This is one of my longer posts, dear reader. Not quite as long as Dominic Cummings’ blogs, and hopefully more intelligible, but long nonetheless. Also, if you read The New European, or subscribe to Tortoise, you will be familiar with some of the content. However, though it may annoy my book publicist that I choose to publicise someone else’s book rather than my own, I think it is important that I do. Because I don’t think there are many, including among those paid to cover politics, economics and the debates about both, who fully appreciate what Brexit is about, and the bigger pattern into which it fits.
So this post is a longer piece on the book I have talked about before, The Sovereign Individual, which I think gives an important insight into the people and philosophy behind Brexit and many of the changes they hope to flow from it.
I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist. However, when you reflect that Brexit is the consequence of a reverse takeover by a tiny but well-funded minority of the Tory Party, and that the Cabinet of the UK is now virtually wholly owned by and representative of that formerly minority position, you have to take seriously the scale of what is going on, and at least reflect on it rather more than much of the debate and coverage thus far seems to do.
It was early in August, 2018, as I stepped from a train at Marylebone station, that I experienced something of an Ancient Mariner moment, and was introduced to the most important book nobody has ever heard of.
Britain was in the middle of a heatwave, I had spent the day at a football coaches’ seminar in the Midlands, and was keen to get home. But my 2018 Mariner was not a man to be ignored. He chased me down the platform, calling my name, ‘Mr Campbell, Mr Campbell,’ but as I turned, I couldn’t see where the voice was coming from, so carried on towards the ticket barrier.
The shouting became louder, came closer, and eventually, there he was, out of breath, his face creased with the look of a man who was definitely on a mission. He did not have the Ancient Mariner’s long grey beard, but he did have a glistening eye.
‘I am friend, not foe,’ he began. He apologised for shouting, apologised for stopping me, and thanked me for campaigning against Brexit.
‘I know you’re busy,’ he said. ‘But,’ – now he was rummaging into a backpack that he had slung forward from his shoulders, and produced a dog-eared book – ‘if I give you this book, do you promise me you will read it?’
I was still working out whether to switch into the polite fob off mode that anyone with a public profile has to deploy from time to time.
‘I promise you won’t regret it,’ he said. ‘But more importantly, if you don’t read this book, you won’t fully understand why Brexit is happening.’
‘OK,’ I said, taking the book, and looking at the cover.
‘You must read it,’ he said.
‘I will definitely look at it. Promise.’
At the back of my mind was the pile of unread books by my bed. He sensed I was hedging.
‘Even the first chapter,’ he said. ‘Even if you just read the first chapter, please, I promise, you will see straight away why it matters.’
A few days later, I did read the first chapter. He was right; I did see straight away why it matters, and read spellbound, and horrified, to the end.
It is called The Sovereign Individual and if I was unaware of its publication, it might have been because it was in early 1997, when I was busy working on New Labour’s campaign ahead of the election in May. But my Mariner was right. It really does help you understand why the political Right fought so hard for Brexit, and why they are relishing the chaos it has unleashed.
The sub-title is Mastering the Transition to the Information Age. The use of the word ‘mastering’ is instructive. It is a book written by Masters of the Universe, for Masters of the Universe, Sovereign Individuals. One of the two co-authors, James Dale Davidson, is American; the other is British, very British … Lord William Rees-Mogg, ex-editor of The Times, father of Jacob, leading light of the Brexit revolution.
I did not have to agree with its essential philosophy to recognise that the book is the product of very large brainpower, sweeping far and wide in historical research and analysis. Its strength however, especially reading it today, lies in the force of its predictions about the new millennium that was to dawn three years later.
It is prefaced by a quote by Tom Stoppard, from Arcadia. ‘The future is disorder. A door like this has cracked open five or six times since we got up on our hind legs. It is the best possible time to be alive, when almost everything you thought you knew is wrong.’ To most people, disorder is threatening, scary. To Rees-Mogg and the radical Right it is a source of opportunity, the chance for the Sovereign Individual to rise above tedious constraints lesser mortals take for granted – tax, regulation, government, even politics and democracy itself.
The driving theme of this book is the information revolution, ‘the most sweeping in history’, with which we were all wrestling at the time. I remember a tortured afternoon ahead of then Opposition leader Tony Blair’s Labour Conference speech in 1995, trying to make sense of a passage about ‘the information superhighway,’ which we knew was important, but didn’t fully understand. Davidson and Rees-Mogg were definitely ahead of us in foreseeing just how revolutionary the information revolution might turn out to be.
Their forecast was that it would ‘subvert and destroy the nation state, creating new forms of social organisation in the process. It will be faster than any previous revolution, and not without pain.’
The ‘Sovereign Individuals’ who would gain most from this ‘liberation’ are ‘the brightest, most successful and ambitious’ among us, they said, ‘those who can educate and motivate themselves …. Genius will be unleashed, freed from both the oppression of government.’
In their view, government is but a drag on ambition and success, welfare something the rich are forced to fund for the less bright, successful and ambitious. Real success, they argue, will be measured not just by how many zeroes you can add to your net worth, but whether you can structure your affairs in a way that enables you to realise your full autonomy and independence. … autonomous of government, independent of communal responsibility.
The Sovereign Individuals, this vision of wonder goes on, will compete and interact on terms that echo the relations among the gods in Greek myth. ‘The elusive Mount Olympus of the next Millennium will be in cyberspace.’ Some will be as rich as Bill Gates. The ‘cyberpoor’ will be those with an income of less than $200,000 a year. But here is what Sovereign Individuals can really like about cyberspace – there will be no cyberwelfare, no cybertaxes and no cybergovernment. ‘The good news is that politicians will no more be able to dominate, suppress and regulate the greater part of commerce in this new realm than the legislators of the ancient Greek city-states could have trimmed the beard of Zeus.’
The loathing of democratic politics is profound. Government is constantly equated with organised crime, then US President Bill Clinton portrayed as something akin to a gangster, but this change, they argue, will force governments to do less, and do what they still do according to the values of the market. Governments will have to treat people like customers, ‘and less in a way that organised criminals treat the victims of a shakedown racket… First in scores, then in hundreds, and ultimately in the millions, individuals will escape the shackles of politics.’
As the modern nation-state ‘decomposes’, ‘latter-day barbarians like the Russian mafia, other ethnic criminal gangs, drug lords, and renegade covert agencies will be laws unto themselves… They already are.’
