By Josh Stylman at Brownstone dot org.

The infrastructure is now visible to those willing to see it. The systematic replacement of natural systems with artificial ones has reached into every domain - money, food, health, education, information. What began as isolated changes has revealed itself as a coordinated operation: the complete substitution of reality with decree, ownership with access, competence with credentials.

The mathematical engineering of ownership out of reach becomes clear - from 52% of 30-year-olds owning homes in 1950 to a projected 13% by 2025. Extraction was rebranded as liberation - the subscription economy that converts your $3,000 monthly into someone else's equity while you build nothing. These aren't separate trends but components of what I documented in "Fiat Everything" - the coordinated substitution of authentic systems with fabricated ones designed for extraction.

That piece showed how the fiat money template spread across every domain of human experience: creating artificial scarcity, manufacturing dependency, and harvesting human energy through decree rather than value creation.

But the operation runs deeper than the economic and cultural plunder I previously documented. They didn't just loot us financially and culturally. They rewired our psychology to make resistance impossible.

The Warning: Catherine's Panopticon

Catherine Austin Fitts published "Plunder: Financing the Panopticon" last week, connecting dots that reveal the full scope of the operation. The surveillance infrastructure isn't just watching us - it's actively conditioning us for compliance. What she calls the "panopticon" creates the psychological substrate that makes extraction possible.

Her work has long explored themes of sovereignty and financial freedom, but this latest analysis shows the endgame: we're not just being robbed - we're being programmed to participate in our own robbery.

This is the villain's masterpiece: a system so sophisticated that it harvests not just our wealth but our very capacity for resistance.

The data proves the conditioning is working. A chart published last week by Financial Times data reporter John Burn-Murdoch shows young adults' personalities changing in real-time.

Conscientiousness - the trait that builds wealth, delays gratification, and resists manipulation - is in freefall among 16-39 year-olds. While older generations maintain stable personality patterns, younger cohorts show dramatic psychological shifts perfectly timed with the maturation of surveillance capitalism.

This isn't natural personality change. It's engineered compliance. What began as laboratory experiments in consciousness control has evolved into mass media entrainment - the killer application of psychological manipulation. The recent certification of a class action lawsuit by children of MKUltra victims demonstrates these weren't isolated experiments - they were the prototype for mass psychological conditioning.

The same techniques once tested on unwitting subjects now reach billions through devices they carry willingly.

Lower conscientiousness creates perfect citizens for a fiat world: impulsive, debt-prone, dependent on external validation, incapable of long-term planning. The same systems that price you out of ownership simultaneously condition you to prefer access over assets, subscriptions over purchases, digital relationships over physical community.

The feedback loop is elegant and vicious. Economic desperation drives people into surveillance systems - need the app for the gig job, need the credit score for the apartment, need the platform for the side hustle. The surveillance conditions breed psychological dependency. The dependency ensures continued participation in extraction. Each interaction harvests both your data and your agency, creating citizens who are easier to manage and harder to satisfy.

This system isn't just a control mechanism - it's a wealth extraction machine that pays for itself by making its su...

By Bobbie Anne Flower Cox at Brownstone dot org.

We are living in a point in history where so many, if not all, of the foundational pillars of our society are being questioned. In some cases, those pillars are almost wholly being cast aside. Once the cornerstones of our American backbone, we are finding ourselves doubting it all as we ask ourselves and one another…Can the government truly be that corrupt? Are the courts actually compromised? Are major media outlets really just mouthpieces for propaganda? Is modern medicine a sham?

It is difficult for people to question what they have known all their life to be something that is "good" or "honest" or "reliable." Why would you doubt the things that everyone around you (including your trusted friends and beloved family members) are telling you are true, and pure, and good? Of course the government is there to protect us. Of course the legal system is designed to uphold our righteous laws and defend liberty. Of course the newscaster on the TV is telling us the truth.

Of course the drugs our doctors prescribe to us are there to help us get well.

As hard as it is to question societal norms, it is even more difficult to do something about it. Indian author Arundhati Roy has said:

"The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There's no innocence. Either way, you're accountable."

In questioning traditional, stalwart institutions, we find ourselves standing on the precipice of a rabbit hole so large and deep, it is better likened to a meteoric crater than simply a hole. There are so many craters all around us now - the government crater, the legal crater, the medical crater, the media crater, and so on. These craters are appearing one after the next, in parallel formation, and like dominos, if one begins to fall, the chain reaction of full scale collapse is undeniable.

