Interview with David A. Hughes

Unveiling the Omniwar: Decoding the Invisible Assault on Humanity

In March 2020, as the world grappled with a purportedly novel respiratory pathogen, a very small few began to discern a more insidious operation unfolding—one not of biological contagion but of orchestrated psychological warfare. David A. Hughes, a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Lincoln, emerged as a pivotal voice in decoding this transnational assault, which he terms the "Omniwar," a stealthy World War III waged by a predatory elite against humanity itself. His work, spanning the psychological manipulations of the "Covid-19 operation" to the inconsistencies in official accounts of events like the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, reveals a technocratic agenda rooted in decades of covert planning. In my interview with Hughes, I explore his rigorously documented claims, which draw on historical precedents like Operation Gladio and contemporary evidence of biodigital control systems. His book, ‘Covid-19,’ Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy, meticulously dissects the trauma-based mind control techniques deployed during the pandemic, such as the "killing granny" narrative, which leveraged guilt to enforce compliance. Similarly, his analysis in Unravelling Manchester exposes primary evidence—undamaged structures, intact lighting, and absent shrapnel—that contradicts the reported impact of a shrapnel-laden bomb, suggesting a staged event to further a strategy of tension. Hughes’ investigations, grounded in extensive primary and secondary sources, invite us to question the narratives that shape our reality, revealing a coordinated effort to erode sovereignty and institute global technocracy.

Hughes’ significance as an investigator lies in his ability to connect seemingly disparate events—pandemic policies, false flag operations, and emerging technologies—into a coherent framework of an undeclared war. His concept of the Omniwar, detailed in my interview, posits that since 2020, every domain of human existence, from cognition to biology, has been weaponized by a transnational deep state, a term he defines as a nexus of Wall Street, intelligence agencies, and multinational corporations operating beyond democratic accountability. This war, he argues, is invisible because it infiltrates minds through propaganda, as seen in the Killing Granny narrative that traumatized populations into compliance by framing dissent as lethal to loved ones. His scrutiny of the Manchester Arena incident further underscores this, highlighting how media and official reports obscured verifiable evidence to sustain public fear and justify control. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to amplify Hughes’ work, which spans psychology, geopolitics, and technology, offering a lens to understand our era’s upheavals. His warnings about neural nanotechnologies and digital currencies, coupled with historical parallels to Nazi-era totalitarianism, are not speculative but anchored in documents like NASA’s 2001 Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare (Circa 2025). This interview introduces a truth-teller whose interdisciplinary rigor challenges us to confront an uncomfortable reality: the social contract has been ruptured, and the battle for autonomy is now.

With thanks to David A. Hughes.

1. David, you've had a fascinating journey from academia to independent research. Could you please share what initially prompted you to start investigating topics like the "Omniwar" concept and technocracy?

I realised relatively early during the Covid debacle that psychological warfare was being waged against populations transnationally. That raised some big questions. Why was it happening? Who was behind it? How was it possible that supposedly sovereign states were uniting in a coordinated attack against their own citizens?

Through extensive research, I came to understand that 2020 marked the beginning of an attempt by the transnational ruling class to institute a novel, biodigital form of totalitarianism – global technocracy. To understand that concept and its origins fully, I read Patrick Wood’s seminal work on technocracy, as well as other work by Iain Davis and James Corbett. Remarkably, the idea has been around since the 1930s, but the technologies needed to make it work (by monitoring everything and everyone) are much more recent.

To replace liberal democracy with technocracy requires social engineering on a global scale. Historically, the only times when change on such a scale has been possible has been through world war. Thus, I came to realise that World War III had begun, and that the psychological warfare of the Covid era was just the opening campaign.

This got me to thinking more about the nature of WWIII. It looks nothing like WWII, just as WWII looked nothing like WWI. The aims, strategies, tactics, weapons, etc. are all different. Also, for the first time in history, the few have gone to war against the many. How can they hope to win?

Two things seem particularly important. First, the war must be waged by stealth – the public must not understand that war is being waged against it, for fear of revolution. Second, the transnational ruling class is reliant on its ownership of the means of production, which it must weaponize. Because it owns everything, everything will be weaponized – the media, social media, the financial system, the health care system, etc.

