The Elephant in the Womb (Part Two)

The Push for Parallel Institutions

Part One of this essay proposed that the ‘Elephant in the Room’ as of 2023 is that the consequences of the ‘pandemic years’ are far from over. Highly elevated death rates are (for some reason not fully understood) still with us, and the mad ideological / anti-democratic attempts to ‘remake the world’ along globalist / authoritarian / technocratic lines - which have clearly piggy-backed on the pandemic - are still yet gathering pace.

Part One however also proposed the emergence of a second elephant: A deep ground-swell of public response which I called ‘The Elephant in the Womb’. A growing awakening to the deeper social and institutional malaise that has been brought into focus by all that arrived on the same train as ‘covid’.

It ended with the suggestion that while those who stand behind that ‘great orchestrated voice’ which booms across the world continue to enjoy significant power and success in their objectives, we should nonetheless be encouraged by the visible signs of the limits to their competence.

Let’s go.

We could start by daring the question of whether there have been, and are, hidden agendas behind what has been happening, Suggestions on that front have ranged from the relatively mild and opportunistic to the extreme and sinister.

It is very hard to comprehensively prove or disprove any of them of course, no matter where on that spectrum they sit. The thing about secret agendas is… they are secret. But there is enough in the air that one can hardly blame people for suspecting manipulations. To declare myself, I see the balance of evidence as suggesting nefarious activity, but I also believe the kind of action that is needed to be the same irrespective of that conclusion. We’ll come to that. Meanwhile, let me suggest that probably most people today would accept, in any case, and by any interpretation, that what has been happening in the past three years is something more than merely ‘trying to contain the damage caused by a virus’.

Given the plausibility, at the very least, of their existence it would make sense next in our mental explorations to ask to what extent any such nefarious plans might be succeeding or failing. One can presently read intelligent and informed support for both the ‘succeeding’ and ‘failing’ arguments.

The ‘succeeding’ argument tends to note that the penetration of institutions can be seen to be broad and deep, and that the past three years have provided the perpetrators with great deal of feedback about which kinds of manipulation, coercion, disinformation, sowing of confusion, governance-by-fear, etc work well and which work less well, as well as establishing how those strategies relate to the extent to which the people can be made to accept the surrender of their freedoms.

The ‘failing’ argument tends to note what has not gone well for them in the past few years. The scale of public as well as expert push-back has been huge, and in 2023 is still growing. Pfizer lost its legal bid to keep it documents hidden for 75 years.¹ The fact that the massively orchestrated push for mandates, vaccine pass/ports, prohibition of travelling, working and socialising without one, etc has, several years on, not succeeded. (That could change of course, but let’s take such victories as we can, and draw strength from them), the already-mentioned shakiness of their attempt at total control of the information-sphere, the fact that there is still, at least for now, enough openness in the internet and smart-phone world, and certainly enough smartness in the people, that they are losing the propaganda war (even if in many places they are for now winning the legislative war). They may have succeeded in testing a lot of essentially nefarious strategies, but along the way, the covert plans are now not nearly so covert.

Perhaps most critically, the 'failing' argument tends to point out that all indications suggest that the would-be controllers of the world have for a long time been falling behind schedule: As far back and the 1960s, Carroll Quigley, a renowned historian, wrote of a secretive international anglophile network² seeking to impose its will on the world. Quigley declared that not only was he sympathetic to the goals of that network, but he felt that they were so close to fulfilment that there was in any case little need for further secrecy. Yet an earlier book³ that he wrote contained such sensitive information that he was not able to get it published at all until the 1980’s. And today, forty years later, the plans it describes are still not fulfilled.

Further messages on 'limits of competence' have come down from Antony Sutton, another historian who spent long years researching themes of hidden agendas, and who documented copious evidence of their existence.⁴ Reassuringly, Sutton concluded that that it was common-place for the hidden powers which he researched to miscalculate and to get into trouble with their plans.