Let us, for a moment here, peer over the ridge of one of these craters as we ask ourselves…

Is modern medicine a sham?

Let's first look at the learned, societal norm…When most people hear the word "medicine," their mind immediately forms a positive opinion and thinks, "This will help me feel better and get well." Like Pavlov's dog, we have been trained to correlate medicine with the thing that cures your sickness when you are ailing. You have a malady, you go to the doctor, they give you medicine, and it will fix the malady from which you are suffering and restore your health.

Right? Ehhhh, well, ummmm, not exactly. Sadly, in today's world, "health" has become synonymous with "medicine," and medicine has become an industry - and not just any industry. It is a behemoth!

Did you know that the largest lobby we have in the United States is the pharmaceutical industry? It is the largest, by a long shot, as it solidly towers over all of the others. Let me share some numbers with you. Pharma spends approximately $380,000,000 (three hundred eighty million) every year lobbying Congress. To give you some perspective, the second largest lobby industry in our nation is the electronics manufacturing industry, and it spends about $250,000,000 a year lobbying Congress.

The third largest is the insurance industry which spends about $150,000,000 a year lobbying Congress. All the other industries that lobby simply pale in comparison. These statistics alone reveal so much.

And so, health (which used to mean how well your body functions in relation to other natural interactions and happenings like sufficient sunlight, fresh water intake, clean air, sufficient sleep, what you eat, and how much you exercise) now means medicine.

When you go to the doctor, do they ask you how much water you drink and the amount of sunlight you absorb every day, or do they ask you what pills you are popping? Whether because of the C-19 debacle, or perhaps through osmosis, the medical industry has recently garnered a reputation of being untrustworth...

By Jessica Rose at Brownstone dot org.

Some organizations and researchers are sharing neural network weights, particularly through the open-weight model movement. These include Meta's Llama series, Mistral's models, and DeepSeek's open-weight releases, which claim to democratize access to powerful AI. But doing so raises not only security concerns, but potentially an existential threat.

For background, I have written a few articles on LLMs and AIs as part of my own learning process in this very dynamic and quickly evolving Pandora's open box field. You can read those here, here, and here.

Once you understand what neural networks are and how they are trained on data, you will also understand what weights (and biases) and backpropagation are. It's basically just linear algebra and matrix vector multiplication to yield numbers, to be honest.

More specifically, a weight is a number (typically a floating-point value - a way to write numbers with decimal points for more accuracy) that represents the strength or importance of the connection between two neurons or nodes across different layers of the neural network.

I highly recommend watching 3Blue1Brown's videos to gain a better understanding, and it's important that you do. 3Blue1Brown's instructional videos are incredibly good.

Start with this one.

And head to this one.

The weights are the parameter values determined from data in a neural network to make predictions or decisions to arrive at a solution. Each weight is an instruction telling the network how important certain pieces of information are, like how much to pay attention to a specific color or shape in a picture. These weights are numbers that get fine-tuned during training thanks to all those decimal points, helping the network figure out patterns.

Examples include recognizing a dog in a photo or translating a sentence. They are critical in the 'thinking' process of a neural network.

You can think of the weights in a neural network like the paths of least resistance that guide the network toward the best solution. Imagine water flowing down a hill, naturally finding the easiest routes to reach the bottom.

In a neural network, the weights are adjusted during training on data sets to create the easiest paths for information to flow through, helping the network quickly and accurately solve problems, like recognizing patterns or making predictions, by emphasizing the most important connections and minimizing errors.

If you're an electronic musician, think of weights like the dials on your analog synth that allow you to tune into the right frequency or sound to say, mimic a sound you want to recreate, or in fact, create a new one. If you're a sound guy, you can also think of it like adjusting the knobs on your mixer to balance different instruments.

Weights are indeed dynamic parameters, meaning that they are very mutable as a neural network tends toward a prediction or solution. Each is also associated with its own bias. The bias's role is to shift the output, allowing the model to better fit the data by adding an offset that adjusts the decision boundary or pattern recognition, which is independent of the input scaling determined by weights.

