by Paul Cudenec

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Jordan Peterson and his ARC organisation are nothing more than controlled opposition, as has now been decisively demonstrated by two articles by Michael Ginsberg and Ursula Edgington and a video from Sonia Poulton.

These fake rebels have not even separated themselves from the politicians and institutions behind the Great Reset, let alone from the underlying financial-industrial complex that is at the root of the problem.

As Michael and Ursula write, the ARC Advisory Board members’ “close associations with the WEF, WHO, Gates and Big Pharma, as well as corrupt overseas regimes are all hidden in plain sight”.

This has been, as Sonia remarks, a “really interesting period”, because “there’s been so many people who’ve come through that gap of the culture wars and, bit by bit, we’re discovering that they are not who they claim to be”.

I saw the same, a few months back, with Robert Malone, who is advancing the same industrial-imperialist agenda as the World Bank!

Fellow Nevermore contributor Margaret Anna Alice has also now seen through this high-profile “freedom fighter”, whom she had previously gone out of her way to defend.

Alexandr Dugin, the Russian thinker marketed to a certain niche milieu as offering a deeply radical alternative to Western ideology, also turned out to be a fraud.

The same is true of the BRICS phenomenon that Dugin promotes, designed to appeal to people who are aware of the corruption of “the West” but who are being conned into cheerleading for the same global mafia masquerading as a “multipolar” alternative.

Remember that the official 2023 BRICS declaration uses the term “sustainable development” 21 times and states: “We reiterate our commitment to enhancing and improving global governance”.

This general phenomenon is something that was concerning me at the start of 2022, when I warned that the awakening rebel energy of the Covid-sparked truth and freedom movement had to be rooted in a real understanding of the long-term issues at stake.

In my book The Withway I wrote that a political space had opened up since March
2020 in which it was possible to voice and share the kind of fundamental critique of the global system which was previously considered extremely marginal.

I tried to show that the nightmare imposed upon us under the Covid “emergency” was merely the logical conclusion of our departure from the natural order and the associated domination of power, greed, money and industry.

And I warned of the danger of leaving intact all the infrastructures of oppression, all the weapons of control, which had brought us to this sorry point.

I asked: “Do we want them to be taken up and used against us again by a slightly different gang of rulers, or by the same old gang in one of their regular new disguises?”

We haven’t even got as far as getting rid of the old rulers, but it seems likely that anyone stepping forward as the “new broom” sweeping the world clean will, indeed, be disguised representatives of that same old gang.

We live in a maze of political lies, as I wrote in 2021, where any surge of real opposition to the system is always captured by those who have all the power that money can buy and all the money that power can provide.

It seems to me that this hijacking of political movements, so easy when you have unlimited finance and the machineries of the state at your disposal, serves three distinct purposes:

  • It stops them from challenging the system’s domination, either by undermining them from within or by diverting them from an approach considered dangerous by those with power.
  • It turns an opposition movement into a weapon of the very forces it initially set out to oppose, while it still gathers support from people rallying to the now-false flag of its original message.
  • The anti-social activities of that corrupted movement can eventually be used to contaminate the reputation and appeal of genuine groups and initiatives who are still true to the original aims of the now-captured movement but, by appearing to be associated with it by labelling or language, are dismissed by other genuine opponents of the system as also being controlled.

We’ve seen this happen again and again throughout modern history. Look at the way that grassroots popular opposition to repression and the rule of wealth was turned, by Karl Marx and his comrades, into a cult worshipping the state and industrialism, which regarded human beings as mere “workers”, units of potential productivity.

When this cult eventually seized power in Russia, it destroyed the beginnings of grassroots popular control that had emerged in the revolutionary period and then set out to crush the peasantry, “modernise” the country and reorganise people’s lives to suit the needs of “socialist” industrialism.

I’ve already written about the way in which the anti-industrial volkisch movement in German-speaking Europe, spurned by the industrialist left, ended up being partly co-opted by the Nazis.