Similarly, the thinly-disguised strategy for world-government which is Agenda 21 (now Agenda 2030) has constantly fallen behind its target dates.⁵

Succeeding or failing? True that there are ‘nefarious plans’ afoot, or not true? In certain ways, it is better not to ask. That is, we should ask, in as much as we’d like to feel our way toward truth (and please share your views on it in the comments), but we should perhaps not, in our responses and actions, give much weight to such speculative answers as we find ourselves able to formulate: Either way, what is happening is happening. Either way, the old ways are no longer fit for purpose in a dramatically changing world - and that fact, ultimately, is why we find ourselves everywhere in crisis: The growing failure of ‘the old’ is the reason why such twisted calamities as are everywhere erupting become possible, irrespective how much by accident and how much by design.

And with that we come to the most important element of what it is that is in gestation: People everywhere are talking about ‘a new way of doing things’. Public figures and everyday people alike are increasingly heard to say such things as ‘we need to move to some kind of new form of government’, or 'we need new institutions in which the people can participate, and which can better hold government and corporations to account'.

Unprecedented numbers of people have woken up, and they are showing no signs of going back to sleep. They are beginning to realise that a system which enables all the money, all the communication networks, all the food supply, transportation, media, education et al, to be controlled by the same small group of people (frequently involved in a system of revolving doors between corporations and government), is an insanely bad system, that the old game of left vs. right only serves the people who pull its strings, and that for any number of other reasons it is time not for intensifying and extending the old conceptions of the world, as the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organisation and others seek to do, but to change them.

The great opportunity of these dark times is that people everywhere are speaking of exactly that. There is a hunger for something which can begin to overcome the toxic merger of government with the corporate world, re-animate true cultural life, reverse the trend toward surveillance, technocracy and de-humanisation. Something which can go beyond the desperate hope of rescuing the now-failing old forms of democracy and instead lead toward the emergence of entirely new ones.

All the other things mentioned here and in Part One, the awakenings, the reversals, the realisations about everything from the extent of media manipulation to the loaded dice of the banking system, and all the rest of it, are really so many tributaries flowing into that.

I have argued elsewhere that what is needed is a third set of social institutions, able to mediate between governmental and corporate worlds, and hold both to account. It is encouraging (and in the circumstances natural) that tentative signs of their birth are becoming visible. And while new kinds of dialogue have begun to take place among a small handful of visionary politicians, it is happening much more where it really needs to happen - outside of established political structures. High profile scientists, philosophers, psychologists, journalists and entertainers are speaking of the need for new ways of doing things - and they are not referring to the plans of World Economic Forum, W.H.O., ‘woke corporations’ etc!! Those represent the ‘death throes’ of the old way of doing things. Comedian turned political / social commentator Russell Brand is pulling online audiences of over six million with his regular musings on such themes.

Above all, people I know, and people you know, are talking more and more of the need for ‘some kind of new form of government’, ‘some kind of new form of politics’, or ‘some kind of new form of economics’. In short, the need for ‘new ways of doing things’.

Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come, and here are some of the ways it is manifesting:

New Options:

It was already apparent before 2020 that old ways of doing things are in decline, and accordingly ‘parallel institutions’, have for quite some time been spontaneously emerging: As people have awakened to the exploitation, indoctrination and sheer ineffectiveness of what is passed off as an education system, many millions of children around the world have been home-schooled, and not infrequently have ended up better educated and more independent in their thinking than those who are submitted to ‘the machine’. Crowd-funding has in principle begun to offer a more direct way for people to choose how they want their social contributions to work in the world. Open-source software has given an alternative to enriching corporations which are part of a great infrastructure working against our interests. And currencies like Bitcoin have emerged to offer a genuinely independent means of exchange.

It goes without saying that most or all of those are vulnerable to being constrained or shut-down by ‘the usual suspects’, but the trend is an organic one, born at the conjunction of need (breakdown of the old) and opportunity (an increasingly aware and capable public). It is therefore a trend that, no matter the difficulties, is not going to stop.

The Power of Juries:

The principle of the citizen’s jury doesn’t only have a lot of new and untapped potential. It is also vested with old and disused powers which are not well understood, but are beginning to be. British constitution expert William Keyte has been getting airtime with claims that there exist important constitutional laws, founded in the Magna Carta, of which knowledge has been sytematically and gradually educated out of the people - including most legal professionals. He notes:

“it’s not good for a political power to have a citizenry which is properly aware of its consitutional powers”.

