes of making the case to a group we would consider not all the way there yet, this is the starting point.

More examples of widespread knowledge of rule by pathocracy:

• The majority of Americans know that JFK was assassinated by the Deep State, however you like to define that term. The semblance of democracy, not democracy itself, died in the US in 1963. I would suggest that real democracy has never existed, but that’s for another essay.

• The fact that 9/11 was some sort of put-up job has gained immense currency since the covid scam. Like the JFK assassination, this too is set to become accepted wisdom in the not-too-distant future.

• The depravity of the ruling class in the West, as revealed by only a small fraction of the Epstein files, has been laid bare.

• Most sane people in the West are currently trying to process the grotesque contradiction between a ruling class that criminalises denial of the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, while fully supporting the televised Palestinian Holocaust of today.

The title of the Harvard University exposé I referenced above is: “Oligarchy in the open: What happens now as the U.S. is forced to confront its plutocracy problem?” Substitute “the world” for “U.S.”, and you’ve got a more accurate question. This is effectively Harvard University saying: we now know we’re screwed…but then what?

The method has been revealed. Is there going to be action in response to the revelations? If not now, when? If not us, who?

The significance of what has been openly revealed to us all

If Establishment gatekeepers at Harvard University are blowing the whistle on the plutocracy, it’s a fair bet that enough of us know enough about the peril we’re in. So, are ‘They’ shaking in their boots? No! All is being revealed, and that is part of the Faustian bargain they are trying to forge.

Michael A Hoffman II posits that the Revelation of the Method is an integral part of the cryptocracy’s game of Truth or Consequences – the cryptocracy being the high priests of the Establishment’s anti-human religion. Running a global ruling-class paedophile ring and flaunting a televised genocide in our faces ought to be enough for Western civilisation to take a hard look at itself in the mirror, but these abominations are only the tip of the iceberg of crimes committed by the vampires in suits. The question ‘They’ are asking us is: do we consent? If not, what do we intend to do? If the answer is nothing, that apathy amounts to consent.

Consent through apathy is rooted in the degradation of our spiritual acuity, and our collective moral decay. The perverse logic of the Revelation of the Method is explained by Hoffman as follows[i]:

“Exposure without action against the perpetrators of the crimes revealed devolves into a kind of perverse advertisement for the prowess of the cryptocrats, who are seen as having performed fantastic feats of criminal enterprise with a genius that renders them immune from the consequences.

[…] If the truth of what the cryptocracy has perpetrated is grasped and acted upon, the consequences for the conspirators will be annihilation, but if the people fail to see the truth or fail to act on their perception, thus rendering unto the Process a kind of tacit consent born of apathy, amnesia and abulia, the consequences for the conspirators will be a giant step in the advancement in their system of control, that is to say, ever tighter bonds of enslavement for humanity. Why does the cryptocracy bother to gamble so much by going public with what it is doing to us? Because consent fuels their control like no other form of energy.” [emphasis added]

When weighing up the consequences, failing to act on our perception is not that different to failing to see the truth. We therefore have to stop pretending that all we have to do is keep revealing “The Truth” about every single political event, as it unfolds, because each unfolding carries with it the question: What are we going to do? This is not to say that we should stop doing investigative work that exposes the tsunami of lies spewed by the mainstream media. We need truth and action… says A Plague on Both Houses … sitting on his arse, and bashing away furiously at the keyboard!

We face two interlinked hurdles that prevent action. The first hurdle in plain terms is our “laziness and disconnection from reality”[ii]. It is our inability to perceive the threat for what it is. Perhaps the greatest success of the so-called Enlightenment was the brainwashing of Western society at large to believe that Satan – the dark force of entropy by deceit – does not exist. For without Satan, what use do we have for God? Without Satan, what use is there for moral absolutes? After all, moral absolutes feed action. If there is no question that something is wrong, it must be put right. But moral relativism introduces intellectual equivocation, and the granting of permission to all acts, since evil is attenuated into error, and error is both tolerable and forgivable. Thus, in a morally degraded society, Revelation of the Method provides fertile soil for inaction as consent.

But that is not the only reason for the ripening of conditions that work against us.

I am positing that another important reason is that the systems of governance – systems that we perceive give our lives order – seem so complicated, and so thoroughly rigged, that we can’t possibly wrest control of them. We therefore surrender, in the hope that more and more exposure of the lies will somehow defeat the cryptocracy. Or we make plans to take flight and build parallel systems in the hope that we can outrun and outsmart the dark forces tightening their grip on the world.

Perhaps we can run away. I am not averse to fleeing when all else has failed! Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. But I don’t think we should pin our hopes solely on taking flight.