But Sovereign Individuals, like the ancient gods, will enjoy a kind of ‘diplomatic immunity’ from political decisions. Meanwhile, the capacity of nation-states to raise money for redistribution will collapse, and ‘the information aristocracy’ will move their wealth to wherever they are least troubled by politicians, whose capacity for taxing will fall by 50-70 percent.
Herein lies the heart of the argument. ‘Transactions on the Internet or the World Wide Web can be encrypted and will soon be almost impossible for tax collectors to capture. Tax-free money already compounds far faster offshore than onshore funds still subject to the high tax burden imposed by the twentieth-century nation-state. After the turn of the millennium, much of the world’s commerce will migrate into the new realm of cyberspace, a region where governments will have no more dominion than they exercise over the bottom of the sea or the outer planets. … Cyberspace is the ultimate offshore jurisdiction. An economy with no taxes. Bermuda in the sky with diamonds.
‘When this greatest tax haven of them all is fully open for business, all funds will essentially be offshore funds at the discretion of their owner. The state has grown used to treating its taxpayers as a farmer treats his cows, keeping them in a field to be milked. Soon, the cows will have wings. Like an angry farmer, the state will no doubt take desperate measures at first to tether and hobble its escaping herd. It will employ covert and even violent means to restrict access to liberating technologies. Such expedients will work only temporarily, if at all. The twentieth-century nation-state, with all its pretensions, will starve to death as its tax revenues decline.’
Governments’ ability to control money by printing it will be transcended, the authors say – this is 1997, remember – by mathematical algorithms that have no physical existence…. ‘Payment will be rendered in cybercurrency. Profits will be booked in cyberbanks. Investments will be made in cyberbrokages. Many transactions will not be subject to taxation…. Extraterritorial regulatory power will collapse…. Control over money will migrate from the halls of power to the global marketplace. Any individual or firm with access to cyberspace will be able to easily shift out of any currency that appears in danger of depreciation…. ‘Only the poor will be victims of inflation.’
The book is written somewhat in the manner of a memo to investors, a guide for disaster capitalists with a love of disorder, like those who were egging the government for a hard, disruptive Brexit outcome.
‘A series of transition crises lies ahead … We expect it to be a time of great danger and great reward … Increasingly autonomous individuals and bankrupt, desperate governments will confront one another across a new divide. We expect to see a radical restructuring of the nature of sovereignty and the virtual death of politics before the transition is over. Instead of state domination and control of resources, you are destined to see the privatisation of almost all services governments now provide.’
Privatisation of services heralds ‘the ultimate form of privatisation – the sweeping denationalisation of the individual.’ The Sovereign Individual will not be the asset of any state, nor even a citizen, but a customer of competing jurisdictions. Once sovereignty is commercialised, people will choose their jurisdictions, much as they now choose their insurance companies or their religions. Jurisdictions that fail to deliver will face bankruptcy and liquidation, ‘just as incompetent commercial enterprises or failed religious congregations do.’
The authors’ hatred of welfare could not be clearer. And how is this for a radical right-wing view of public services, in which the idea of co-operative pooling of resources for common goods like roads and hospitals is clearly anathema? ‘If you went into a store to buy furniture, and the salespeople took your money but then proceeded to ignore your requests and consult others about how to spend your money, you would quite rightly be upset. You would not think it normal or justifiable if the employees of the store argued that you really did not deserve the furniture, and that it should be shipped instead to someone whom they found more worthy. The fact that something very like this happens in dealings with government shows how little control the “customers” actually have.’
There will, it is admitted, be ‘left-behinds,’ and they will become ‘increasingly jingoistic and unpleasant’ as the impact of information technology grows. There will be a backlash, and it could well turn violent. Social peace will be in jeopardy, especially in America and Europe, they warn. ‘The more psychopathic of these unhappy souls’ will strike out against anyone with more prosperity. The rich and immigrants will be most at risk. ‘A furious nationalist reaction will sweep the world,’ we are told. ‘One of the crucial challenges of the great transformation ahead will be maintaining order in the face of escalating violence, or alternatively escaping its brunt… It is difficult to guess at precisely what point the reaction will turn ugly. Our guess is that the recriminations will intensify when Western nations begin to unambiguously crack apart in the manner of the former Soviet Union.’ Was I alone in reading that and seeing the growth in support for Scottish independence, and the increased likelihood of a united Ireland, thanks to Brexit?
Again, though, Sovereign Individuals must fear none of this, because ‘every time a nation-state cracks up, it will facilitate further devolution and encourage the autonomy of Sovereign Individuals. ‘We expect to see a significant multiplication of sovereign entities, as scores of enclaves and jurisdictions more akin to city-states emerge from the rubble of nations.’
Today, the libertarian right sees Enterprise Cities, Charter Cities and Freeports, able to set their own rules on everything from labour law to codes on corruption, as central to its vision, aggressively pursued by well-funded and well-connected think tanks, like-minded politicians, academics, media and business tycoons. The ‘Sovereign Individual,’ the better-known ‘Road to Serfdom’ by Friedrich Hayek, are often referred to as ‘Bibles’ of their thinking. The goal is a complete redesign of the world’s economic, political and data systems. It helps to explain their passion for Brexit.
Interesting, too, how often the same names come up, again and again with regard to the intellectual, political and business activities behind this drive … dual national British-American trade laywer Shanker Singham, Daniel Hannan (Lord Hannan to be, thanks to Johnson) , Matthew Elliot who ran Vote Leave, his wife Sarah, Rees-Mogg Jr, his fellow Tory MP Steve Baker. The role of 55, Tufton Street, home to several of the libertarian right organisations in the UK, is not to be underestimated. Check out Baker Street Herald for more on this.
As we have seen with Brexit, and saw with Trump, to pursue their goals, right-wing politicians have to win campaigns on one basis, whilst delivering their objectives on another. Brexit could not be won without the votes of the people. Boris Johnson could not deliver the Sovereign Individual version of it without being Prime Minister. But had the Leave campaign spelled out openly the length of the exit process, the costs en route, the loss of rights and access, all the things they denied would ever happen, they know they would not have won. And even against Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, he might have struggled to win a majority of 80, had he been promising to shred labour, social, and environmental protections as many of those who supported him en route to Brexit and Number 10 now desire.
What Johnson had to promise was greater control, more money for public services, the same benefits as EU membership, proper protections, lies about ‘levelling up,’ when the real goal is the opposite. What the libertarian right always wanted was Brexit as part of their journey to a low-tax, low-regulation and low-transparency UK. It helps explain, too, why so many of the norms of UK government, from proroguing Parliament to ditching ministerial standards, rubbishing the civil service, judges and even the rule of law, to growing corruption in Covid contracts, have been undermined. It helps explain my incredulity that Labour are planning to vote in favour of the deal, when given the Parliamentary arithmetic, no deal is not going to happen.