Keyte claims that juries, and not elections, are the basis by which the people are sovereign over government. How so? Because juries in fact have the power not only to judge whether ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ a law has been broken, but to decide whether that law should be applied in a given case, and even whether the law was a reasonable one in the first place. That’s a lot of power. Asserting that a similar principle was taken over into U.S. law, Keyte cites 19th century American philosopher and lawyer Lysander Spooner who wrote that unless government power be absolute, then:

“the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people, through the jury, consent that it may exercise”.⁶

Strikingly, a precedent in 1986 in Wisconsin, USA, established the continued validity of such jury powers.⁷

And also related to the capacity of people to put limits on government power, former U.S. judge Andrew Napolitano has just in the past couple of months published a major new treatise on the use of natural law principles to restrain government.⁸

What of the new potentials of juries?

When a group of Australian academics, investigated (in 2021) the system-failures that were brought to light by the ‘covid crisis’, one of recommendations for change which they put forward (with some degree of detail on the practicalities) was the idea that people in high public office - which could mean heads of public health bodies for instance, but also perhaps of educational institutions, and even central banks, police forces and others - should be appointed by some kind of citizen’s jury.⁹

And when the London School of Economics sought public input for a potential new UK constitution, sometime scholar of jurisprudence Malcolm Ramsay (who is a reader of this Substack, and a Substacker himself) submitted a thoughtful and detailed proposal suggesting that appointing people to public office is in fact less of a problem than having a means for a dissatisified public to remove them, and duly outlined a possible jury system with that function.

In similar vein, multiple suggestions are being made (examples here and here) that the principle of ‘social credit scoring’, in which we are coerced into certain types of behaviour by social and financial penalties when we step outside of what the ‘social engineers’ wish from us, be turned back upon those in power, and that a means be set up by which we score them, and remove them when we are not happy.

New Media:

Propaganda outlets like the Guardian, the Telegraph, the New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN are losing credibility and viewers / readers en-masse, and many of the best independent journalists who used to work for them have gone independent. Real journalists like Sharyl Atkisson, Bari Weiss, Seymour Hirsch, Matt Taibbi and Megyn Kelly have all shunned / denounced their former employers and now work independently. Other new independent journalists, previously unknown, are emerging too. Some of them¹⁰ show almost unheard-of levels of objectivity and neutrality. The growing ‘alternative media’ sector is breaking stories that the ‘controlled interests’ don’t want to talk about, and giving the public the opportunity to choose, and financially support, its preferred sources at journalist-level.

Substack itself (and I say this with a prayer that it is able to hold out against take-overs by people with other values) represents a new departure, with its commitment to direct relationships between writers, political analysts, historians, scientists, journalists, poets and writers of all kinds and their audiences, with no ‘corporate interest’ inserted between them. And indeed, aside from journalistic sources of notable integrity, the platform has attracted many writers committed to precisely the quest for genuinely new social vision. Their thinking is diverse, but a common theme runs through many, and that theme, again and again, is the decentralisation of power. Some notable examples of this that I’m aware of are

Ellen Brown

Mary Poindexter McLaughlin

Posthumous

Beyond Reason

Dr Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD​

Paul Kingsnorth

Celia Farber

and

Charles Eisenstein

Threatened with losing their power to shape what we all think, the old media increasingly set up ‘fact-checking bureaus’ to negate all who do not agree with them, or who publish stories that they did not want to mention. The latest of these (May of 2023) is ‘BBC Verify’ which smells like a desperate last attempt to convince people that the corporation speaks the truth, following months of its London HQ being besieged by thousands of protestors, sick of its endless propaganda.

Contesting the Political Fraud of ‘The Science’:

The politicised idea of ‘the science’ meanwhile, the reported absolutes which cannot be argued with, and which allegedly oblige politicians to implement extreme policies, is increasingly called out as ill-conceived, manipulative and downright fraudulent. The publication of scientific papers is entirely controlled by commercial interests,¹¹ most of what is published is not in fact replicable,¹² and top scientists are increasingly criticising the turning of science into ‘scientism’,¹³ a pseudo-religious parody of what it is supposed to be. Some have gone so far as propose that this trend, if not challenged, must inevitably lead to totalitarianism.¹⁴ There is some way to go overcome the might of the propaganda on this one, but more and more authentic scientific voices are joining the battle. And some of the public too are beginning to understand the fraud that is being perpetrated.

