THE CONSPIRACY MYTH by Charles Eisenstein — A Response
‘The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf.’
— Aldous Huxley, letter to George Orwell (21 October 1949)
‘The conviction that everything that happens on earth must be comprehensible to man can lead to interpreting history by commonplaces. Comprehension does not mean denying the outrageous, deducing the unprecedented from precedents, or explaining phenomena by such analogies and generalities that the impact of reality and the shock of experience are no longer felt.’
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958)
‘The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.’
― Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970)
Charles Eisenstein’s ‘The Conspiracy Myth’ arises out of a previous piece, ‘The Coronation’, a longer essay in which he looked at the coronavirus crisis from multiple angles, before coming to the conclusion that ‘novel coronavirus pandemic’ somehow means ‘a new coronation for all’ and an opportunity to ‘build an intentional society on the love already shining through the cracks of the world of separation.’ Although I enjoyed the bulk of the essay, I must admit he loses me somewhat in this final rapture of wishful thinking. Nevertheless, the essay is for the most part a humane and intelligent exploration of the bizarre and transitional situation we find ourselves in.
On the way, in a section headed ‘The Conspiracy Narrative’, Eisenstein gives a concise summary of the reasons many are warning that the alleged public health crisis is cover for a political and economic restructuring of society amounting to a global fascist takeover:
Because Covid-19 seems to justify so many items on the totalitarian wish list, there are those who believe it to be a deliberate power play. It is not my purpose to advance that theory nor to debunk it, although I will offer some meta-level comments. First a brief overview.
The theories (there are many variants) talk about Event 201 (sponsored by the Gates Foundation, CIA, etc. last October), and a 2010 Rockefeller Foundation white paper detailing a scenario called “Lockstep,” both of which lay out the authoritarian response to a hypothetical pandemic. They observe that the infrastructure, technology, and legislative framework for martial law has been in preparation for many years. All that was needed, they say, was a way to make the public embrace it, and now that has come. Whether or not current controls are permanent, a precedent is being set for:
- The tracking of people’s movements at all times (because coronavirus)
- The suspension of freedom of assembly (because coronavirus)
- The military policing of civilians (because coronavirus)
- Extrajudicial, indefinite detention (quarantine, because coronavirus)
- The banning of cash (because coronavirus)
- Censorship of the Internet (to combat disinformation, because coronavirus)
- Compulsory vaccination and other medical treatment, establishing the state’s sovereignty over our bodies (because coronavirus)
- The classification of all activities and destinations into the expressly permitted and the expressly forbidden (you can leave your house for this, but not that), eliminating the un-policed, non-juridical gray zone. That totality is the very essence of totalitarianism. Necessary now though, because, well, coronavirus.
There’s a strange error here: the Event 201 simulation was sponsored not by the CIA but by the World Economic Forum in conjunction with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and John Hopkins University Center for Health Security. In any case Mr Eisenstein makes it clear that he is not interested in the truth or otherwise of this narrative. He allows that it could, for all he knows, be true; at the same time, he distances himself from any such conclusion through his diction: ‘This is juicy material for conspiracy theories…” and “the idea that the epidemic is some monstrous plot perpetrated by evildoers upon the public…”
This is the kind of tabloid language used by mainstream debunking-hacks everywhere, and it sends a clear signal. So it came as a surprise to Eisenstein to find himself being outed as a conspiracy theorist in a critique of his essay — he does not say where to find this critique, but ‘[its author] was so persuasive that I myself almost believed it.’
‘The Conspiracy Myth’ is Eisenstein’s response to this dire accusation; in it he once again declines to denounce the coronavirus ‘conspiracy narrative’ or ‘arch-conspiracy theories’ in general, while at the same time making it clear that he finds them irrelevant in terms of defining what is wrong in our world.
First he reprises the COVID ‘conspiracy narrative’, but this time not as a neutral overview, instead loading it with lurid allusions which are not there in the first take.
“During the time of Covid-19, another level of conspiracy theory has risen to prominence that goes way beyond specific stories of collusion and corruption to posit conspiracy as a core explanatory principle for how the world works. Fuelled by the authoritarian response to the pandemic (justifiable or not, lockdown, quarantine, surveillance and tracking, censorship of misinformation, suspension of freedom of assembly and other civil liberties, and so on are indeed authoritarian), this arch-conspiracy theory holds that an evil, power-hungry cabal of insiders deliberately created the pandemic or is at least ruthlessly exploiting it to frighten the public into accepting a totalitarian world government under permanent medical martial law, a New World Order (NWO). Furthermore, this evil group, this illuminati, pulls the strings of all major governments, corporations, the United Nations, the WHO, the CDC, the media, the intelligence services, the banks, and the NGOs. In other words, they say, everything we are told is a lie, and the world is in the grip of evil.