The eventual goal of this well-funded, highly organised, widely media-backed network is a global network of Enterprise Cities competing on the basis of freedom from restraint. They would appear to have the support of the current Chancellor Rishi Sunak, a long-term enthusiast for Freeports, his recent announcements on which – plans for ten new ones – flowed seamlessly from work he had done for the Centre for Policy Studies, which drew criticism at the time for its support for low standards of regulation. His father-in-law, NR Narayana Murthy, one of the richest men in the world, laid the first brick of his own Special Economic Zone in India in 2014.
The message of the Sovereign Individual is about as free market a view of the world as you could imagine, profoundly right-wing, anti-state, anti-welfare, anti-rules worldview, fiercely anti politics, with democracy itself called into question. Labour should have nothing to do with it. The rubble of nations indeed. ‘The argument of this book clearly informs the decision to redeploy your capital, if you have any. Citizenship is obsolete. To optimise your lifetime earnings and become a Sovereign Individual you will need to become a customer of a government or protection service rather than a citizen. Instead of paying whatever tax burden is imposed upon you by grasping politicians, you will be better positioned to prosper in the Information Age by freeing yourself to negotiate a private tax treaty that obliges you to pay no more for services of government than they are actually worth to you.’
As a father of three, I know that it is wrong to assume children all adopt the views and manner of their parents. Rees-Mogg Jr may not share every part of the Rees-Mogg Sr worldview. But we know from his own mouth that he shares much of it. Lord Mogg would be very proud of his son’s role in trying to get Britain to the hardest Brexit of all, whatever the impact on the ‘left-behinds’ whose votes were just a necessary support on the journey, first in the EU referendum, then in the 2019 election won on the slogan ‘get Brexit done.’
Rees-Mogg Senior had a very low view of politicians, though one suspects he would not be at all surprised that Boris Johnson and Donald Trump reached the top.
‘Too little attention has been paid to the fact that electoral politics lures disordered, messianic personalities into positions of power. A system that routinely submits control over the largest, most deadly enterprises on earth to the winner of popularity contests between charismatic demagogues is bound to suffer for it in the long run.’ That is just one of many anti-politics, anti-politician statements in the 400-page tome. They are ‘predatory,’ they say, and their prey are the rich, whose taxes they want so that they can pay for public services, perish the thought.
I am sure that Rees-Mogg Jr broadly agrees with his father’s assertion that ‘the destruction of tradition has been a disaster to the moral order of the world.’ His persistent calls for cuts in overseas aid, recently answered in a blatant breach of a year-old ‘cast-iron manifesto promise,’ echo his father’s writing: ‘We believe that foreign aid and international development programmes have had the perverse effect of lowering the real incomes of poor people in poor countries by subsidising incompetent governments.’
We know too that he is likely to appreciate and agree with the many references to the importance of religion along the way, the belief in ‘dynamic morality,’ the complaint that ‘a high proportion of people in the growing cognitive elite have been given little religious or moral education in the family.’ Though whether Jacob’s sixth son, Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher, will appreciate learning from Grandpapa that the Pope after whom he was named caught syphilis from one of his mistresses and licensed prostitutes so he could tax their earnings is another matter.
Two of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s more controversial moves in recent times are more clearly understood on the back of reading this book. First, the shift of millions in his hedge fund from the UK to Ireland. Politics says don’t do such a thing, just as you are heralding a great patriotic future for the UK after Brexit. But the Sovereign Individual puts his wealth where he can best maximise his capital.
Second, his observation, that it may be fifty years before the country as a whole sees what he calls ‘the full benefits’ of Brexit.
Sovereign Individuals are exempt from that long wait, because Rees-Mogg Senior makes clear there are huge opportunities from upheaval, and in particular the weakening of nation-states, the decline of welfare, the death as he wills it of social democracy, which is in any event ‘an illusion … an anachronism, as much an artefact of industrialisation as a rusting smokestack.’ They go on: ‘Market forces, not political majorities, will compel societies to reconfigure themselves in ways that public opinion will neither comprehend nor welcome.’ Thereby confirming that this is a vision that could never have won democratic support, other than through deceit and subterfuge.
But what rewards lie ahead for this gilded few if only its members – ‘a relatively small, elite group of rich represent a more coherent and effective body than a large mass of citizens’ – seize the opportunities. ‘The new Sovereign Individual will operate like the gods of myth in the same physical environment as the ordinary, subject citizen, but in a separate realm politically. Commanding vastly greater resources and beyond the reach of many forms of compulsion, the Sovereign Individual will redesign governments and reconfigure economies in the new millennium. The full implications of this change are all but unimaginable.’ Indeed.
In two earlier books, Blood in the Streets and The Great Reckoning, Davidson and Rees-Mogg forecast the end of Communism and the rise of Gorbachev, the war in Yugoslavia, the Japanese economic bust and the late 80s Wall Street crash, the decline of Marxism and the rise of extreme Islam as chief security concern for the West. So though there are some things they get wrong, they got a lot right.
And, bearing in mind the third of this trilogy was written in 1997, when I was part of the Blair team meant to be in touch with the modern world, I certainly was not in touch enough to make this observation. ‘We believe the Information Age will bring the dawn of cybersoldiers, who will be heralds of devolution. Cybersoldiers could be deployed not merely by nation-states but by very small organisations, and even by individuals. Wars of the next millennium will include some almost bloodless battles fought with computers.’
Vladimir Putin was two years off becoming President of Russia, Mark Zuckerberg was just thirteen, and Dominic Cummings was still in his 20s, when Rees-Mogg Sr wrote this … ‘The result will be a massive problem of data corruption that will provide an accidental illustration of a new potential for information warfare. In the Information Age, potential adversaries will be able to wreak havoc by detonating “logic bombs” that sabotage the functions of essential systems by corrupting the data upon which their functioning depends. As a military exercise, for example, you would not need to shoot down an airplane, if you could corrupt data crucial to its safe operation. Data corruption can do almost as much as physical weapons can to thwart the function of a modern society.’