New Organisations:

In January of 2023, psychologist Jordan Peterson announced (on the Joe Rogan show) the launch of a new endeavour called The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) bringing together around 2000 influential thinkers and actors around the world to:

“develop a vision that would be an alternative to the globalist woke utopian nightmare that threatens to engulf us all”.

Refreshingly, The ARC puts getting the questions right ahead of getting the answers right. It also solicits your opinion on them.

One critic¹⁵ has suggested that Peterson’s enterprise amounts to ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’. The concerns raised - potentially dubious investment sources,¹⁶ supporters of the ‘net zero’ ideology¹⁷ and ‘smart cities’,¹⁸ participants who are World Economic Forum ‘young leaders’¹⁹ etc., are real enough. But I see also reasons to suspend judgement: Peterson’s good intentions seem certain and he has good credentials as an authentic voice against the many forms of back-door tyranny that have been in progress.

Diverse voices are incorporated. For instance on one side Nicholas Batterham, chair of the Net Zero Australia project, and on the other former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot who has been very outspoken against the ‘global warming’ orthodoxy, and John Anderson who has declared the science ‘unsettled’. And in the middle, Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Schellenberger who broadly accept the principle of ‘anthropogenic warming’, but do not believe it is the ‘end of the world’.

Investors in ‘new media’ companies,²⁰ and specifically ones which seem willing to challenge the ‘great orchestrated voice’ which otherwise booms across the lands, are involved.

Other participants also bring very welcome views: Vivek Ramaswamy is virtually a one-man exposé of the cynicism and potential for tyranny that lurks in ‘ESG’.²¹ Niall Ferguson meanwhile is perhaps somewhat ‘establishment’, but also argued vigorously for the motion that ‘the Liberal World Order is Over’ in a high-profile public debate in 2018.²² Artists,²³ philosophers,²⁴ pastors²⁵ and social workers²⁶ also take their place in the line-up. (It is a line-up by the way which has an overall conservative bias, so let’s have that on the table and people can react to it as they will).

We come to the question of the World Economic Forum. You will not hear me speaking in favour of the WEF. At all. But since the very impressive Tulsi Gabbard has also been named a WEF ‘young leader’, I cannot see that in itself as an automatic disqualification from ‘authentically progressive vision’.

On the basis of all this we might keep an open mind on The ARC. Let’s wait and see.

In 2016, the New Chartist Movement was set up in the UK with the aim of educating on already-existing common law and ‘restoring the rule of law to the British People’.

In February 2020, just as the ‘covid crisis’ was beginning, the Holistic Alliance for Real Ecology (HARE) was established in the U.K. HARE’s objective is to:

“counteract the current abuses of the democratic process by upholding the practice and virtues of Common Law; putting an end to the private debt-creating central banking system; and promoting real ecology in place of the current corporatised, fear-based and lie-ridden ‘green’ version being promoted by the corporate globalists’ through their so-called ‘Green New Deal’”

As well as to:

“counteract the 5G roll-out and the Covid-19 multi-impositions, whilst at the same time undertaking research and activism towards the establishment of a new and genuinely Green Society [in accordance with the late great truth warrior Professor David Bellamy] that embraces a spirit-led vision of truth, justice and freedom”.

HARE is under the stewardship of long-time organic farmer and environmental warrior Sir Julian Rose, and is also working in collaboration with the ‘New Chartist Movement’, already mentioned above.

In 2021, advocacy from the Public Banking Institute, devoted to the creation and expansion of publically-owned community banks, led to 18 public banks bills being introduced in nine state and cities and at federal level in the U.S.A.