This is what brought me to my “Omniwar” concept, which I am pleased to see is gaining traction in the alternative media. WWIII is being waged across every domain of human existence, from the cell to the stratosphere, but invisibly as far as possible, so that the public does not recognise it as such. I have elaborated the concept in full in my 22,500-word report for Solari, titled Omniwar: Exposing and Ending the Invisible War Against Humanity.

2. In your interviews, you often reference the concept of an "undeclared war" being waged against ordinary people. Could you explain what you mean by this and how you believe most people remain unaware of it?

When most people think about war, they tend to think in conventional terms of, say, wars between nation states, or civil wars, or the “War on Terror.” Traditionally, one side declares war against the other (although the United States has not formally declared war since 1941). Furthermore, the core idea of realist thinking is that states go to war to defend their citizens; they supposedly have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

In the Omniwar, we are not seeing any of that. True, geopolitical conflicts go on as normal, but the most fundamental level of warfare is the global class war in which a predatory and sociopathic “elite” seeks to subjugate, and ultimately enslave, the rest of humanity through 21^st-century technologies.

Yet, most people have no idea that they are the unwitting combatants in an undeclared war being waged against them. There are numerous reasons why this is. For example,

• WWIII is a stealth war, undeclared, and designed to stay hidden.

• Nothing like the Omniwar has been seen before; there is no historical precedent to compare it to.

• Because the Omniwar is everywhere, including inside our minds and bodies, we do not see it in any one place.

• Cognition and rationality are under attack, making it hard to make sense of what is happening.

• Infiltration has been key: of governments and institutions by technocrats, of human minds with psychological programming, and of human bodies with substances of an undisclosed nature.

• Many of the weapons deployed are invisible, others assume a civilian disguise, while others involve classified technologies that the public would not believe to be possible.

• The sheer scale and evil of the assault are traumatic and difficult to comprehend.

Thus, despite being everywhere all the time, the Omniwar paradoxically remains invisible, which is what makes it so potent.

3. You've spoken extensively about China as the world's first "Technate." How did you come to this conclusion, and what evidence do you see of similar systems being implemented in Western countries?

The idea of China as the world’s first Technate comes from Iain Davis and ties in perfectly with Patrick Wood’s work on technocracy and James Corbett’s work on the role of China since David Rockefeller first took an interest in it in the 1970s. Anthony C. Sutton’s work on technology transfers is also relevant. I discuss all of this in Chapter 1 of my book in a section on China.

Broadly speaking, the rise of China did not happen for purely endogenous reasons. Rather, there was significant inward investment from the West, mostly interestingly in terms of R&D and technology transfers. Contrary to the realist image of “great power competition,” the West and China have, for decades, been collaborating in the development of new technologies capable of making technocracy workable. One Western leader after the next has expressed their admiration for the Chinese model.

In 2018, Wood warned of the Chinese social credit scoring system, its expansion to companies (the precursor of ESGs), a surveillance system capable of locating any citizen within minutes, and the use of algorithms for pre-crime purposes. Such technologies, he noted, were already being imported into the United States.

Although nominally communist, China, as the world’s most populous country, has served as the incubation site for technocracy, which since 2020, in Wood’s words, has been spreading like a cancer to other countries. Meanwhile, the public has been conditioned to believe that the only thing spreading from China was a “deadly virus.”

One only has to look at the technocratic infiltration of the US Government by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel through DOGE, the algorithmic control of information flows on social media, the push for an all-digital financial system, facial recognition cameras, iris-scanners at airports, and the increasing difficulty of being able to perform basic functions such as banking without a “smart” phone – to name but a few – to see that technocracy is already at an advanced stage of implementation in the West.

4. The term "transnational deep state" appears frequently in your work. How would you define this entity, and how does it differ from traditional concepts of national governments?

Here it is best to turn to my other book, Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crime of the Deep State, in particular Chapter 5.

The US deep state, incubated since the 1940s, amounts to a high-level conspiracy between key elements of Wall Street, intelligence and other government agencies, the military-industrial complex, the police, multinational corporations, think tanks, foundations, the media, and academia. Regardless of which government is nominally in charge, the deep state subverts democracy and the rule of law to make sure that ruling class agendas are continuously advanced. Although there are tensions and power struggles between different groups and institutions of the deep state, ultimately those different class fractions tend to coalesce and unite around certain fundamental control paradigms and policies for their mutual class benefit. The deep state makes its most significant interventions in the form of “deep events,” i.e. events which profoundly transform the trajectory of politics and society yet whose provenance is ambiguous, e.g. the JFK assassination, 9/11, and “Covid-19” (cf. Scott, 2017, Chapter 9).