And as we all scratch our heads today and wonder what to do about ‘fake news,’ perhaps we should have paid more heed to WRM … ‘Unfortunately, you will not be able to depend upon normal information channels to give you an accurate and timely understanding of the decay of the nation-state… For a variety of reasons, the news media cannot always be relied upon to tell you the truth. Many are conservative in that they represent the party of the past. Some are blinded by anachronistic ideological commitments to socialism and the nation-state. Some will be afraid for more tangible reasons to reveal the corruption that is likely to loom ever larger in a decaying system. Some will lack physical courage that might be required for such a task. Others will fear for their jobs, or be shy of other retribution for speaking up. And of course, there is no reason to suspect that reporters and editors are any less prone to corrupt consideration than building inspectors or Italian paving contractors. To a large extent than you might expect, important organs of information that appear to be keen to report anything and everything may prove to be less dependable information sources than in commonly supposed. Many will have other motivations, including shoring up support for a faltering system, that they will place ahead of honestly informing you. They will see little and explain less.’
He foretells the algorithmised echo chambers of today. ‘As artificial reality and computer games technologies continue to improve, you’ll even be able to order a nightly news report that simulates the news you would like to hear. … You’ll see any story you wish, true or false, unfold on your television/computer with greater verisimilitude than anything than NBC or the BBC can now muster.’
As to all the factors that pile in as indicators of the commercialisation of sovereignty and the death of the nation-state, they include economic upheaval caused by micro-processing; the decline in reputation of governments, unions, professionals and lobbyists; the decline in the power of traditional elites; the decline in respect for symbols of statehood; widespread secession movements in many parts of the globe; intense, violent, nationalist reaction from those who lose income, status, power; suspicion of and opposition to free trade and globalisation; hostility to immigration; hatred of the ‘information elite’, the rich and well-educated; acts of ethnic cleansing to restore nationalist identification; neo-Luddite attack on new technologies, especially from the poor; the ultimate collapse of the nation-state in fiscal crisis.
I took another look at the book in an attempt to find a logic to the position to which Johnson’s government has led us on Brexit. Set in the context of the Rees-Mogg Sr worldview, the logic of chaos and disruption is clear. Had he campaigned openly for it, he would never have won the referendum in the first place. It had to be the destination on a journey fuelled by ‘the will of the people,’ and in which others – the EU – could be blamed when the journey ended in a very different place to that which had been promised, backed by those parts of the media owned by Sovereign Individuals such as Rupert Murdoch or the Barclay Brothers to whose clicking fingers Johnson and Michael Gove still willingly jump, often without being asked to.
That the EU by any rational assessment, (as opposed to the jingoistic rubbish of the Kim Il BoJo Brextremist press) played hardball and won the negotiations, that the Brexit discussion at the recent EU Leaders’ Summit lasted just minutes, and that Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron refused to go along with Johnson’s attempts to find chinks in the EU negotiating strategy by dealing one-on-one, were indicators of a widespread disdain for him and the way the UK government has conducted itself.
There are two schools of thought among EU leaders and diplomats. There are those who view Johnson as hopelessly out of his depth, who in terms of his understanding of the realities of EU politics has never really moved on from his days inventing anti-European stories for the Brexit-fanatical Channel Island based Barclays. Others, however, believe that Johnson negotiated in bad faith throughout, that given the bulk of those who supported him in his career, and ultimately helped him become Prime Minister, were insistent on the purest form of Brexit he could get without wholesale economic and therefore political calamity, he would always go to wherever the Sovereign Individuals would want him to.
Whether uselessness or strategy, both have made EU leaders view the UK and its Prime Minister as not to be trusted. That has consequences that will outlive whatever happens on January 1. But meanwhile, Sunak, Michael Gove, Dominic Raab, Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Liz Truss and the true Brexit believers are better placed than ever to turn Britain into the kind of country Rees-Mogg’s father spent his life wishing it could be. That the EU met more of their stated objectives in the trade deal outcome than the UK is of little concern to them. Their vision is impossible inside a major values-based organisation such as the EU. Outside they have a chance, and as Sunak spouts platitudes about uniting around the deal, Truss talks bilge about the wrong sort of equality, Patel agitates for the death penalty, Rees-Mogg continues to play Sovereign Individual games with his millions, and Johnson does whatever his paymasters ask for, anyone who thinks Brexit is the end of this hard right vision should think again … it is, unless people wake up, but the start.
When you’re the idiot who let the genie out of the lamp ….. what’s the point of complaining about not being able to get it back in?
The story of how the book came to your attention is a good one. My impression is that you think Keir Starmer has bought into the same narrative as Johnson.
I’m not sure WRM’s anti-regulation/state/welfare/soc-dem etc views are markedly different from Jimmy Goldsmith & the long neuralgic anti-EU ultra-Thatcherite free-market tradition?
Maybe he was one of the first to see the benefits of cyber for the far-right? Although some would say if cyber can hide ownership and liabilities, cyber can equally be used to track it down.
My concern is your last sentence. People will only wake-up if they’re led.
I’ve spoken to a lot of people who are ‘non-political’ and probably voted Brexit because they were told loud and clear it was all good. When told they were 100% lied to and there is zero of benefit to the country or their families, they basically say: “I see now. Why did no-one tell us at the time?”
So my question: Who is leading? Who is telling the truth? Focus-grouping what particular groups like to hear isn’t going to wake anyone up.
If someone offers you a choice of anthrax or covid, you do not whip support for covid because it’s the lesser of two evils. You say “Both are dreadful. You’ve chosen these two options, not me. I refuse to choose. I abstain.”
I’ve never found any difficulty telling people I’m a patriot; I’ll back what’s good for country; Brexit is 100% bad for my country; I detest the liars & charlatans that have sold you something that only really pleases Putin & Trump…. etc…
Who will tell people the truth? Who will lead people to wake up?
Frightening, and terribly plausible. And of course the tragedy is that the foot soldiers of this revolution are the ones who will suffer most, and soonest.
Thank you Alastair. A excellent read and very informative. Frightening though.
Very interesting read. Is it fair to describe their goals as 21st century feudalism?
Survival of the inherited wealth fittest isn’t Darwinism, it’s being born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Mogg et al have convinced themselves that they have earned/deserved riches.
Be clear eyed, the values being promoted is not meritocracy but elitism. Sixtus will go to a fee paying school and get an inheritance. Funny how redistribution of wealth is OK within families, but “evil” for the wider community.
Superb article, those who voted for Brexit have been lied to on so many levels, but could not see it as the real reasons run far deeper than what 52% of voters voted for
Thanks for this AC – as interesting as it is disturbing.