So what do I think about that theory? I think it is a myth.”
However, he immediately makes it clear that he is using the word ‘myth’ not as a colloquial synonym for untruth, fantasy or delusion, but in a more proper literary-anthropological sense:
“Myths are vehicles of truth, and that truth needn’t be literal. The classical Greek myths, for example, seem like mere amusements until one decodes them by associating each god with psychosocial forces. In this way, myths bring light to the shadows and reveal what has been repressed. They take a truth about the psyche or society and form it into a story. The truth of a myth does not depend on whether it is objectively verifiable. That is one reason why, in The Coronation, I said my purpose is neither to advocate nor to debunk the conspiracy narrative, but rather to look at what it illuminates. It is, after all, neither provable nor falsifiable.”
And you have to applaud the cleverness of the escape. By producing the term ‘myth’ he flatters and placates both the unthinking orthodoxy which rejects all such ideas as delusional, and simultaneously the so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ with his allowance of a deeper if not literal truth — freeing himself, Houdini-style, to return to the more fertile ground, as he sees it, of psycho-social analysis as pursued in the original essay. With the deftness of a Ronaldo step-over, he eludes the challenge and slips out between the double sense; it’s a brilliant equivocation.
A myth is a vehicle of truth — it reveals a ‘deeper’ truth in the form of a fictional narrative. An equivocation, on the other hand, uses truth as the vehicle of a lie. It lies without lying; it is ‘economical with the truth’. It is the opposite of a myth.
Mr Eisenstein’s brilliant equivocation is the highlight of the essay; from there it descends into a procession of familiar stereotypes enlivened with post-structuralist pirouettes. In fact Mr Eisenstein has acknowledged (not in the essay, but in a subsequent interview) the limitations of framing this whole debate around a weaponised cliché propagated to its media assets by the CIA in 1964 as the recommended defence and distraction from its own high crimes (Directive # 1035-960, entitled ‘Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report’). But it’s too late, since he has already built it into ‘The Coronation’, and compounds the error by aggressively developing the ‘conspiracy theorist’ stereotype in ‘The Conspiracy Myth’.
The fact is that his ‘totalitarian wish-list’ point is well-made, and the list is growing by the week. Wildly exaggerated fear-propaganda has been used to justify the wholesale suspension of civil rights, opening the door to a technocratic surveillance state of nightmarish implications. We were told from the beginning — from before the beginning, actually, in the predictive war-games and simulations that preceded the outbreak — that the pandemic must put us on a ‘war-footing’. Historians (and conspiracy theorists) know that the most powerful tool for transforming a society is war, and the transformative nature of the crisis has been stressed from the beginning, as terrified populations are told over and over that the old normal will never return. One doesn’t have to believe that nCOV-SARS-2 is a bioweapon or a construct of random fragments of RNA to appreciate how its effects have been hyped into a terroristic and co-ordinated assault on civil and human rights by governments across the planet. Totalitarianism, in Hannah Arendt’s definition, is the application of terror to whole populations, not just political opponents. In the face of a de facto fascist ‘new normal’ and a slew of revelations about the dubious and contradictory pseudo-science that has been used used to justify it, it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that the crisis is indeed being ruthlessly exploited to bring into being ‘a totalitarian world government under permanent medical martial law’. It has hardly come out of the blue; New World Order conspirators have themselves been announcing its advent for at least 80 years. 
But Eisenstein finds a way. He avoids discussion of the prima facie case by invoking instead the well-known British ‘conspiracy theorist’ David Icke. He sprinkles the essay with parodic references to ‘evil cabals’, ‘reptilian overlords’ and ‘extraterrestrial or demonic entities’, all of which are hall-marks of the Ickean world-view. However, he doesn’t name him, or any other source, thus tarring all those who would see the current situation as the inauguration of a technocratic New World Order with the Ickean brush. It’s always easy to fight a straw man.