The push for parallel institutions is also reflected, due especially to many grotesque interventions and distortions during the pandemic years, in newly independent organisations in the medical world. One of the by-now countless high-profile scientists to have spoken out against those distortions is Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a Thai-born form chair of medical microbiology at the University of Mainz in Germany, who in 2020 declared:

“Let’s not be naive. Science is just as corrupt as politics”. ²⁷

Another is Dr. Richard Amerling, a former head of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons who in 2022:

“The current system is so corrupt that we have to start from scratch and build something alongside, as an alternative”. ²⁸

Accordingly, many of the top medical professionals in the world have already begun to do exactly that. The past couple of years has seen vast numbers of top medical professionals organising themselves into truly independent organisitions such as The World Council for Health , America’s Front Line Doctors, The Canadian Covid Alliance, The World Doctors Alliance, The Front Line Critical Covid Care Alliance, The Unity Project, The Global Health Project, and others.

As of 2023, there are even moves to establish entirely parallel government structures. British (or English) entrepeneur Jason Noble, disturbed to learn certain realities about the banking system and numerous other long-standing legislative ‘sleights of hand’, was inspired to dig deeper. And he and his collaborators have discovered something rather amazing. The ‘Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States’, an international treaty signed in 1933, established various criteria for ‘being a country’, as accepted as part of customary international law. These included having a leader, having a parliament, and having mutual working agreements at a functional level with other countries. There were others, but those three are striking in that England has none of them. Scotland and Wales for example do. But England has no parliament, no national leader, and no trade agreements with other countries. Conclusion: No country called ‘England’, according to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States’, exists.

Noble and his collaborators are therefore in the process of establishing ‘The Republic of England’, drawing on precedents such as the Atlantic Charter to make provision that its people (who may now sign up to be members of the new republic) will rule themselves, and will determine the conditions for the establishment of its parliament and other effectively parallel institutions.

I have one more ‘new organisation’ to mention. Falun Gong has been so mercilessly smeared and persecuted (up to the point of imprisonment, torture and death of many of its members), precisely because the spontaneous emergence of a peaceful, spiritually-based movement of tens of millions is so terrifying to the power-brokers. What has happened there since the turn of the millennium however is also a sign of the times. It will not be the last such outbreak of spontaneous goodwill and fellowship.

Most Essential of All - A New Conceptual Framework:

What may seem to be lacking is a way of seeing the many and diverse sources of instabilility, and the many and diverse responses to them, as part of a single phenomenon, in which relationships between multi-faceted problems and multi-faceted responses can be drawn out, and in which coherent principles can be identified.

I propose however, that it only seems to be lacking. Consider if you would the following hypothesis:

1. The madness and breakdown and confusion are direct consequence of the old understanding of world and mind according to the simile of a machine. The old world-view is reaching its inevitable end-point and manifesting all kinds of horrors in order that we can see more clearly the folly of it.

2. The ‘new paradigm’ (which I have written of here) of participative knowing, complex systems, emergent dynamics, distributed consciousness, and the truly human world which becomes possible with all that, has long been growing beneath the surface, and is by now unassailable. It remains largely invisible only because ‘old think’ is so deeply institutionalised that it mostly precludes the spread of anything except itself.

3. The renewed vigour with which ‘the old guard’ defends the mechanistic world-view, and all the limited and problematic thinking that goes with it (simplistic cause and effect, no free will, moral relativity, no meaning, ‘uploadable consciousness’, militaristic control metaphors for everything) is above all an existential reaction to its own inevitable demise.

Even the basis for a new conceptualisation of social structures already exists. It exists as in the form of an archetypal (perennial) pattern of evolution between ‘culture, state and commerce’, which provides some genuinely coherent principles for evaluating and integrating the various ways forward that are increasingly emerging from all quarters. That too I have touched upon before - though I’ll have a lot more to say, perhaps more convincingly, before I’m done.