From the outset, the US deep state was transnational and in part coordinated under NATO, as per evidence relating to so-called “stay behind” armies, a clandestine international network theoretically intended to provide resistance in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Over time, that original purpose was abandoned and NATO’s secret network was used to perpetrate false flag terrorism, most notably in Italy where Operation Gladio was exposed in the 1990s. Its modus operandi was the Strategy of Tension, which involved killing innocent civilians to make the public turn to the State for greater security. The Strategy of Tension was later globalized through the “War on Terror,” and the same logic of terrorizing the population into ceding liberty for security was again evident during the “Covid-19” operation. Revelations from the Dutch health minister in October 2024 that the country’s Covid response was dictated by NATO should come as no surprise in that light.

In contrast, the traditional idea of national government recognizes no such dual power structure, let alone one which operates at the transnational (and indeed global) level. Nation-states are sovereign, and in liberal democracies the government is elected to enact the “will of the people.” The social contract, at least in its Lockean formulation, means that governments are ultimately answerable to the people. There is no scope within such thinking for seeing that governments today act as mere enforcers of agendas formulated much higher up in the global power pyramid, as expressed in Iain Davis’ diagram of the “global public private partnership.”

5. You've discussed concepts like "network-centric warfare" and humans as "nodes on the technocratic control grid." Could you explain these ideas in terms accessible to someone new to these concepts?

The concept of network-centric warfare emerged in the late 1990s. It is about placing information networks at the centre of war fighting so as to improve situational awareness, speed of command, and precision of manoeuvres.

The Global Information Grid, which is operated by the United States Strategic Command, provides the necessary technical framework for network-centric warfare. It constitutes a “system of systems,” integrating sensor systems, command and control centres, and weapons platforms into a single interoperable system.

Drone warfare is one example of network-centric warfare. It relies on information superiority to identify, locate, and assassinate targets, supposedly with high precision and minimal collateral damage. However, disproportionately high civilian casualty rates and the known tactic of “double tapping” (bombing a target, waiting for first responders to arrive, and then bombing a second time) indicate that concern for civilians is a myth.

Network-centric warfare is increasingly being powered by artificial intelligence. AI’s “Big Bang” moment came in 2012, when big data, combined with advanced computing power, enabled computers to begin analysing information and writing the rule sets themselves. That breakthrough was immediately given a military application in DOD Directive 3000.09, titled “Autonomy in Weapons Systems.”

Take a moment to reflect on that concept: autonomous weapons systems. Is it right that the kill decision should be taken by a robot, based on algorithms?

The Pentagon’s Project Maven, beginning in 2017, aims to use AI to detect, tag, and track objects of interest (including humans). The accompanying Maven Smart System (MSS) is run by Palantir and integrates geospatial imagery from satellites, geolocation data (from smartphones, social media, etc.), signals intelligence, and radar and infrared sensors to provide real-time battlefield analysis and target identification.

The DOD’s Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) concept aims to connect sensors from all branches of the armed forces (Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Space Force) into a unified network powered by AI. Companies such as Palantir, SAIC, and Collins Aerospace are developing CJADC2 solutions.

The Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems in 2022 announced its “LANIUS drone-based loitering munition,” which can autonomously take off, navigate, determine entry points to buildings, map the inside of unknown buildings, identify combatants and non-combatants among the building occupants, and detonate explosive payloads (albeit with “man-in-the-loop control” for the final stage).

Now consider what would happen if human bodies could be hooked up to the Global Information Grid/technocratic control grid (the two things ultimately amount to the same). And what if companies such as Palantir could manage all the resultant data? Global technocracy would be achieved. Everyone would form part of a biodigital control system, and dissidents could quickly and efficiently be eliminated by A.I. in the ultimate version of what Kees van der Pijl, in his book States of Emergency (2022), calls the “information-liquidation model.”