I’m not sure whether this tactic is an expression of cynicism or naivety about how the contemporary information landscape is organised. Perhaps Eisenstein doesn’t understand that in the internet era the war-system has relied on a tactic of data-flooding, hiding its conspiracies by actively promulgating them in a hundred different versions, ranging from the limited hang-out to the absurd self-parody. Faced with a range of accusers and critics, the system will silence some while deviously promoting those whom it is easiest to stereotype. This sophisticated form of camouflage was prepared as a precondition of the roll-out of the internet. Alex Jones was in place before September 2001; on the back of that event, he would build his career and the cartoonish ‘conspiracy theorist’ stereotype together, fulfilling a vital function for the military-intelligence network unleashing state terror against American citizens in its own GLADIO operations, before taking the fall in 2019 to provide precedent for widespread censorship and deplatforming. The role of witting or unwitting assets like Alex Jones and David Icke is to bring accurate research into disrepute by adulterating it with comic-book exaggeration. It has been well said that the easiest place to hide a conspiracy is within a conspiracy culture.
Beyond that, Eisenstein’s argument is one I’ve come across many times before: a duality is framed between ‘unconscious, systemic’ and ‘deliberate, conspiratorial’ drivers of events, creating a binary opposition where none need exist. It’s a false dilemma: we do not have to choose between these alternatives; nor does one exclude the other. So, for example, we can all agree that power corrupts. But we also know that corruption seeks power, and uses that power to corrupt others, promoting them inside the system. That is how institutions are taken over, and how only the corrupt, eventually, gain access to power. But for Mr Eisenstein, there is no spider in the web; rather, the web creates the spider; or there is only the web, and the spider is a ‘myth’. Even if we see it with our own eyes, right there spinning out its quivering architecture, it is only because ‘Reality organizes itself to match our stories’. 
This is a quite extraordinary contradiction of scientific method and valid logic. One of the ways we can evaluate the productiveness of a hypothesis is by assessing its ability to predict. Mr Eisenstein inverts this, claiming that the prediction itself reorganises reality. In the absence of any concept of objective reality, all predictions become self-fulfilling. Rather than conceding the fulfilment of the conspiracy theorists’ predictions, the anti-conspiratorial mindset must perform solipsistic convolutions to deny their evident vindication. So: rather than a prediction being validated by events, the prediction creates the reality; the prediction is to blame.
“This deep ideology, the myth of separation, is beyond anyone’s power to invent. The Illuminati, if they exist, are not its authors; it is more true to say that the mythology is their author. We do not create our myths; they create us.”
Thus the Illuminati are created by our belief in them, and the New World Order manifested by those who seek to expose it. Better not talk about it, then, or you might make it happen.
Damn! Is the NWO all my fault?
This kind of solipsism, of course, can only maintain itself by changing the meaning of words: it is not ‘reality’ that organises itself around our stories, but our perceptions. This is so obvious that it seems superfluous to even have to state it. But this retreat into subjectivism has become increasingly fashionable over the last few years. As the truth movement has been gained traction, the ‘systemic’ reaction has been to sacrifice the concept of truth itself. The last-ditch defence of the party line is to persuade the nomenklatura that truth no longer exists.
Thus Mr Eisenstein maintains an agnostic position on all questions except the non-existence of objective truth. This is a theological rather than scientific agnosticism. The word was coined in 1869 by Thomas Henry Huxley to encapsulate the principle that no scientist should make any knowledge claim or statement of belief where evidence does not exist to justify it. Simply put, scientists should admit what they do not know. However, the term was quickly appropriated by theologians, natural philosophers and philosophers of science for use in a stronger sense — to mean the limits beyond which knowledge is not possible. ‘Strong’ agnosticism relates not to the unknown but to the unknowable, which is appropriate in deep ontological questions. To state that it is not possible to know whether God exists, for instance; or the astrophysicist’s belief that the origin or extent of the universe can never be known; the artist’s conviction that reality is irreproducible; or the electrical engineer’s statement that we don’t know what an electron is, and probably never will — all of these are statements of strong agnosticism.
‘Who can say what is a fact any more?’ asks Mr E, in the Rebel Wisdom interview. He maintains this principle religiously, devoting an essay to debunking the notion of ‘deliberate orchestration’, while simultaneously allowing that it may be true.
For Eisenstein the ‘deeper truth’ that the conspiracy myth embodies just happens to be identical with his own psycho-social analysis. He doesn’t claim to have learned anything from the myth; instead he resorts to parody. Though he denies it, it does appear that he is using the word in its colloquial sense to mean a fantasy or delusion. He has made his own choice. His argument is that the evils afflicting the world — or rather the ills afflicting the world, since he doesn’t believe in evil and only ever uses the word sarcastically — are ‘systemic’, not ‘conspiratorial’: that is, they arise without conscious agency. Our problems would be easier to solve, he argues, if they were the result of conspiracy.