There are systemic forces and cyclical trends at play that I think are well-outlined in the high-level prognostications of senior R-M and co. My feeling is that these are more descriptive than prescriptive; I don’t think Boron and buds are working to this script, but it’s undeniable that the net effects have been the same, as is, seemingly, the destination.
This sovereign individual stuff reminds me a little of American company culture, where corporations are legally recognised as people. In Britain, we now seem to have a whole slate of companies operating here and employing people here, or offering services here, but with registered headquarters in tax havens. They seem to pay little to no tax and are utterly opaque in their ownership, funding, and activities. The sovereign individual is already here it seems.
The question is, if we believe this to not be in the public’s interest, however you might choose to define either public or interest, then how do we show people most effectively what’s going on? How do we proactively start walking all this, if not back, then towards somewhere more positive than the bleak end-of-civilisation cul-de-sac we seem to be driving towards?
I worked out that something like that must be going on and must have had been going on for at least 25 years if not more without even reading the book, in 2016. I would not have got it without Facebook, though, which is why I think Facebook is a double-edged asset which can, with careful use, be quite indispensable. What alerted me was the avalanche of “personality quizzes” on FB: Which flower are you? Which Star Wars character are you? Etcetera. Raised to believe that person is be-all and end-all, Western humans simply cannot resist “finding out” stuff about themselves. It doesn’t matter that the pronouncement comes from a source they would not trust on anytghing else: if it is about themselves, they’ll fall for it. At forst I thought that the quizzes were aimed at targeting advertising and began warning my FB friends against them, but then, as Trump got elected and Brexit voted for, THE QUIZZES STOPPED. Then I knew; the only remaining thing was to find out who was behind it. Carole Cadwalladr’s Observer investigation provided the answer to that. The ideological and political background bvehind it all was not that hard to work out either. And now, thanks to Covid 19, an operation that was planned to last another 20 years can be speeded up enormously. And yes, I, too, have spotted, somewhere in the corner of an article in the Metro at the start of December the mention of 10 new free ports… and I had a vision — literally a vision — of those future baronial castles, defended by private armies, with bedraggled masses banging on their doors, cap in hand.
These people need to be stopped, but how? I am a 68-year old learning support worker who commutes 4 hours a day and works 7.5 hours because retiring on my state pension would take away my food, warmth, internet, phone, dentist, hairdresser, optician — and that, in our society, is the absolute bare minimum for dignified survival. I thus know no one and have no time or energy left to mount the necessary response to this mortal threat to our civilisation. All I can do is write, and write well. I have no public voice, however, being an absolute nonce. Maybe a miracle will happen to give me such a voice; stranger things have happened. In the meantime I just scream on FB, but few are listening.
The problem, you see, is that a huge number of ordinary, nice family people — and not just here but all over Europe (particularly Eastern) — and the US, Australia, Canada and other places, LIKE the idea of Sovereign Individuals. Unfortunately but inevitably, they expect to be if not the Most Sovereign, at least the Middling Sovereign ones, with a small homestead, say, rather than a baronial castle, and do not imagine for one minute that they could end up among the bedraggled masses. They may have not heard of the Sovereign Individual book, but they read and spread around Yuval Noah Harrari’s books, and Jordan Peterson’s videos which are part of the same propaganda.
Most of my FB and other friends are the Sovereignists’ unwitting assets and their fifth column but get angry when I point it out (obviously).
Thank you very much for this excellent article; I wish it did not confirm my darkest suspicions, but it does. if anything, it does not go far enough: it does not point out the Anglo-Saxon character of the Sovereigninst movement, for example, and that is a very important aspect of it which exposes an even darker underside, which borders on Nazism. Should we call them the First Order? 🙂 No wonder Trump’s followers cried for a boycott of the last three Star Wars movies, calling them “antifa”.
In hope of a miracle that would enable me to have the time to write lots and lots about it all, I remain
I sort of read your article. Skipped quite a few paragraphs as intellectually I couldn’t really cope. The message however is clear and is already ingrained in my psyche. Shame i’m not able to articulate to others. All I seem capable of is to press the heart shape on twitter or retweet as if it were the first day of spring.
Of course the difficulty is to turn the tweets and Twitter into a crescendo, into a dawn chorus that stands out from all dawn choruses. One into which all species of bird will join, no matter which part of town or country, North South East or West they come from, or came from.
The individual birds won’t need singling out or algorithmic classification. The chorus like the Thursday clapping will speak for itself and for the individuals. It won’t be babel and it won’t need interpretation.
It will as we hear so often be clear. Which is I suppose is the point of this reply. To the likes of me the article needs to be translated into a language I can understand and more importantly share.
If historically cartoons were needed to get the truth across include them. Perhaps loungers are scroungers, etc.
Got to go Cricket is back on the radio.
PS I’m a retired cartoonist looking for some work – only joking.
Brilliant, lucid and urgent….For some reason the site wouldn’t allow me to leave more than two stars. Maybe the quotas have been cut….It used to be five…
Thank you for this. I’m surprised they have put their ideas and objectives into print. But at least it gives us something tangible to fight against.
You mention that the parliamentary arithmetic is against a No Deal. But many MPs who do not plan to support Boris Johnson’s deal are being criticised (usually by Brexit supporters) for risking a No Deal. Is this criticism baseless?
Very good article, one question though is what’s the answer to the problem .
Thank you Alistair – scary and anxiety-inducing reading.
Just been discussing (with someone who also shared your words on Facebook and helped to “wake up” a few more people) what it is we can do to counter this. Something that is thin on the ground right now are clear, new and powerful narratives that people can use to challenge others (rather than just get het up, and shout, and not make a compelling point, like I so often do these days).
Please help : )
I’m sure you’ve read the Book Thief? Words are so powerful and yet, many of us often find ourselves unable to string them together easily and quickly enough to be able to counter the selfish, greedy and uncompassionate nature of some of our species. Bastards. (See, that’s what I usually resort to : )
We need a crib sheet of sorts, powerful words that encapsulate what we are so frustrated and dismayed by, and why JRM and his ilk are so wrong. So that we can stand strong and proud and articulate what it is we feel and think. Not necessarily political arguments, but compelling words that paint a more humanitarian alternative…
I can’t even articulate what I mean here (I only just finished reading your article, so the anxiety and passionate indignation is on overdrive, blotting out the words I am trying to find), but I’m hoping you know what I mean.
You did it in the lead-up to 1997, you are a genius (I also worked for the Labour Party back in those days).