Think of it like this. Imagine you're trying to recreate the sound of a guitar on your synth. The weights control how much of the string pluck or body resonance you hear. If what you hear is a bit flat, for example, the bias is like adding a tiny boost or shift - say, a warm undertone - to make it sound more like the real guitar. This helps the network fine-tune its 'ear' to find the right pattern without changing the main controls.

It basically just makes the model better at matching the data to the real.

As the network is exposed to data, it adjusts the weights through a process called backpropagation, tweaking them to minimize errors and improve predictions. Think of those paths of least resistance being reshaped with each training example, like a river carving out better channel...

By Carla Peeters at Brownstone dot org.

As women used to live longer than men even during severe famines and epidemics, a continued post-pandemic increase in female mortality and disabilities can't stay hidden or neglected.

During the Covid pandemic in many High-Income Countries, injuries, disabilities, and all-cause mortality started to rise above expectations. In 2020, the gender gap in mortality widened due to an observed increased mortality in men. While in 2021 male health seemed to bounce back to earlier trends, mortality and disabilities in women continue to rise above earlier trends and are not expected to solve themselves soon.

This might cause a fundamental and permanent change in the dynamics of the gender mortality gap.

Recent decisions on austerity measures for budgets on female health and welfare will exacerbate this hidden disaster. Instead, Public Health Experts and CEOs of insurance companies need to take their moral responsibility and turn to smart investments in female health, addressing all gender disparities, to reverse a downward spiral in global population health.

A Sudden Rise in Excess Mortality and Disabilities

In September 2024, Swiss Re published in their annual report, "Many countries worldwide still report elevated death in their population today." This impact appears independent of healthcare system or population health. In the pessimistic model, Swiss Re would expect excess deaths to continue for another decade. There is also likely a degree of excess mortality underreporting.

CFOs from other life insurance companies confirmed that experienced mortality rates are broadly in line with this report. A skyrocketing increase in disability claimants since 2020 is another puzzling factor why CEOs of insurance companies are facing major problems with their financial model. The growth in demand is much lower, and the number of people making claims is much higher than expected. Declining revenues may soon hit the corporate bottom line.

For the first time in 80 years, the stocks from insurer Centene Medicaid plummeted in July 2025 by 41% after the insurer had to withdraw its full financial guidance because previous estimates were way off.

The analysis from insurance companies is comparable with earlier reports from Phinance Technologies, which analyzed publicly available data from the US and UK using various methods. Other independent analysts observed similar trends.

In recent years, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles discuss excess mortality and adverse events of special interest in various countries of pandemic measurements and after Covid-19 vaccinations.

Boston University just published the all-cause mortality in the US as compared to other High-Income Countries and showed that excess death rates peaked in 2021 and declined in 2022 and 2023 but remained substantially higher than pre-pandemic rates, especially in the age group 25-44 years. Mortality among US adults aged 25-44 years was 2.6 times higher as compared to other High-Income Countries.

A recent opinion from Kakeya et al. describes a significant increase in excess deaths after repeated Covid-19 vaccinations. Japan is the country with the highest per capita rate of messenger ribonucleic acid mRNA vaccination doses in the world.

A systematic review on Covid-19 mechanisms of injury and death compiled with autopsy confirmation by a physician application suggests there is a likelihood of a causal link between Covid-19 vaccines and deaths.

While there are studies that conclude there is no significant increase in stillbirths when women were vaccinated with the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine during pregnancy, a study based on VAERS data shows a significant increase. Another, not yet peer-reviewed, study indicates that Covid-19 vaccination with dose 1 during weeks 8-13 of pregnancy was associated with 3.9 fetal losses above expected for every 100 exposed pregnancies.

A study in the Czech Republic on live births of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated women demon...

By Jeffrey A. Tucker at Brownstone dot org.

[The following is an excerpt from Jeffrey Tucker's book, Spirits of America: On the Semiquincentennial.]

The word semiquincentennial is not likely to catch on - it's too hard to say - but it means the 250th anniversary. For the USA, that happens July 4, 2026, because we count our birthday from one of the most remarkable documents issued in the history of man: the Declaration of Independence.

That alone is notable. We don't date our birth from the Articles of Confederation, the ratification of the US Constitution, or back much earlier to the landing on Plymouth Rock. No, we date it from the time when some men representing everyone said that we are now independent from the British Empire. We can and will govern ourselves.