Although the Nazi project was unmistakably ultra-industrialist, the fact that they tricked some anti-industrialists into supporting their rise to power has subsequently been used as a stick with which to beat contemporary anti-industrialists!

A similar thing has happened in recent years with the environmentalist movement. This has been systematically taken over by system-funded NGOs, diverted away from any talk of defending nature from industrialism, made to focus entirely on the “climate” agenda and thus transformed into an astroturf marketing agency for the system’s Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The corrupted “environmentalism” promoted by the WEF et al is trying to use the excuse of “saving the planet” in order to impose a totalitarian hi-tech (and thus very ungreen!) global data-slave economy.

As a result, some opponents of that slave system react angrily to those of us who genuinely want to save nature from the destruction carried out by the same forces claiming to be providing “solutions”, and accuse us of being on the “side” of the WEF… Once again, we see phase 3 of the manipulation.

How anyone, from any perspective, can swallow the lie that the criminocratic global entity is really “environmentalist” – or wants to de-industrialise the world, rather than just shift the geographical core of that industry – is beyond me.

Everything that it says and does, everything that it is, revolves around industry.

If the very name of its Fourth Industrial Revolution is not enough of a clue for you, maybe ask yourself what is the key word in the term “United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”?

It’s not “sustainable”, as they would like us to assume, because that’s just an adjective to describe the hoped-for durability of so-called “development” – aka industrial destruction.

If you imagine that this financial growth is going to be somehow “dematerialised” by the digital matrix being deployed for the commodification of both nature and humanity, then please remind yourself that there is nothing “green” about the infrastructure needed to build their “inclusive” and “innovative” planet-sized prison and neither is there anything “clean” about the electricity that would be needed to keep it humming and watching and tracing and policing.

Industrialism – the turning of living tissue into dead matter in the interests of profit and control – is the physical reality of the system.

All the time that this physical reality endures – and also expands, for it cannot survive without that “growth” momentum – the system will also endure.

We might have a shiny new management team parachuted in, talking about sustainability and multipolarity and equity and diversity, but they will still be employees of the same old global owners.

It is no coincidence that all the captured “opposition” movements I have mentioned have been pointed in the direction of accelerating industrialism.

Although they are different in some aspects of their ideology, they all really amount to different roads with which to reach the same destination.

Industrialism is everything that is bad about this world: it is the degradation, it is the enslavement, it is the racket.

The system is inherently industrialist and so if we want to be rid of the system we have to be rid of industrialism.

This is not currently a popular stance to take! I wouldn’t win any election, anywhere, standing on an anti-industrial ticket.

Because industrialism is the means by which the system exists, our rulers have gone out of their way to ensure that most people never question its domination.

A world without industrialism is dismissed as impossible (“you can’t turn the clock back!“), undesirable (“they want to drag us back to the stone age!“) and dangerous (“think of all the lives saved by modern technology and medicine!“), with its proponents depicted as insane, naive, reactionary and/or hypocritical – just for finding ourselves living in a modern world that we don’t like!

Even if we understand that a non-industrial future is our only hope, it can still remain a little frightening – most of us are descended from several industrially-conditioned generations who have gradually forgotten what it means to live outside the cogs of the masters’ machine.

But at the same time it is also, if you think about it, a deeply appealing prospect. A post-industrial world (because yes, we would still be going forward in time, not back!) would have no smart cities or arms industries or power stations or shopping malls or airports or corporate media or chemical factories or WEF or WHO or IMF or UN or World Bank.

It would, however, have fresh air, clean water, healthy soil, trees, plants, animals, birds, insects, sunshine, rain, rivers, mountains, meadows, beaches – and, amidst all of that heaven-sent beauty, men, women and children living with quiet dignity, simple joy and a natural love of freedom.

When an opposition movement finally emerges with that vision in its heart, we’ll know that it’s for real.

[Audio version]

PS. The other day I discussed some of the issues mentioned above in a wide-ranging 70-minute podcast conversation with Parallel Mike, which you can listen to here.