Phew, enough already, and it’s snowing now, fluffy huge flakes. Enjoy your new year, one way or another and I’ll leave you with Lemn Sissay’s beautiful, positive words that I just read this morning…All the very best Alistair, keep on doing what you do so well – Naomi
Leave alone the heartless
The landlords of decay
Light breaches darkness
Every single day
Isn’t the Sovereign Individual concept pretty much reheated Ayn Rand, whose books seem pretty compelling to self-absorbed teenagers convinced their genius is being hemmed in by petty-minded authority figures (e.g. Mum and Dad)? Most people grow out of this mindset once they reach some sort of emotional maturity however, which may explain why Rand remains so popular in Silicon Valley.
This is seriously troubling material but not unexpected – not when you are a rational person considering what could the benefits of Brexit be to the ordinary individual. The answer is, there aren’t any. Heaven help us.
The actions taken in response to the coronavirus seem to fit the same pattern.
Trigger a significant disruption to the state-based status quo. Ignore low-cost and less disruptive interventions in favour of those of benefit to big pharma and other sovereign individuals.
In under 12 months we have populations who are starved of balanced and independent media, conditioned by misleading and one-sided interpretations of data, who are following the government like sheep.
A pattern emerges…
Neo Liberalism @museumofneoliberalism
comes to mind when I read this. Chilling. Thank you.
A fascinating and useful account of the underlying factors running behind this whole Brexit fiasco. This organised destabilisation works perfectly for these Sovereign Individuals whose aims are to cement discord and division, which they have managed to do rather successfully. The British people could not be more divided and more polarized around to so many issues and this is exactly what they want. Sadly, mainstream media and much of the political class has become a compliant base for much of what goes on here. Financial services are out of the current Brexit deal and going forward there remains a degree regulatory power on the part of the EU to ensure that the Brits play fairly in a level playing field although it is clear that inclinations of the Sovereign Individuals are to do exactly otherwise. Oddly, and ironically, it is perhaps the EU that still has the power to keep in check the Sovereign Individuals whose eyes are firmly on the financial and banking sector.
Grim reading. We can only hope that this doesn’t come to pass. A couple of reasons why it might not are:
Goods (including property) in the real world are bought using state currencies. The cryptocurrencies have just become a hyper-volatile asset class that jump around according to the whims of speculators. They also don’t represent that much money. The current total value of all bitcoins is around £21m. A tiny drop in the ocean.
People become rich by selling things to real people. The vast swathes of data collected by the likes of Facebook are only worth something because advertisers believe (probably wrongly) that the data can be used to sell things to people. If the vast majority are disenfranchised and destitute, they aren’t going to be buying things. Same philosophy as the (probably apocryphal) story about Ford paying his employees enough to afford his cars.
The current total value of bitcoin is not 21 million (that is the maximum number of bitcoins that will ultimately exist). The current value is $764,766,706,413
There are around 20 million bitcoins in existence, each with a current value of about $35,000, so you’re out by a factor of 35,000 with that valuation. The current Fed monetary policy of printing more and more money is leading people to inflation protected assets, one of which is bitcoin. The more money they print (and it seems they have no alternative at the moment), the more it increases the chances of bitcoin (or something similar) becoming a mainstream currency.
Excellent and deeply worrying post. Thank you.
Would I be right in concluding that all this makes Johnson nothing more than a useful idiot? Like you, I don’t tend to go for conspiracy theories, but can see that if there are enough useful idiots in government drinking the Sovereign Individuals’ Kool Aid, that will be more than enough to see this destructive experiment through.
On which, maybe the next big ideological struggle will be between this Sovereign Individual libertarianism and a renewed civic society rooted in solidarity…? However, with weakened states anyway and, in the UK, believers in government, the side of light in this struggle is at a woeful disadvantage. Not the least of which is a name to call itself! Any ideas?
New Labour’s policy of using a massive housing bubble to fuel the economy whilst at the same time allowing millions of low skilled workers to enter the country played a far bigger part in Brexit than some right wing conspiracy.
Great post! …”The goal is a complete redesign of the world’s economic, political and data systems.”…. This is the conclusion I, a mild mannered a-political person, came to about a year ago on the thought leaders and paymasters of “brexit”. I concluded, this wasn’t the end, it was the starting pistol. At first, I thought I was going too far, it seemed too ridiculous, but, as the year went on, I was in no doubt about it. With respect, no point arguing with a large portion of leave voters as they can barely articulate why they voted leave. Instead, the danger is this minority group who are now in #10. I can’t decide if the best way to fight them is to join Labour, or, counter intuitive as this sounds, the Tory party!!! 😮
Hmmm. So how will these sovereignty individuals stop themselves from being gobbled up by, for example, a dictatorship? They have moved from a world in which they pay taxes and are defended by the nation in which they live to, at best, paying protection money and relying on the goodwill and trustworthiness of bigger fish. And how do they manage to hold onto their wealth without a legal system to protect it? Who do they turn to for justice when they get hacked? Or am I missing something?
This is the most interesting thing I’ve seen from you Alistair.
But to me you are defined by your 100% support for GW Bush’s Iraq war and then your 2019 pronouncement that people should not vote Labour.
Given that the British Government is only ever Labour or Conservative in the U.K., this makes you very much part of the problem, not the solution.
You pretend to be a fan of democracy, but your government centralised power and began the marginalisation of parliament.
Your distain for democracy is also illustrated by what you did when the Labour Party elected a leader you didn’t like.
You basically did your best to damage Labour’s electoral chances and therefore help Boris Johnson’s Conservatives win power.
You should start all your blogs with an apology for helping the tories in this way if you want to be treated seriously.
I voted Labour 2019. I voted Lib Dem european elections
How are these super-elites going make mega-bucks if the Proles are poor?
Where are these super-elites going to live if all nations are reduced to cess-pits of dog-eat-dog impoverished humans?
How are they going to get to the airport if there is no functioning central government with monopoly on power?
Where is their water going to come from, or their food, and how is their sewage and other waste going to be removed if there is no central government?
Is it REALLY in their own best interest to not just pay the small amount of their wealth that have to in tax, and forget about it, and ENJOY life instead?
(Thinking about the fracas between the Beckams and some other elite who were spending their holiday on some private island in the Far East) would they REALLY want just those sort of people for company?
That is a conspiracy theory, which having watched the programme about Monaco and the ultra rich it does have a ring of truth. Also, I find Ree-Mogg Jr. very dislikable and someone holding a dislike of the average fellow citizen. Case proven? Or innocent till proven guilt? Regardless there is a case to answer!