We have to remove this second hurdle (disbelief in our ability to organise and seize the levers of control) in order to find out if the first hurdle (apathy) is indeed insurmountable. To the extent that the two are connected, all the more reason to act. The machinery of government – that inscrutable machine which orders and disorders our lives – is not beyond the control of a moral and courageous people. The reason we think that we can’t drive the car is that we have been infantilised.

You cannot reform something so rotten. Nothing short of unseating the tyrannical bastille of parliament with a permanent voluntaryist parliament will suffice.

Why a Voluntaryist Revolution?

Compulsion or coercion is an abrogation of the right under Natural Law to exercise free will and conscience. The spiritual essence of the problems we face today can be distilled to a battle between compulsion and voluntaryism. A small clique of power-crazed oligarchs have amassed enormous power and wealth, and fear losing it. That wealth was amassed by exploitation, and exploitation is the unfair manipulation and use of people to gain advantage for yourself.

The oligarchy has systematically prioritised its needs over those of the rest of humanity, and this has been achieved by coercion and lies. Lies and deliberate omissions create the psychological conditions for accepting policies that would not otherwise be tolerated, and so the lie is a form of compulsion. If more people knew that huge numbers of scientists do not subscribe to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, the resistance to destructive Net Zero policies would be unstoppable.

A system that enforces its will by violence and compulsion cannot be defeated by violence and compulsion. The only way to confront coercion is with its antithesis – Voluntaryism. Voluntaryism aims to exclude both compulsion and lies from individual, societal, and political interactions. And the only way to exclude lies is to admit as many voices as possible into the debate on any given issue. That means the debate takes longer, but that is far less harmful than taking expedient action based on debate that does not admit all the evidence and relevant ideas. Governments have perfected the art of excluding voices and information that do not serve their control agendas, and the cost we will pay is the loss of our freedom and natural resources, and the destruction of life on a grand scale.

A system that seeks only to restrain evil, while eschewing compulsion of ‘good’, is a system that fosters cooperation based on the exercise of free will and conscience. The communal good is not a fiction, but it cannot be achieved by compulsion. It can only be achieved by consent of individuals participating in what they genuinely perceive to be the good. Those who do not share the perception of the ‘good’ must be allowed to opt out in order to avoid compulsion.

This will result in cooperative joint ventures in which all the participants are willing contributors and not resentful coerced prisoners. Ventures fail when a critical mass of participants, realising their mistake, voluntarily withdraw, thus depriving the venture of voluntary participatory momentum.

A venture succeeds when sceptical onlookers become convinced of its merits and subsequently join, thus giving the project more voluntary participatory momentum.

Voluntary participation in a venture is not in itself a guarantee of success, but forced participation certainly helps to mask failure when the canaries in the mine are not allowed an escape route.

All government structures and legislation should be stripped of their coercive elements and reorganised on voluntary and Natural Law principles. I will say more on Voluntaryist guardrails in Part II, but applying these principles would enable the demolition of swathes of oppressive government machinery overnight. That does not imply putting huge numbers of government employees out on the streets since there would be a re-allocation of people from coercive machinery and into services that the Establishment has deliberately strangled precisely because they are pro-human and life-affirming. A data-driven, AI-powered, digitisation agenda is by its very nature anti-human, since it prioritises machines and data over humans. From a Voluntaryist perspective, it is choice-denying in its assumption that the algorithm knows best.

I do not subscribe to a Hobbesian, survival-of-the-fittest anarchism. If we are pro-human, then Voluntaryism cannot entail creating human redundancy. Such a revolution would fail on its own anti-human terms.

A hint about the actual plan

Back in October 2023, I got excited about a project called the Independent Alliance (IA). It was launched by David Fleming, and its central premise was to platform as many independent MPs as possible for election to Parliament. As far as I can tell, he seems to have abandoned it, but he certainly gets the credit for floating the idea of large-scale, systematic balloting of independent candidates.

David Fleming’s IA independents would have had to have signed up to a manifesto that broadly pledged to curb the slings and arrows of the World Economic Forum’s outrageous New World Order agenda.

In Part II, I will build on that idea with a proposal to make it maximalist – that is to say, to overthrow the political party system entirely in one general election. Wildly ambitious! For that to happen, it would need to be preceded by a popular vote of no-confidence in the form of the withdrawal of our consent to the current order. I will explain what that means in Part II, and why it is the starting point for the Voluntaryist Revolution.

In this iteration, independent candidates would sign up to a Voluntaryist manifesto, regardless of their political agenda. This greatly broadens the appeal of independents by essentially opening up independent candidature to the whole spectrum of political beliefs on condition that they formally pledge to be held accountable to Voluntaryist principles. This is the safeguard that guarantees maximum participation while theoretically providing an insurance policy against a new form of tyranny of the majority.