The nation's birthday is not the government's birthday. It marks instead a revolution against government.

The Americans did not want a war with Britain and they knew that such a declaration would likely provoke a wider one. Like all wars, this one war was a disaster, giving rise to death and inflation and traumatizing the happy life that most people were living at the time. On the other hand, the trauma of war forged a new national identity.

It is called a revolution but it was different from the later French case - or the many in British history - because it was not merely an attempt to replace the current government with a new one, much less start history anew. It is sometimes called a "conservative revolution" because the purpose was restorative. The colonies simply wanted the right to live as they had come to expect, without the ravages and exploitations that came with being subject to the British Crown.

That said, the document was certainly not lacking in ideals. Oddly, these ideals came from the British philosopher John Locke and his Second Treatise on Government. Entire sections of this book came to be paraphrased in the Declaration in much more poetic and memorable form.

The Declaration said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It's hard at this stage of history to recapture the sheer radicalism of the above passage. It sums up the whole of political science and ethics as it pertains to politics. The author Thomas Jefferson replaced Locke's phrase "Life, liberty, and property" with "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" because of the long confusion over the meaning of property, which, in the British case, was compromised by Royal grants of privilege that the Americans rejected.

Here we simply embrace freedom and opportunity, which of course is inclusive of property rights but broader.

Remember that at the time, many Americans held slaves. And yet here was Jeffersion proclaiming all men to be equal in rights. For this reason, and it was a very good one, many suspected that Jefferson was a secret abolitionist. He was indeed. Eventual emancipation was already baked into the fabric of what America is all about. It took too long to happen and the horrible war that brought it about should have never taken place but we eventually got there.

My first time traveling outside the US I had a sudden shock - an obvious revelation and one that is probably only surprising to Americans - that we are not the only country in the world and the only culture that is robust, meaningful, and contributes to human flourishing. Any foreign person reading those sen...

By Christopher Dreisbach at Brownstone dot org.

"If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution."

Steve Jobs

Definitions matter. In almost any context, problems left undefined inevitably remain problems left unsolved.

For this reason, healthcare professionals worldwide rely upon the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), a standardized system used to categorize and code diseases, symptoms, and health conditions. In the United States, ICD-10 codes serve as the foundation for medical records, insurance billing, epidemiological research, and public health policy.

Without specific ICD-10 codes, severe conditions may remain invisible in the healthcare data ecosystem - making it harder to track, study, or provide adequate care.

This is precisely the challenge facing thousands of Americans suffering from persistent severe adverse events after receiving a Covid vaccine - a condition recently defined as Post-Covid Vaccine Syndrome (PCVS). As one of those individuals, I know all too well how debilitating and life-altering this condition can be. Our symptoms include exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and dizziness.

They develop shortly after vaccination, within a day or two, can become more severe in the days that follow, and persist over time.

At present, there are no dedicated ICD-10 codes for PCVS. This absence has significant consequences for patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike.

Visibility in the Healthcare System

One of the primary functions of ICD-10 codes is to make a condition visible within the healthcare system. Without specific codes, PCVS is at best recorded under vague categories like "unspecified adverse effect of vaccine" or "other specified postvaccination complication." Leery of contradicting the safe and effective narrative, many providers simply utilize codes for general symptoms such as "fatigue" or "paresthesia." As a result, PCVS is effectively lost in a sea of unrelated data.

Dedicated codes would allow providers to document PCVS in a standardized way, ensuring it is recognized in patient records, insurance claims, and national health databases. This visibility is crucial for legitimizing PCVS in the eyes of both a conflicted medical community and a polarized public.

Facilitating Research and Data Collection

Medical research thrives on accurate, reliable data. Without discrete ICD-10 codes, it is extremely difficult to track how many of us are affected by PCVS, what our symptoms are, how long they last, and what treatments are effective.

Currently, researchers who want to study PCVS must sift through miscellaneous adverse event codes, searching for possible cases - a process that is slow, imprecise, and prone to undercounting. Specific codes would enable more precise epidemiological studies, making it easier to identify risk factors, compare outcomes, and develop evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Improving Public Health Response and Policy

Public health agencies use ICD-10 coding data to monitor trends, allocate resources, and shape policy decisions. The lack of codes for PCVS means that policymakers are operating without a complete picture of vaccine safety profiles and long-term outcomes.