· Reply · 7m
On considering the situation overnight, I suspect that we are already at the point whereby the super-elites can choose their domicile on the basis of minimising their taxes.
Thank you very much for the enlightenment!
Truly frightening stuff. I, being 74-years-old and among the older generation, may in some ways not be your general run-of-the mill pensioner. I have long questioned the corruption which seemed to have started as a trickle and now seems to have become a torrent within the CON Party and this despicable “government”. After reading your blog I am beginning to see the dark forces behind, what seems to me, and has been apparent to me for some time, the creeping destruction of true democracy. It is tragic that so many people were conned by the leave-campaign’s billionaire bankrollers into voting for a complete and total lie, which far from gaining freedom has removed the greatest freedoms as individuals that we ever had.
“a major values-based organisation such as the EU” The inability to accurately comprehend the EU and it’s kindergarten culture – in fact, your assertion that the EU is “values-based” just remind me of your hard core recidivism to Blairite fantasies. You also clearly have no comprehension of human nature, or believe (as all left-wing zealots do) that human nature can be ‘improved’ by your chosen re-education. You must love the taste of sour grapes, since you expend so much effort eating them. While clearly intelligent, you are an ideological simp.
Do you gel that COVID lockdown is connected to the evolution of sovereign individuals. Through lockdown we’ve deconstructed society, trust in the state, under educated and reduced the emotional well being of the vast majority of children. Is this an intentional bridge to smoothie the transition?
I personally think they will fail will be lynched and eventually burned on a stake, so they will pay the ultimate price for this betrayal. US (which pretty much is what they speak of in the most part), EU, China, Russia, India, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Israel. Too many nationalistic players are at the stage to pull this off. As to where the idea is coming from is quite obvious, their fortunes flourish while providing tax heavens to the whole world, now this era is coming to an end and their sources dry up. So to me, it seems like the last dash to turn things around, or they’ll lose everything. Yes it may seem like cryptocurrencies will provide them with a window for doing so but… the Internet can be locked down and nationalised/federalised so you won’t be able to transfer cryptocurrencies between certain territories making them useless, China RED WALL is capable of doing it, Russia is developing its own infrastructure, EU is looking at it. Simple communications blackout will sort it all right out, while money transfers will be limited to Banks so that it can be monitored, simple as that. More so unexplained wealth bills will do a lot to sort out a lot of the problems with hidden digital wealth, at the end of the day money will be useless if you won’t be able to spend them. While cryptocurrency transactions may be making a way into our lives they can be quickly deregulated and delegalized so it will make them useless and a lot of people could lose their wealth real quick, remember they are not real money in the end. Again while Johnso,n Rees and the rest might pull that off in the United Kingdom, the rest of the world seems to hold a very opposite mindset (apart from the United States) and this will push the UK to a very lonely seldom place in the world as soon as the other states realise what’s it’s doing, being isolated will hurt the UK ultimately and put it into a place from which it won’t be able to come back. I think they do by now, hence the push for nationalised/federalised versions of the internet. If their gamble backfires which I hope will do, UK will become a small isolated island with the faltering economy with an irresponsible government consisting of broke and powerless elites, with no say in the world whatsoever – how about that. In the end, it will hurt the British public most and rightly so as they crucial in putting this nonsense in motion. The UK is a fading empire and this seems like it’s the last dash to regain its place in the world, but it will most likely turn into its ultimate downfall. Do apologise for grammar and a all but I’m not a native speaker.
The irony surely cannot be lost that the current dangerous state of affairs described here have been enthusiastically aided and abetted by the author of this piece and those around him of like mind over the past thirty years.
From embracing the basic building blocks and their ideological basis when in Government through to systematically undermining and destroying any alternative – up to an including sabotaging and throwing elections and waging war on those of its own foot soldiers who carry out ALL the donkey work.
Too little, far too late Alastair. You, and the clique of which you are and have always been a part, were instrumental in making this bed of thorns. Lie in it. Like the rest of us are having to.
Oh, and cheers a bunch. “‘Twas bravely done, if you bethink you of it.”
Dear Alastair …..
When we are so close to somthing, we cant see the bigger picture sometimes.
Great intro story how this gentleman brought it to your attaention in station.
I taught my child this when there were very young…
Girls go pop your nose on the TV, I said what can you see …. all three of them said “Nothing Dad!”
I then said, come to me girls on the couch , now look at the TV, I said what can you see now ….. they said ” Everything the whole picture !”
I then went on to say to them some 10 yeras ago….. In life girls, you can be so close to somthing, you can’t see the full picture of whats going on, especially in relationships. So always ask people around you at the time in bussiness or friends what they have observe, there imput could chance the course of your next move in life.
You listened Alastair, it a unique skill these days listening to others.
I pray that the needs of many will out weight the needs of few trillionaires in years to come , its a Electronic fraud !
……perhaps the eventual outcome is for Robinhood of the 22nd Century, to pull the plug out ?
( Explode all data storage faclities around the the world simultaneously ?)
Best and Kindest Regards
They obviously read some Ayn Rand. I once met an Ex-US Senator who advised I read some – he was bonkers as well.
Thanks for this Alastair
It reminds me of an encounter I had with some young people in Berlin about 20 years ago who were trying to warn people against what they called “The Strausians”, (who could easily be the same set who authored this book). The stated philosophy of these ‘Strausians’ was alleged to be a power-based nihilism that asserted that, because life was intrinsically meaningless and purposeless you could do whatever you wanted with no consequences (so long as you had enough power) and that lesser mortals were lesser precisely because they believed in things like ‘justice’ ‘meaning’ ‘god’ ‘fairness’ etc. Because the Strausians mind has risen above such petty myths and fairy tales he fully justified in exploiting his lessers by manipulating whatever values they imagine they hold dear to.
At the time I thought it was far fetched but not anymore.
Seen through a Strausian (or Reece-Moggian) lense, the activities of a Trump or a Johnson are perfectly rational.
Probably the best that we humans who still possess something resembling a living heart can do is to totally dis-invest any authority we currently have invested in these people and the power structure and narratives they have usurped or created (in the case of most of the deregulated financial services ‘industry’, for example), and work together to see how we apply all of our collective creative might to countering and neutralising this toxic threat before the planet does it for us.
Interesting article indeed.