Toward a Real New Normal:

The new options, new organisations, and new conceptual framework that have been described above are just some those things that can be seen as concrete steps toward something genuinely different. If we factor in the ongoing dissent toward ‘the old’, the picture is even more emphatic: ‘Boiled frog’ and ‘red pill’ have become a standard part of the international lexicon. Mass protest is a constant in countries all over the world, and the media blackout does not change that fact. In some of those countries the population is now in a state of almost permanent open revolt against their governments, and the anti-democratic New World Order that they represent. (For example France, Holland, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Brazil). Canadian citizens raised 2 million dollars in a few weeks in support of the nation’s truckers contesting Trudeau (until the latter seized the bank accounts of both the protestors and those who had offered them financial support). Companies from BlackRock to the BBC (as mentioned above) have seen their headquarters under virtual siege by protestors. A mass-migration is in progress from big-name propaganda companies to the alternative media and the handful of free-speech platforms. More and more people are understanding how the banking system, the media, education and so-called ‘public health’ are being weaponised against them. Even the nonsense that ‘machines can be conscious’ is now rejected by a majority. And a torrent of well-researched new books²⁹ is revealing all kinds of previously under-recognised realities - and finding appreciative audiences.

It is clear indeed that something big is growing in the people of the world. It is outnumbered, yes. It is being born into a hostile world, yes. It’s success in the immediate future is highly uncertain. Yet I feel its presence growing. I feel its resolve growing. I feel its understanding deepening.

While various miscreants and apologists, being recently exposed to the light, have glibly proposed of the pandemic years that, ‘well, mistakes get made, let’s move on’, the emerging elephant, quite rightly, is having none of it.

The regular media, now in historically unprecedented degree ‘a tool of the powers’, tighten their blinkers and respond with ‘Elephant? What elephant'?’

But the elephant, undeterred by the odds it faces, still comes.

---

---

1. Pfizer’s attempt to keep its very extensive documentation on the development and testing of covid vaccines from the public for 75 years was prevented by the courts. As a result, hundreds of thousands of pages of documents were made public. A world-wide team of of 2500 volunteer biostatisticians, nurses, physicians, lab clinicians, cardiologists, pathologists and medical fraud investigators, working in 6 teams, went to work. While it will likely be sometime before the analysis is complete it, what has already been established is that:

Pfizer knew in November 2020 that the vaccine did not stop covid.

Within a couple of months of starting the rollout, Pfizer had to hire 2400 staff merely to process the paperwork for the ‘adverse event’ reports that had started to come in.

In the first three months there had been over 1200 known deaths out of 42,000 adverse events.

Pfizer knew in May 2021 that the vaccines had caused heart damage in 35 minors

While Pfizer were claiming that the materials in the vaccine remain local to the injection site, they knew that was not true. They knew that the materials bio-distribute in 48 hours to the brain, liver, adrenals, spleen and ovaries. And that there is no known process by which the body is then able to digest or remove them.

While the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) was adivising the public that side effects could include ‘fatigue, chills and swelling at the injection site’, the documentation already showed that the side effects also included strokes, lung-clots, hemorrhages, leg-clots and neurological disorders, and joint problems.

And very much more - see here.

All of this was well known to the US Government, which via the FDA and CDC had full access to the the Pfizer documentation from the beginning.

Naomi Wolf, who was instrumental in publishing the analysis described it as ‘evidence of the greatest crime against humanity in the history of our species’.

2. Specifically, the Rhodes/Milner network. Quigley wrote of them extensively, and of the privileged access he was given to their documentation. See ‘Tradgedy and Hope’, Carroll Quigley, 1966.

3. ‘The Anglo-American Establishment’, Carroll Quigley, 1981.

4. See ‘The Wall Street Trilogy’, Antony Sutton, 2018. (A consolidation of three smaller books originally published in the 1970s).

5. After failure to achieve its original target date of the year 2000 (the beginning of the twenty-first century), it has now had to morphed into ‘Agenda 2030’.

6. ‘An Essay on Trial by Jury’, Lysander Spooner, 1852

7. In 1986 a Wisconsin jury found that a defendant had violated the law, but successfully asserted that the law should not, in the case they were considering, be applied. (Highly recommended viewing here).

8. ‘Freedom’s Anchor: An Introduction to Natural Law Jurisprudence in American Constitutional History’, Andrew Napolitano, 2023

9. See ‘The Great Covid Panic’, 2021, by Paul Fritjers, Gigi Foster and Michael Baker. (Pages 229 - 334)

10. For example Freddie Sayers, chief presenter for ‘Unherd T.V.’ - an ‘alternative media’ outlet born in 2017, and a great exemplar of serious, diverse, pluralistic and neutral journalism and debate.