By establishing dedicated codes, health officials could more accurately assess the frequency and severity of PCVS, helping them balance the benefits and risks of vaccination programs and design better safety monitoring systems in the future. This transparency would strengthen public confidence in vaccination campaigns by demonstrating that potential adverse events are being taken seriously and tracked systematically.

Reducing Stigma and Improving Clinical Recognition

Those of us suffering from PCVS often face intense skepticism, with our symptoms crudely dismissed as unrelated or psychosomatic. The absence of recognized diagnostic codes can inadvertently reinforce this stigma, making it harder for those suffering with PCVS to be...

By Ramesh Thakur at Brownstone dot org.

On 27 May 2022, Carl Bildt, the former prime minister (PM) of Sweden, wrote: 'The pandemic offers important lessons for managing future challenges, particularly climate change', which 'warrants urgent attention.' In chapter 12 of Our Enemy, the Government, I described ten points that climate change and pandemic management policies have in common on their respective agendas:

1. The claim to represent The Science on the basis of an artificially manufactured scientific consensus;

2. A mismatch between abstract mathematical and computer models and hard data and evidence;

3. The deliberate spreading of fear and panic in the population as a means to grab attention and spur drastic political action;

4. In order to sustain the scientific consensus, the exaggeration of supporting evidence, discrediting of contrary evidence, silencing of sceptical voices, and marginalisation and mockery of dissenters;

5. The enormous expansion of powers for the nanny state that bosses citizens and businesses because governments know best and can pick winners and losers, yet in practice, a record of overpromising and underdelivering;

6. Framing the agenda as primarily a moral crusade and dissent and noncompliance as immoral;

7. Widening inequality between the laptop class 'everywheres' and the working class 'nowheres,' or the 'have yachts' versus the 'have nots;'

8. Hypocrisy, meaning the mismatch in the behaviour of the exalted elites who preach to the deplorables the proper etiquette of abstinence to deal with the emergency, and their own insouciant exemption from a restrictive lifestyle;

9. The disconnect between industrialised and developing countries in responsibility for the crisis and the distribution of costs for addressing it;

10. The rise of the international technocratic elite in a de facto alliance with national governing, bureaucratic, scientific, and corporate elites.

The World Court Delivers a Weighty Opinion

A recent pronouncement from the World Court adds another link to the chain that connects climate change to pandemic management policies. International organisations are taking over an increasing range of functions from the governments of states, posing a threat both to national sovereignty and to democracy with national bureaucrats working in tandem with international technocrats - the lanyard class - to overrule citizens' choices.

With unelected and unaccountable judges displacing elected governments as the real rulers, judicial overreach is emerging as a threat to the democratic nation-state.

Over the past two decades, climate activists have essentially adopted a smug 'We've won' tone on a three-part 'scientific consensus' on adverse impacts of rising CO2, human activity being primarily responsible for the rise in emissions, and the imminence of climate catastrophe without urgent drastic action.

All three parts have come under attack in recent times. Many serious scientists have always been sceptical of the 'Science is settled' claim on the unique rise in harmful emissions caused by the fossil-fuel driven industrial revolution. More and more have begun to speak out on the growing panic over a climate emergency. Their response to climate catastrophisation can be summarised succinctly as 'Rubbish!,' albeit expressed in more polite and scientifically neutral language.

The doom merchants have a three-decade long catastrophic record on predictions of catastrophes. The World Climate Declaration issued two years ago has been signed by 2,000 experts from 60 countries.

In the meantime, there's been public awakening, rising resentment, and firming opposition to the questionable assumptions, significant harms, and outright futility of climate targets encapsulated in the slogan Net Zero - in an age when slogans are mistaken for sound and fully costed policy.

Consequently many Western governments have begun to backtrack, none more so than the Trump administration that also recognises the strategic folly...

By Rev. John F. Naugle at Brownstone dot org.

Over five years since the dark nightmare of lockdowns and mandates began, we are still asking the most fundamental questions.

How did all of this happen? How do we prevent it from happening again?

Of course, we've gained much clarity in the intervening years. For example, we now know that what happened wasn't really a public health response at all, but rather that our military and intelligence agencies were using public health as a sock puppet. As Debbie Lerman describes in The Deep State Goes Viral:

I discovered that the US Covid pandemic response was not a public health response run by the HHS, CDC or any other public health body. Instead, it was a biodefense/counter-terrorism response, run by the Pentagon, National Security Council, and Department of Homeland Security.