“Why? Because then our world’s problems would be quite easy to solve, at least in principle. Just expose and eliminate those bad guys. That is the prevailing Hollywood formula for righting the world’s wrongs: a heroic champion confronts and defeats the bad guy, and everyone lives happily ever after. Hmm, that is the same basic formula as blaming ill health on germs and killing them with the arsenal of medicine, so that we can live safe healthy lives ever after, or killing the terrorists and walling out the immigrants and locking up the criminals, all again so that we can live safe healthy lives ever after. Stamped from the same template, conspiracy theories tap into an unconscious orthodoxy. They emanate from the same mythic pantheon as the social ills they protest. We might call that pantheon Separation, and one of its chief motifs is the war against the Other.”
This achieves a superficial persuasiveness, but only by substituting parody for argument. Reducing the concept of a totalitarian New World Order to the figure of some megalomaniac super-villain in a James Bond or Batman movie says more about the role of Hollywood cliché in the creation of a consensus reality than about the independent thinkers who reject that consensus.
Mr Eisenstein’s orthodoxy is that it’s all a drift, not an agenda; a ‘civilisational tilt towards control’ which arises from ‘the mythology of separation’. The assumption here, of course, is that civilisation ‘tilts’ rather than being tilted. And one could argue, for example, that the existence of new technologies of hyper-control make it inevitable that society should at some point become hyper-controlled. This, again, seems superficially persuasive but relies upon the assumption that there is no intention behind the development of such technologies. Do technologies invent themselves? Well, why not, if books can write themselves? Is Mr Eisenstein positing a post-structuralist scientific model, a quasi-Barthesian theory called ‘The Death of the Inventor’? Intriguing.
In any case the argument that society follows a blind drift of technological change is falsified by the history of science, since inventions and discoveries which might liberate humanity (for example the life’s work of Nikola Tesla or Royal Raymond Rife or the stunning accidental discovery of Ebner and Schürch) are swiftly and sometimes murderously suppressed by the banks and corporations as soon as they become conscious of the implications for a financial system based on artificial scarcity.
The history of science from the mid-nineteenth century onwards reveals that technological developments — and the scientific paradigms which underlie them — are subject to control and manipulation from outside the scientific community; they are promoted or suppressed to fit business models; they do not happen, any longer, in a power vacuum. This control is highly noticeable in microbiology, electro-magnetism, astrophysics and (NB Mr E) climatology. Thus it is no surprise to find that the legislation authorising public funding for contact-tracing technology, for example, appears to have been commissioned by the Gates Foundation some months before the ‘outbreak’ became apparent, or that the The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act began its passage through the legislature early in 2019.
A sinking ship also tilts. If the tilt is the result of botched design or engineering, it is systemic. But if a hole has been torn below the waterline by explosives? The effect does not prove the cause; either way, the ship will sink.
Eisenstein does acknowledge that conspiracies happen, but for him it seems to come down to a question of countable as opposed to uncountable nouns. So conspiracies, plural, exist: he counts off a number of proven scandals.
“Watergate, COINTELPRO, Iran-Contra, Merck’s drug Vioxx, Ford’s exploding Pinto coverup, Lockheed-Martin’s bribery campaign, Bayer’s knowing sale of HIV-contaminated blood, and the Enron scandal demonstrate that conspiracies involving powerful elites do happen.”
But ‘conspiracy’, uncountable, as ‘a core explanatory principle for how the world works’ belongs in the mythic realm.
“None of the above are myths, though: a myth is something that explains the world; it is, mysteriously, bigger than itself. Thus, the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory (which I will confess, doubtless at cost to my credibility, to accepting as literally true) is a portal to the mythic realm.”
It’s important to notice the yawning gap between his limited list of public scandals and the kind of ‘arch-conspiracy’ he is characterising as ‘mythic’, and again this creates a false dilemma. There is a great deal of historical scholarship, not to mention published, leaked or declassified documents commissioned by the conspirators themselves, that could be inserted into the gap. This is the problem with the whole argument, that no one in the stereotyping-pool takes the trouble to attend to the research of the many fine historians, writers, film-makers and activists who have successively uncovered the globalist-totalitarian agenda: G Edward Griffin or Peter Dale Scott, Webster Tarpley or David Ray Griffin, Sibel Edmonds or James Corbett, or, with specific reference to the current situation, Jon Rappoport, Catherine Austin Fitts or Deborah Tavares. Is Eisenstein even familiar with these names? Like every other post-truth hipster, he makes sophisticated-sounding arguments based on the shallowest of acquaintance with the subject.