TBH the idea that nation-states have had their day is an idea that isn’t novel to anyone that’s read any science fiction since Willian Gibson published the cyberpunk short story “Burning Chrome” in 1982, the same year that Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner gave us a rich visual metaphor for a corporate dominated dystopian future. Since then trope of corporate empire triumphing over nation-state has been a staple of science fiction (e.g. Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash) and mainstream Hollywood (e.g. Gattaca, RoboCop, 12 Monkeys).
Unsurprisingly it seems that wannabe “masters of the universe” (and narcissistic personality disorder sufferers) Davidson and Rees-Mogg have chosen to focus on the roles of the owners of the corporations, and probably to a lesser extent the technocratic class that increasingly, incestuously move from one corporate C-suite role to the next regardless of performance or talent. I wonder how much of this is a hangover from their no doubt obsession with class struggle and Marxism that no doubt dominated the politics and education of their times?
I would argue that many people, given the choice between being governed by the current omnishambles government in the UK or being pledging allegiance to a United States of Google, Amazon, or Microsoft would without hesitation choose the latter.
TBH I am surprised that one of the large corporations hasn’t yet just bought a small country lock, stock and barrel and set it up as their own tax haven, data haven etc (funnily enough, some of that is the part of the plot of another Neal Stephenson book, Cryptonomicon). Interestingly, Larry Ellison own’s 98% of the Hawaiian island of Lanai might show that this isn’t as par fetched as it seems.
Anyway, thanks for the article – I have often wondered what the philosophical underpinning of the Brexit insanity were, so at least now I have a place to start future reading!
The statistical probability that we would cross paths at an Industrial Age train station is close to zero, so i’ll take the Knowledge Age option instead. Read this book;
What is said above is the same in the various country’s and systems That is the common result of bankers and creditors compound interest in a world of linear slow gains.
The rise in the creditors financial burden onto the lessers until via courts they seize their property or original productive asset say a business. Next beckoned bondage or slavery or pay check to pay cheque.
Of the economy only banking expands at the expense of individuals and companys the main street economy. The paying off the loan interest and barely any capital until the loan burden is too much and they flee their debts seeking a golden torch.
America’s statue of liberty declares liberty from debts and still holds aloft a golden torch.
It now depends; does the west go into roman or Greek decline or chose a resetting of the creditors debts and assets to restart the game again and create favour from the many.
That figure in the House of representatives Hammurabi had a way.
With ever lower interest rates reflecting free to make digital money and pandering to the Goldmen gods of banking false neo classical economic modelling assumptions we are reaching a limit, a tipping point of debt to GDP and would be wise to have a reset for the base of the pyramid of life’s inhabitants.
Rome’s creditors owned so much and resisted taxes and torch raising until they also politically owned the emperor or his death bed replacement instilled with fear.
By the time of the Scottish wall builder he could but relieve little due to the purloining via debt of the resources to keep and protect a state from assault.
Scale, significance and definitiveness is needed as those from the old lessons show.
I am sure The creditor types of rome Usa babylon gravitate to the same beliefs, thoughts and contexts in the same way the winner of coin tosses does over time. Moneys insatiability to man is the root cause that periodic tempering is needed for best of all living in communal society.
The Monopoly game is played repeatedly and reset amen is the better for it as HMTreasury and game players might know.
Thank you, Mr Campbell, for your review of this revelatory book. I have forwarded it to a number of contacts.
Women and “Equalities”:
Can I please pick you up on a comment which you made as an aside: “Truss talks bilge about the wrong sort of equality”?
I listened to Liz Truss’s speech “The new fight for fairness” given at the Centre for Policy Studies on 17th December (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0Vhrn82QtE&feature=emb_logo) on 17th December, and I have read her statement on why the Gov decided not to change the Gender Recognition Act 2004, but did agree to offer more psychiatric services to clear the backlog.
Liz Truss understands about women’s SEX-based rights. Women gained the right to vote, to single-sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms, single-sex hospital wards, domestic violence refuges, etc. and to “all women shortlists” and single-sex prizes for educational and professional categories based on their biological sex, not the neologism of “gender”. It really is quite simple: Transwomen are transwomen not women, because they retain their male bodies.
Transwomen suffer from a “disorder” – gender dysphoria is defined as a disorder in S25 of the Gender Recognition Act. So they need protection, yes, but not at the expense of women. They need either their own physical spaces, or they should accept that they are a particular kind of “disabled” person. The two protected characteristics of “gender reassignment” and “sex” tread on each other’s toes. The larger ones are sex and disability. “Gender reassignment” should be removed from the list as it is redundant. The GRA should be repealed as “same sex marriage” is now legal.
The key to understanding these issues is to be “gender-critical”. Google this term. “Gender” is impossible to define, it is a vague feeling which no one can pin down in physical place. This is a bad basis for law. The GRA should be removed from the statute book. I would be happy to discuss this further. Thank you for reading.
Thanks very much for this important post, Do you think it is worth sharing with the Biden Administration if you can work out a way to do that?
So, Alastair Campbell, when you review the growing impotence and exploitation of the media in this grand plan to rob sovereign states of their very existence, do you feel the urge to publicly express regret for the vengeful damage you wrought on the BBC News service over the “sexed up “dossier , Dr David Kelly (deceased) , and weapons of mass destruction, or do you take no responsibility for your part in what it has become; a fearful, biddable newsroom bending to almost every whim of this breathtakingly corrupt government we now have?
Perhaps also read up on the ideas of Koch-funded Nobel laureate economist James McGill Buchanan and his lesser-known thinking on the seemingly mad world proposing an untouchable super rich elite so desired by followers of Rees-Mogg, Ayn Rand and her cult, Alan Greenspan, et al… not to mention the UK’s own of the extreme Brexit tendency, assorted Alt-right think tanks and the ‘Britannia Unchained’ cabal of far-right Tory politicians currently stuffing the cabinet.
Meet the Hidden Architect Behind America’s Racist Economics: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-economist-behind-the-one-percents-stealth-takeover-of-america
Misinforming the Majority: A Deliberate Strategy of Right-Wing Libertarians: https://truthout.org/articles/misinforming-the-majority-a-deliberate-strategy-of-right-wing-libertarians/
I think the Moggs are overestimating their intelligence and abilities.
More than that, I think they are stupid and misinformed.
Interesting read. I wonder what they’ve got against “Italian paving contractors”? That came out of nowhere!
The Sovereign Individual is a pile of shi#, the aim of the book is to distract from what’s really happening until it’s too late. You want to know what’s really going on, read The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward Perkins. Then read it again.
Also, look up these guys:
You might want to Google ” surf the kali yuga”.