In short, the deep state, having been alarmed that a virus that they might have created had leaked out of a lab which they were funding, responded as if we were under a biowarfare attack and implemented plans which included the deployment of a never-tested mRNA platform that had long been their hoped-for response in such a scenario.

From my very first op-ed opposing lockdowns in April of 2020, I observed that a very base form of consequentialist reason was at work in the argument for lockdowns. I later expanded upon these thoughts in Brownstone Journal. At that point, however, I was under the impression that what we were facing was merely unhinged public health "experts." The revelations that Lerman and others have uncovered reveal a far darker consequentialism than that of Cuomo's "If it saves just one life."

My mind turns to the dark and dystopian video game Portal, which I played many years ago, whose plot centers on a malevolent AI that seeks to perform "science" by experimenting on unwilling human test subjects whose survival is of no concern. The lyrics of the ending song of this game could be easily adapted to fit what our government did to us in the name of national defense:

This was a triumph

I'm making a note here, "Huge success"

It's hard to overstate my satisfaction

Aperture Science

We do what we must because we can

For the good of all of us, except the ones who are dead

But there's no sense crying over every mistake

You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake

And the science gets done, and you make a neat gun

For the people who are still alive

It would be tempting to write off our malefactors as mustache-twirling villains with no concern for morality at all. Instead, I'd like to suggest that reality is far darker. These people were following the natural results of their flawed moral frameworks that focus only on their hoped-for scientific outcomes.

In their minds, biowarfare is a foregone future outcome, and risky experiments, even on the entire population, are justified regardless of the short-term cost because of the potential good outcomes in the future. These people are bad, not because they lack a moral framework, but rather because they operate from a moral framework which is itself bad.

This distinction is lost on many of our allies against lockdowns and mandates. This is because they operate from a completely different and incompatible moral framework, based largely on rules and duty rather than outcomes. For example, the obvious violation of principles like "informed consent" or "bodily autonomy" makes it quite clear to many that what happened shouldn't have happened.

Those who hold firmly to such principles have a hard time imagining the inner monologue of the person who rejects absolute moral rules in favor of the argument that the "ends justify the means."

What is really at play here is a long-running philosophical debate between the competing moral philosophies of deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics. It would be helpful then to review how modern thought got to this debate, and to acknowledge that the answers we need are found precisely in what modernity left behind fr...

By Jessica Rose at Brownstone dot org.

So the next level of ruining the human being has begun. According to a recent article in the BBC, some person at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology was given £10 million by the Wellcome Trust to start making new designer DNA. Because our DNA is such a crapshoot. What does God know anyway? If you didn't know, the Wellcome Trust "frequently collaborates with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on global health initiatives."

In their 2024 annual report, they write the following:

Strategic partnerships: We forged significant collaborations with the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, enhancing our ability to tackle shared global health challenges effectively.

I love how they use the word strategic. It's accurate. Strategically preying on human beings to ensure that no one actually gets real health care or care at all. Sorry guys, but this is the truth. And if you actually looked only at how old folks homes and "care facilities" are run, and the MAID rates in Canada, you'd have to admit that there is no care in most care facilities and our elders are being left on ice floes to die.

The research has been taboo until now because of concerns that it could lead to designer babies or unforeseen changes for future generations.

Taboo? I would go with different words. Words like: Insane and Unnecessary. You can always count on these benevolent Gates-collaborative organizations to virtue-signal their way into convincing "scientists" into believing that this is for some "greater good."

[The] World's largest medical charity, the Wellcome Trust, has given an initial £10m to start the project and says it has the potential to do more good than harm by accelerating treatments for many incurable diseases. Dr Julian Sale, of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, who is part of the project, told BBC News the research was the next giant leap in biology. "The sky is the limit.

We are looking at therapies that will improve people's lives as they age, that will lead to healthier aging with less disease as they get older. [1]

Yeah. Sure. They sure do care about our elders. If you cared about our elders and healthier aging, you'd promote healthy lifestyles in youth. At the very least. Not bludgeoning the human genome.

So what are their plans?