Coups and revolutions are by definition conspiratorial. Proven conspiracies to facilitate the inception of wars do indeed tell us a great deal about ‘how the world works’. The first Kennedy assassination would fall into that category, and Eisenstein betrays some confusion when he refers to it. He seems to be saying that the really big conspiracies — the ones which can never be admitted by established power without risking the collapse of the political system — are both literally true and ‘portals to a mythic realm’, where ‘the world as we know it is the result of a conspiracy, with the Illuminati or controllers as its evil gods.’ When he contemplates such a deep event, he seems to feel the pull of a truly liminal state; he stands, for the only time in the essay, genuinely on the threshold, with nothing disingenuous in his occupation of the ‘holy ground of uncertainty’, as he calls it. It’s a moment, perhaps, where the author’s defences are overwhelmed by a force of intuition with which he does not otherwise engage. So although there is no cost to his credibility — actually the opposite — in acknowledging the literal truth of the November coup, there is certainly a cost to the coherence of his argument. The open-air, broad-daylight execution of an elected president would indeed bespeak an audacious controlling power of mythic stature — the fact that such a plot could be pulled off and covered up for fifty-seven years would indeed seem to provide a ‘portal’ to a deeper understanding of ‘how the world works’.
But Eisenstein does not want to cross this threshold. Instead he defaults to a fallacy that has been deployed for more than half a century against so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’.
“The conspiracy myth gives narrative form to an authentic intuition that an inhuman power governs the world. What could that power be? The conspiracy myth locates that power in a group of malevolent human beings (who take commands, in some versions, from extraterrestrial or demonic entities). Therein lies a certain psychological comfort, because now there is someone to blame in a familiar us-versus-them narrative and victim-perpetrator-rescuer psychology.”
This is always the ground-shift of the establishment apologist: away from evidentiary questions to the unconscious motivation of the accuser. ‘Why do you believe what you believe?’ becomes ‘From what psychological weakness do you suffer that makes you want to believe what you believe?’ Of course one can invent unconscious motives for any belief at all — including those espoused by Eisenstein. It is merely an easy ad hominem hiding behind a sophisticated-sounding rationale.
Perhaps 1963 seems distant enough to safely dip a toe in the waters of ‘mythic’ conspiracy. If we take a more recent deep event which has been the subject of much analysis over the past nineteen years — the terrorist atrocities of 11th Sept 2001 — we find the appeal to unconscious motive being deployed at all levels of the media to deter very obvious questions. It doesn’t stand up to a moment’s scrutiny. Someone who believes that the attack was planned and executed by terrorists from a mountain hideout in Afghanistan imagines a ruthless enemy who is nevertheless thousands of miles removed and poorly armed, and from whom he is therefore relatively safe. Someone, on the other hand, who believes that the terrorist network is embedded within their own government’s military and intelligence establishments conceives of a ruthless enemy inside the gates, which is extremely proximate and has access to all the weapons of the state. The idea that the second scenario is somehow more ‘comforting’ than the first is bizarre.
The psychoanalytic fallacy is not only absurd but actually sinister when you consider the history of totalitarian systems turning psychiatric facilities into a second, secret gulag for political dissidents. A few years ago I published an essay which drew parallels between psychiatric abuse in totalitarian states and the deployment of the weaponised conspiracy-theorist cliché to set up a ‘soft, social gulag’ in the democracies of the West. I also pointed out that in recent years Western governments have been steadily moving towards ‘hard gulag’ models of psychiatric abuse. I gave a number of examples, the most pertinent of which is the case of Jane Bürgermeister, an editor at a medical journal based in Vienna, who exposed a blatant attempt by the Baxter Corporation (a Bayer subsidiary) to trigger a deadly flu pandemic in countries across Europe by distributing vaccine materials contaminated with live human and avian flu viruses, in circumstances which cannot have been accidental. Bürgermeister filed legal charges against Baxter and publicised the issue to great effect, but was soon subjected to a terrifying legal assault by the Austrian government, which sought to strip her of all civic rights and assets and confine her to a mental institution. All traces of Bürgermeister disappeared from the internet for ten years. I am very happy to see that she has recently resurfaced, albeit with a low profile, commenting on the current crisis.
I am not suggesting that Mr Eisenstein would have any truck with such persecution of dissidents or whistle-blowers — not consciously, at least — but all of this gives the psychoanalytic fallacy a much darker context, which is coming into sharp focus at the present time. As a British citizen I made it my business to read the UK Coronavirus Act of 2020 with some care, and I derived no ‘psychological comfort’, believe me, from my study of its provisions. Not only does the Act suspend fundamental civil rights such as habeas corpus, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and of movement, inviolability of residence and so on, it strips away protections under the Mental Health Act of 1983. It is hard to understand why mental health provisions should form any part of legislation allegedly designed to combat an influenza pandemic. Is the British state preparing its own second gulag of psychiatric coercion?