As I have argued in Chapter 8 of my Covid book, and elsewhere, the planning for such an eventuality dates at least as far back as the turn of the millennium in literature by NASA, the National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce, the RAND Corporation, and other organizations. Their premise was that simultaneous revolutions in “converging technologies” (nano, bio, info, cognitive) would issue in what NASA’s Dennis Bushnell, in 2001(!), called the “IT/Bio/Nano” era, beginning in, of all years, 2020. In simple terms, the “IT/Bio/Nano” era is about introducing nanotechnology into human bodies that is capable of communicating with an external network.

So, when we consider the extensive “Internet of BioNano Things” literature that has appeared since 2015, or Cambridge University’s “Internet of Everything” centre, or the authorities’ obsession with creating “smart cities” and bathing the world in 5G/6G/7G, etc., or projects such as Starlink, Project Kuiper, OneWeb, and EarthNow (all of which are vying to provide internet coverage to all parts of the world from low Earth orbit), it does not require a huge leap of the imagination to suspect that a wireless biodigital concentration camp is being built all around us.

6. The psychological aspects of what you call the “Covid-19 operation” feature prominently in your work. What techniques do you believe were most effective in generating public compliance?

There are so many. Consider that Volume 1 of my Covid book is 400 pages long and is only one volume of two. The “Covid-19” operation was by far the most ferocious, large-scale, and vicious psychological warfare operation in history. So, to pick out individual techniques would be to miss the more important point that every conceivable psychological warfare technique, drawing on Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Tavistock Institute, MKULTRA, the Strategy of Tension, etc. was deployed all at once against populations transnationally in a premeditated, systematic attack on human consciousness. This fact alone should prompt serious reflection on the level of evil that we are facing.

The division of my book into two volumes was somewhat heuristic. There was too much material to squeeze into one book, so I broke it down by using Volume 1 to deal broadly with what Joost Meerloo called “menticide,” or “the rape of the mind,” i.e., the destructive processes by which a healthy mind is broken down. These include shock and stress, trauma, fear, scrambling cognition, weaponized deception, and social division. Volume 2 will deal with the processes by which minds are “reprogrammed,” e.g. obedience training, applied behavioural psychology, and cult indoctrination. The planning to unleash all of this at once must have gone back a very long way in time.

7. You’ve written about the “killing granny” narrative during the pandemic. Why do you think this particular message was so effective at influencing behavior?

It goes back to known methods of ritual abuse and trauma-based mind control. I write about this in Chapter 3 of my Covid book.

In such methods, it is not only fear for one’s own life that is effective in inducing trauma, but also the victim’s conviction that they have harmed or killed someone else, especially a loved one – even if they have not done so and have been tricked into believing they have.

Britons were traumatized, through terrifying propaganda, into believing that they could be responsible for killing other people if they did not do as they were told. Government/NHS messaging claimed, for instance, that “IF YOU GO OUT, YOU CAN SPREAD IT. PEOPLE WILL DIE” and “DON’T MEET UP WITH MATES. HANGING OUT IN PARKS COULD KILL.”

In September 2020, the messaging morphed in the “killing granny” narrative. Health Secretary Matt Hancock told university students that month not to “kill your gran” by helping to spread coronavirus. Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty claimed in November 2020 “Would I say people should hug and kiss their elderly relatives? No, I would not. They want to survive to get hugged again.” Independent SAGE’s Gabriel Scally claimed “There is no point in having a very merry Christmas and then burying friends and relations in January and February.” BBC Newsbeat (aimed at young people) warned students not to return home for Christmas, reminding them, “Don’t hug your Nan at Christmas and then bury her in January.” Margaret Greenwood, MP, claimed “We cannot underestimate the profound psychological impact that it would have on a child to go to school, come home with Covid-19 and infect a family member and for that family member to then die”; it would be “traumatic in the extreme.”

On New Year’s Eve, UCL Professor Hugh Montgomery, who directs two companies (Turbinate Technologies Ltd. and Panthair Ltd.) that supply PPE, including face masks, told the BBC: “People who do not follow social distancing rules or wear masks […] have blood on their hands […] They are spreading this virus […] They won’t know they have killed people but they have.”

In January 2021, UK Government/NHS propaganda extended the “killing others” messaging through slogans such as “A STEP TOO CLOSE COULD BE A STEP TOO FAR,” “EXERCISE SAFELY DON’T RUN THE RISK,” “DON’T LET A COFFEE COST LIVES,” and “CATCH-UPS COST LIVES.” A 30-second government advertisement contained the line “If you bend the rules, people will die.”