"We are looking to use this approach to generate disease-resistant cells we can use to repopulate damaged organs, for example in the liver and the heart, even the immune system," he said. [1]

Read on…

The scientists' first aim is to develop ways of building ever larger blocks of human DNA, up to the point when they have synthetically constructed a human chromosome. These contain the genes that govern our development, repair, and maintenance.

These can then be studied and experimented on to learn more about how genes and DNA regulate our bodies.

Many diseases occur when these genes go wrong so the studies could lead to better treatments, according to Prof Matthew Hurles, director of the Wellcome Sanger Insititute which sequenced the largest proportion of the Human Genome.

"Building DNA from scratch allows us to test out how DNA really works and test out new theories, because currently we can only really do that by tweaking DNA in DNA that already exists in living systems."

Yeah. There might be a reason for that, you hubristic eedjut.

Professor Bill Earnshaw of Edinburgh University throws some intelligence into the conversation. He says:

"The genie is out of the bottle," he told BBC News. "We could have a set of restrictions now, but if an organisation who has access to appropriate machinery decided to start synthesising anything, I don't think we could stop them."

Pretty sobering sentiment, no? An organization like, say, the Wellcome Trust?

It's unreal how the defense sounds just like it always does from these narcissistic and hubristic people.

"This technology is going to be developed one day, so by doing it now we a...

By Josh Stylman at Brownstone dot org.

I saw this chart making the rounds on Twitter this week, and it stopped me cold. While the specific figures combine data from multiple sources, the trend is undeniable: in 1950, over half of 30-year-olds were married homeowners. By 2025, some analysts project that number as low as 13%.

That's not a societal transformation. It's not an economic fluke. It's the visible outcome of an invisible strategy - one that extracted everything it could from a three-generation arc and left only illusions in its place.

They'll tell you people just choose differently now - that marriage rates fell because of changing values. But people can't choose what they can't afford. When the economic foundation for family formation disappears, cultural changes follow inevitably. That chart doesn't show us changing values or new priorities. It shows systemic breakdown, disguised for decades as freedom.

It maps the slow evaporation of the social contract. For one generation, adulthood was a starting point. For the next, a struggle. For the latest, an abstraction - marketed endlessly but almost never attained. What began as a rite of passage has become a paywalled simulation.

The post-World War II boom was never sustainable. In hindsight, this was obvious. It relied on conditions that were always time-limited: cheap energy from newly tapped oil fields, industrial monopolies before globalization kicked in, dollar hegemony that exported inflation globally, and a demographic pyramid with more workers than retirees. It was a golden window, not a golden age.

And when the window closed, the illusion had to be maintained - through leverage, narrative, and ever-increasing sacrifice from the generations that followed.

The math quietly stopped working. Boomers bought homes for two or three times their annual income during an era when interest rates would fall for the next four decades - turning their mortgages into wealth-building machines as rates dropped from 15% to near-zero. Today's buyers face five to six times their income - or more in major cities - while rates can only go up from historic lows.

Where Boomers rode a 40-year tailwind of falling borrowing costs that inflated their assets while deflated their debt, current generations face headwinds at every turn. The Federal Reserve data confirms this unprecedented decline, showing rates falling from over 18% in the early 1980s to near 2.6% by 2021.

The housing market itself tells the story: recent data shows over 500,000 more sellers than buyers - not because homes are affordable, but because an entire generation has been systematically priced out.

The institutions that promised stability - education, government, media, finance - mutated into extraction machines. Still speaking the old language, they now served a different purpose: to keep people compliant inside a system that no longer offered a way out.

This wasn't merely economic. It was existential. The foundations of meaning - family, ownership, stability - were quietly downgraded to lifestyle preferences, and then systematically priced out. People without homes are easier to relocate. People without families are easier to isolate. People without rootedness are easier to govern.

The Boomers didn't design the con, but they lived in its payout phase. They received land, pensions, and a functional society. Many still believe they earned it, unable to recognize how thoroughly their reality was engineered from the start. Their children were left trying to replicate a model that no longer existed. Their grandchildren have grown up in the wreckage, wondering why their competence and effort never translate into traction.

This didn't happen by accident. As I've documented in "The Technocratic Blueprint," we're witnessing the culmination of a century-long plan - a sophisticated pump-and-dump scheme where the bill is finally coming due. The architecture for this extraction has deep historical roots, dating back to systema...