Now, that’s a paranoid thought.
Eisenstein admits the authenticity of the ‘intuition that an inhuman power governs the world’. He does not provide, in this piece, a convincing articulation of what that ‘inhuman power’ could be, beyond the usual nod to ‘systems or ideologies’, but in a (much) earlier essay (Synchronicity, Myth, and the New World Order, December 2013) he asks:
“Rather than an evil Illuminati, could that power be money? Some say that a global elite controls humanity via the money system, but could it be that it is rather the money system that controls the global elite?”
And, of course, money is always involved. But to offer this a sufficient explanation to exclude ‘deliberate orchestration’ is another false dilemma: the fact that it is all about money does not mean that it is only about money. Money may be the modus operandi, but that doesn’t make it the operator. There was insider trading on 9/11, but is that a sufficient explanation for the event? There is huge corporate and financial consolidation taking place around the corona crisis — but is that all that’s going on? And how would such an explanation preclude deliberate orchestration by an ‘evil cabal’, or whatever lurid term you want to use, especially since the Federal Reserve of the United States was admittedly established through conspiracy. For the systemicist, it is acceptable to believe that the evil power is money personified, but not that the persons who wield that power have evil intent. How can we know the dancer from the dance? is the Yeatsian refrain.
One person well placed to ask such questions is the financial analyst and portfolio strategist Catherine Austin Fitts. Widely read, incomparably intelligent, with experience in government and on Wall Street and long experience as a risk manager, Fitts is a singularly authoritative, courageous and clear-sighted commentator on the contemporary scene. She has no doubt that what we are looking at is a sociopathic consolidation of wealth and power tantamount to Aldous Huxley’s ‘final revolution’, with the same Sadistic  origins: she fears that we are being swept up in a ‘high-speed re-engineering of the whole culture and civilisation’. Whereas I can ask whether there is any distinction between lust for money and lust for power, she can explain exactly how it works. As corruption becomes unlimited, its need for power becomes total — totalitarian. Fitts’ recent article The Injection Fraud is crucial reading for anyone with the moral courage to want to see things as they are. And her perspective, by the way, provides an explicit antithesis to Eisenstein’s equivocal routines.
“I was an investment banker until politics made it impossible to continue to practice my art. I was trained as a portfolio strategist—so I map my world by watching the financial flows and allocation of resources. I was also trained as a conspiracy generator and foot soldier—conspiracies being the fundamental organizing principle of how things get done in our world. It was not until I left the establishment that I learned that those not in the club had been trained to disparage and avoid conspiracies—a clever trick that sabotages their efforts to gather power.”
The article, like its author, is expert, grounded, and unflinching. Do not read it if you’re looking for ‘psychological comfort’. It’s a stark and compelling assessment of what we’re up against at this point in human history, and it should be read in full. There is a risk that if I simply cut to her conclusions, the Eisensteins of this world will merely scoff. Well, let them, but the sincere should go to her article and follow her logic step by step. Here I must perforce use extended quotations.
As a financial risk assessor, Fitts long ago came to the conclusion that the single greatest issue facing families in the USA is healthcare failure and corruption; she has spent years ‘mapping the financial costs of vaccine injury again and again and again’. With at least 54% of American children suffering from one or more chronic disease, she refers to the ongoing disaster as ‘the Great Poisoning’.
“Of all the questions that I had, the one that I spent the most time researching and thinking about was why. Why was the medical establishment intentionally poisoning generations of children? Many of the writers who researched and wrote about vaccine injury and death assumed it was an aberration—resulting from the orthodoxy of a medical establishment that could not face or deal with its mistakes and liabilities. That never made sense to me. Writings by Forrest Maready, Jon Rappoport, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Arthur Firstenberg have helped me understand the role of vaccines in the con man trick of saving money for insurance companies and the legally liable.
Here is one example of how the trick may play out. A toxin creates a disease. The toxin might be pesticides or industrial pollution or wireless technology radiation. The toxin damages millions of people and their communities. Companies or their insurance provider may be liable for civil or criminal violations. Then a virus is blamed. A ‘cure’ is found in a ‘vaccine.’ The pesticide or other toxic exposure is halted just as the vaccine is introduced, and presto, the sickness goes away. The vaccine is declared a success, and the inventor is declared a hero. A potential financial catastrophe has been converted to a profit, including for investors and pension funds. As a portfolio strategist, I admit it has been a brilliant trick and likely has protected the insurance industry from the bankrupting losses it would experience if it had to fairly compensate the people and families destroyed.”