Thus, the electorate might vote in 330 independent climate alarmists, but those climate alarmists would have to commit to open and honest debate about climate alarmism, admitting the full spectrum of expert dissenters and supporters. That would inevitably cast doubt on the maximalist Net Zero policy to which successive governments have committed the country, and admitting due scientific scepticism would, of necessity, render current policies untenable. Crucially, whatever aspects of current climate legislation that were retained could not result in coercive measures against any section of the population. An entirely different result should be obtained by eliminating compulsion through coercion and lies.

The strategy is not simply to pack the whole House with genuine people’s representatives; those representatives must also form a ‘Cabinet’ and actually administer the machinery of government openly, and by consensus. Part II will be a starter for ten on how to overthrow the party political system with a people’s government that cannot coerce the people either collectively or individually. At the moment, we claim to have a democracy that routinely, and by design, coerces the majority! This is no exaggeration. A party voted in by less than half the electorate can obtain a majority of seats and then override not only the entire opposition, but also its own dissenting MPs through the party whip. It’s absurd. It’s the most effective tyranny humans have ever had because an ignorant electorate has been made to think this is democracy.

This audience needs no convincing that the party political system is an integral component of the oligarchs’ criminal syndicate, but the reference to the Harvard University exposé I referenced above (“Oligarchy in the open: What happens now as the U.S. is forced to confront its plutocracy problem?”) should suffice for newcomers to the discussion on why the West is screwed. The oligarchy rules because the oligarchy has perfected an industrial-scale system of coercion and lying, not to mention outright violence.

Here in the UK, people disillusioned with the Labour-Conservative ding-dong are beginning to pin their hopes on the Greens and Reform. Nothing would please the criminocracy more than a Reform-Greens ding-dong to replace the current Red and Blue Punch and Judy show. Reform is a Zionist party, and the global oligarchy is Zionist, so that tells you everything you need to know about the Farage farrago.

In case you need to know more about Farage, two thirds of his funding comes from a…wait for it… digital currency tycoon, Christopher Harborne. Harborne is one of the owners of Tether, the biggest cryptocurrency in the US. So my money’s on Reform doing a fine job of delivering us into the digital gulag, lock stock and barrel. In answer to whether Harborne wants anything from Farage for the more than £22 million he has donated to Reform so far, Farage replied: “No. Absolutely nothing in return at all.” Yeah, right.

As for the Greens, it’s great that the rank-and-file are right-on about Palestine, but at the levels where it matters most in the Party machinery – the top – the Zionist Imperialist Mafia pulled out all the stops to prevent them from becoming the first political party in the UK to officially declare that Zionism is racism. They can’t do what’s right because they’re a political party, and political parties don’t have a conscience. And that’s because they answer to a higher authority – the Establishment.

When you join a political party, you leave your conscience at the door. This is why The System loves political parties. Key decision-making is concentrated at the top, so The Man only has to control a few key figures at the top of three or four political parties. You cannot get to the top of a political party unless you are compromised, and therefore pliable in the hands of the oligarchy. Ever wondered why no leader of a major political party has expressed moral outrage at the Epstein files or the Palestinian genocide? Those leaders set the policy and the tone, and whip their MPs into line.

So, you might think that the Green Party looks and feels very different to Farage’s Reformers, but both would work equally well for Global Capital’s Sustainability scam, a central pillar of the Great Reset / 4IR scam. It’s encouraging to see the Greens at the grassroots level trying to take a firm, non-negotiable, and principled stance against Zionism. But if you asked these same principled anti-Zionists to hold an open and honest debate on climate alarmism by admitting credible expert dissenters who would collapse the Net Zero house of cards in less than ten minutes, their principles would go out the window. The raison d’être of the Greens is to promote climate alarmism. Without that card, they fold.

The political party, as an extension of centralised power in the hierarchy, is instrumental to oligarchic power. Civilisations collapse gradually at first, and then suddenly, and we’re in the suddenly stage. It’s past time to get people to stop believing in the political party as an entity. Throwing 650 independent MPs at Parliament would represent a fast and furious downward distribution of power. ‘They’ have bought three or four political parties, but could ‘They’ buy 650 truly independent MPs? If ‘They’ could, then ‘They’ probably deserve to win.

---

---

If you liked this article but don’t want to commit to a paid subscription, please consider rewarding my writing using the BuyMeACoffee link below. Thank you!

---

[i] Michael A Hoffman II, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, Independent History and Research, Idaho, 2001, Pg. 53-56

[ii] Ibid., Pg. 56