11. A single company, Elsevier scientific publishing, publishes half a million scientific papers every year in more than 2,500 journals world-wide. The company is controlled by a ‘philanthropist’ called Paul Hamlyn, one of the biggest ‘grant-givers’ in the world. Elsevier also owns ‘The Lancet’.

12. In 2005 Dr. Jonn Ioannides, recognised as the most cited scientist in world, felt moved to publish an essay entitled ‘Why Most Published Research Findings are False’. In 2022 psychologist Mattias Desmet referenced a series of findings showing economics research not replicable in 50% of cases, cancer research not replicable in 60% of cases, and bio-medical research not replicable in 85% of cases. (See ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’, Mattias Desmet, 2022).

13. World-renown biologist Rupert Sheldrake makes a very compelling argument that science has degenerated into pseudo-religious ‘scientism’ here. And historian Niall Ferguson declared in June of 2021 that “One of the odder things that the pandemic has revealed was that the people who talk most about 'The Science' are in fact anything but scientific. In their approach they are in thrall, in fact, I think, to some version of religion, without even being aware of it”.

14. See ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’, Mattias Desmet, 2022.

15. ‘Amazing Polly’, a Canadian researcher and commentator whose comments on The ARC can be found here.

16. In particular Legatum, an investment fund which lends several of its personnel to The ARC, and apparently has Rockefeller ties.

17. Nicholas Batterham

18. Riva Melissa Tez

19. For example Congressional representative and former U.S. Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw.

20. For example Alan McCormick, Chairman of GB News, and Sir Paul Marshall, founder and owner of Unherd T.V.

21. ‘ESG’ is a new corporate buzzword. It stands for ‘Environmental, Social, Governance’. Under its banner, the corporate world seeks to wash its public image by presenting an altruistic face, and putting right the wrongs of the world. In practice the levers of immense wealth get used to intervene in social dynamics without electoral accountability, while corporate interests inevitably continue to come first. It’s real nature and consequence are well explored in ‘Woke, Inc.’ by Vivek Ramaswamy, 2021.

22. The Munk Debate Series: Is the Liberal International Order Over?

23. For example French-Canadian carver Jonathan Pageau, specialised in symbolism and iconry

24. For example James Orr, Associate Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Cambridge

25. For example Agu Irukwu, Senior Pastor of Jesus House for all Nations, London.

26. For example Erica Komisar, clinical social worker, author and psychoanalyst.

27. See ‘Coronavirus False Alarm?’, Dr. Sucharit Bakhdi and Dr. Karina Reiss, 2021.

28. Dr. Richard Amerling expressed that view in an October 2022 interview here.

29. A Handful of the Most Relevant and Most Recent :

‘The Revolt of the Public and The Crisis of Authority in the New Millenium’, Marin Gurri, 2018

‘Ideological Constructs of Vaccination’, Mateja Cernic, 2018

‘Hate Inc.: Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another’, Matt Taibbi, 2019

‘Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism’, Sharyl Atkisson, 2020

‘The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense’, Gad Saad, 2020

‘Undoctrinate: How Politicized Classrooms Harm Kids and Ruin Our Schools―and What We Can Do About It’, Bonnie Snyder, 2021

‘The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health’, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, 2021

‘One Nation Under Blackmail’, Whitney Webb, 2022

‘Lies My Government Told Me’, Robert Malone, 2022

‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’, Mattias Desmet 2022

‘Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet’, Marion Tupy, 2022

‘Davos Man: How the Billionaires Devoured the Word’, Peter Goodman, 2022

‘Technopopulism: The New Logic of Democratic Politics’, Chris Bickerton, 2022

‘The Bodies of Others: The New Authoritarians, COVID-19 and The War Against the Human’, Naomi Wolf, 2022

‘Woke, Inc.’, Vivek Ramaswamy, 2022

‘The Anglo-Venetian Roots of the Deep State’, Matthew Ehret, 2023

‘Serious Adverse Events’, Celia Farber 2023

‘Vax / Unvax, Let the Science Speak’, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2023

‘Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports’, Amy Kelly 2023

‘Freedom’s Anchor: An Introduction to Natural Law Jurisprudence in American Constitutional History’, Andrew Napolitano, 2023