Noting that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA or the PREP Act) of 2005 gives vaccine producers complete indemnity from liability, she delivers this bombshell:
Over time, this has evolved to the engineering of epidemics—the medical version of false flags. In theory, these can be ‘psyops’ or events engineered with chemical warfare, biowarfare, or wireless technology.”
So, is it about money? Yes. Is it conspiratorial, utterly cruel, consciously evil? Oh yes. Fitts’ article cuts through the false systemic-conspiratorial antithesis like nothing else I have read. But there’s more — much more. Fitts references a 2017 quality control study by Gatti and Montanari which found anomalous nano-particulate and bio-contaminants in every one of the 44 vaccines they tested. Asking, “Aborted fetal tissue, animal tissue, aluminum, mercury, genetically altered materials—and what else?” Fitts continues,
“Whatever the ingredients of vaccines have been to date, nothing is more bizarre and unsettling than the proposals of what might be included in them in the future. Strategies—already well-funded and well on the way—include brain-machine interface nanotechnology, digital identity tracking devices, and technology with an expiration date that can be managed and turned off remotely.
[…] Most people are familiar with how Bill Gates made and kept his fortune. He acquired an operating system that was loaded into your computer. It was widely rumored that the U.S. intelligence agencies had a back door. The simultaneous and sudden explosion of computer viruses then made it necessary to regularly update your operating system, allowing Gates and his associates to regularly add whatever they wanted into your software. One of my more knowledgeable software developers once said to me in the 1990s—when Microsoft really took off—”Microsoft makes really sh***y software.” But of course, the software was not really their business. Their business was accessing and aggregating all of your data. Surveillance capitalism was underway.
The Department of Justice launched an antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998, just as the $21 trillion started to disappear from the U.S. government—no doubt with the help of specially designed software and IT systems.
[…] The reason we have not entered into hyperinflation is because of the dramatic drop in money velocity occasioned by converting Covid-19 into an engineered shutdown of significant economic activity and the bankrupting of millions of small and medium-sized businesses. The managers of the dollar system are under urgent pressure to use new technology to centralize economic flows and preserve their control of the financial system.”
What kind of spooky personification must one perform to believe that ‘money’ is doing all this by itself? Can ‘money’ engineer such systems? Money, of course, has no agency, any more than guns can shoot people of their own volition. This is magical thinking. We need to be clear, and talk not about ‘money’ but about what ‘conspiracy theorists’ used to call ‘the money power’ and now generally refer to as ‘the banksters’. We’re talking not just about human greed, but wicked human ingenuity.
“Just as Gates installed an operating system in our computers, now the vision is to install an operating system in our bodies and use ‘viruses’ to mandate an initial installation followed by regular updates.
[…] If they can persuade the body politic that injectible credit cards or injectible surveillance trackers or injectable brain-machine interface nanotechnologies are ‘vaccines’, then they can enjoy the protection of a century or more of legal decisions and laws that support their efforts to mandate what they want to do. As well, they can insist that U.S. taxpayers fund, through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the damages for which they would otherwise be liable as a result of their experiments—and violations of the Nuremberg Code and numerous civil and criminal laws—on the general population.
The scheme is quite clever. Get the general population to go along with defining their new injectible high-tech concoctions as ‘vaccines’, and they can slip them right into the vaccine pipeline. No need to worry about the disease and death that will result from something this unnatural delivered this quickly. The freedom from liability guaranteed by the PREP Act through the declaration of an emergency—and the ability to keep the emergency going through contact tracing—can protect them from liability for thousands if not millions of deaths and disabilities likely to follow such human experimentation. Ideally, they can just blame the deaths on a virus.
[…] I believe that Gates and the pharma and biotech industries are literally reaching to create a global control grid by installing digital interface components and hooking us up to Microsoft’s new $10 billion JEDI cloud at the Department of Defense as well as Amazon’s multibillion cloud contract for the CIA that is shared with all U.S. intelligence agencies. […] Remember—the winner in the AI superpower race is the AI system with access to the most data. Accessing your body and my body on a 24/7 basis generates a lot of data. If the Chinese do it, the Americans will want to do it, too. In fact, the rollout of human “operating systems” may be one of the reasons why the competition around Huawei and 5G telecommunications has become so fractious. As Frank Clegg, former President of Microsoft Canada has warned us, 5G was developed by the Israelis for crowd control.
In the face of global ‘de-dollarization’, this is how the dollar syndicate can assert the central control it needs to maintain and extend its global reserve currency financial power. This includes protecting its leadership from the civil and criminal liability related to explosive levels of financial and health care fraud in recent decades.
Which brings me back to you and me. Why are we calling these formulations ‘vaccines’? If I understand the history of case law, vaccines, in legal terms, are medicine. Intentional heavy metal poisoning is not medicine. Injectible surveillance components are not medicine. Injectible credit cards are not medicine. An injectible brain-machine interface is not a medicine. Legal and financial immunity for insurance companies does not create human immunity from disease.
We need to stop allowing these concoctions to be referred to by a word that the courts and the general population define and treat as medicine and protect from legal and financial liability.
This is not about reptilian overlords, aliens, demons, evil gods or any other such mythical beings, but a highly structured resurgence of totalitarianism on a global scale, and the eugenic and transhumanist agendas behind it. The inflexion point in human history which has now overtaken us is driven not (only) by blind ‘psycho-social forces’ but by conscious strategy; it is not a drift but a warfront with complex logistics and staged strategic goals.
Face it: immunity passports, contact-tracing, proximity location, identity-branding, heat-signature tracking, ‘portable’ IDs and the rest of the ‘totalitarian wish-list’ are not going to go away when (or if) the ‘virus’ does, and even without injectable brain-machine interface technology they represent the birth of a panoptic surveillance state undreamt outside of science fiction. The rape of individual sovereignty becomes literal in the needle arrays, the ‘vaccines’ which are not vaccines. Those who refuse them are going to be stigmatised, ostracised, ghettoised, banned from working, travelling or transacting. Digitally badged and universally despised, we — because I’ll be one of them — are going to find out what it’s like to be the new Jews.
So there are choices to be made, and no choice but to make a choice. Liminality, as Victor Turner himself eventually realised, can only ever be a transitional state. Luxurious though it is to hover forever above the threshold, to try to turn the liminal experience into a permanent state was always self-defeating and artificial, an apotheosis of nostalgia for the adolescent moment. Sooner or later, the liminalist must stop flirting and floating and be incorporated, one way or another, into a new condition. There is no staying home, staying safe. The question is no longer academic; at some point you have to choose between your ‘credibility’ and the truth. Eisenstein may choose to believe that I’ve watched too many James Bond films; that I am posturing and seeking comfort in the pose.
Or perhaps I’m just not clever enough to wriggle out of it with a brilliant equivocation.
H G Wells’ The New World Order was published in 1940. Carroll Quigley, the historian of the Rhodes-Milner group, published Tragedy and Hope in 1966.
 Karl Rove, the Bush dynasty’s Machiavellian fixer, would not agree. Instead, reality organises itself exclusively around the Empire’s stories.
 This conveniently ignores the fact that the New World Order is named and announced by its executives, for example US President and former Director of Central Intelligence George H W Bush in a speech exactly ten years to the day before the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001.
 I date this not to the CIA memo but the influential essay by Richard Hofstadter, ‘The Paranoid Style in American Politics’ (1964), based on a speech delivered to the Oxford Union on 21st November 1963, coincidentally the eve of the Kennedy assassination.
 In the Rebel Wisdom interview, Mr Eisenstein expresses a wish for people to ‘be nicer to those they disagree with’. Niceness, I agree, is nice, and Mr Eisenstein seems like a very nice man. That’s why I call him Mr. But even nicer would be honesty: good epistemology is one third integrity, one third acquaintance with logical procedure and one third the precise use of language. Mr E fails on all three counts. He might demonstrate his integrity by resisting the temptation to promote the CIA’s ‘conspiracy theory’ stereotype, adorning it with lurid Ickean rhetoric and substituting parody and magical thinking for rational argument.
 ‘Once upon the throne of kings, there shall never have been a tyranny to equal ours, no despot shall ever have put a thicker blindfold over the eyes of the people; plunged into essential ignorance, it shall be at our mercy, blood will flow in rivers, our Masonic brethren themselves shall become the mere valets of our cruelties, and in us alone shall the supreme power be concentrated; all freedom shall go by the board, that of the press, that of worship, that simply of thought shall be severely forbidden and ruthlessly repressed; one must beware of enlightening the people or of lifting away its irons when your aim is to rule it.’ De Sade, Juliette (1797-1801)
AUTHOR’S NOTE: If anyone wonders why I am wasting my time arguing with equivocators, the answer is here.