Thus, the “killing granny” narrative should be situated within a bogus “killing others” narrative that was intended as part of a trauma-based mind control operation.

8. You mention Charles Lieber and "syringe-injectable neural nanotechnologies" in your research. Could you elaborate on the potential implications of these technologies?

Lieber is a former Harvard professor who was convicted in 2021 for failing to disclose his handsomely remunerated participation in the Chinese Communist Party’s Thousand Talents Plan on his tax returns.

He worked with a team of Chinese researchers to develop what one commentator described as “nanoscale electronic scaffolds that can be injected via syringe [and] connected to devices and used to monitor neural activity, stimulate tissues, or even promote regeneration of neurons.”

Lieber himself boasted: “With our injectable electronics, it’s as if it’s not there at all. They are one million times more flexible than any state-of-the-art flexible electronics and have subcellular feature sizes. They’re what I call ‘neuro-philic’ – they actually like to interact with neurons.”

Lieber and his team injected neural nets directly into the brains of rats, where they allegedly integrated with neural tissue and remained intact for at least a year.

Lieber also worked on a project sponsored by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research to develop “molecular-nanoscale circuits that control cells via external radiation,” thus combining intracorporeal nanotechnology and wireless control.

In a 2019 paper, Lieber and his co-authors wrote that syringe-injectable mesh electronics could eventually make cyborgs a reality.

Given that classified military technology is known to be far ahead of publicly available science and technology, one has to wonder what is technologically possible behind the scenes.

A central aim of the second Omniwar symposium (“Battle for the Brain”) was to inquire critically into what is possible in terms of neural nanotechnologies and what is not, while accepting the challenge of known unknowns (i.e., classified military technology) and unknown unknowns.

Although the open literature indicates significant limitations in terms of what is possible in humans, the fact that neuroscience and technology R&D has been lavishly funded since 2013 through the US BRAIN Initiative and other copycat programmes transnationally indicates serious intent on the part of those looking to move from psychological to neurological warfare.

It is known that around a fifth of the population is not susceptible, for whatever reason, to psychological programming. For example, despite the military-grade psychological warfare of the Covid era, 23% of UK adults, according to official statistics as of July 2022, had refused to take a single “Covid-19 vaccine.”

Neurological programming, however, offers a means of “going direct” (to borrow Blackrock’s term) when it comes to mind control. Who could resist what Jose Delgado (who famously halted a charging bull using remote-controlled brain implants) envisaged in a 1969 book as the “physical control of the mind”?

9. You've referenced military timelines of 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030 in your interviews. What significance do these dates hold in your analysis of current events?

I am not a “futurologist,” and I do not have a crystal ball. I believe that nothing is pre-ordained and that the outcome will be determined through the struggle.

Nevertheless, I am fascinated by the leaked 2001 document produced by NASA Chief Scientist Dennis Bushnell.

In it, he states that new technologies typically take around 15 years to develop. In 2015, IBM announced that it was manufacturing smart dust, one of the many futuristic-sounding technologies mentioned in the document.

The document also referred to the “surreptitious nano-tagging” of everyone and everything. In 2015, the “Internet of BioNano Things” literature appeared.

Bushnell in 2001 envisaged the beginning of the “IT/Bio/Nano” era in 2020. Yuval Noah Harari, in March 2020 (the start of the Covid era), referred to surveillance going under the skin. There are strong reasons to suspect that the “Covid-19” operation was designed to initiate the IT/Bio/Nano era.

The title of the NASA document is “Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare (Circa 2025).” This places the current year in focus. Here I am hoping that the timeline laid out in the document is not really a blueprint for the 21^st century and that we are not looking at a new type of warfare taking place in the near future. In one sense, of course, the Omniwar itself represents a new type of war, but the worrying thought is that some of the creepy technologies set out in the document could be developed and then weaponized.

2030 is what Bushnell called a “then year” that would mark the culmination of “ongoing worldwide technological revolutions” from 2025. We also find it in the UN’s “Agenda 2030”, the 2030Vision project, the WEF’s infamous warning that by 2030 “you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy,” ID2020’s goal for every person on the planet to have a digital ID by 2030, the WHO’s “Immunisation Agenda 2030,” and the European Commission’s 2030 Climate Target Plan and Digital Targets for 2030. Ray Kurzweil in 2008 posited a “2030 Scenario” in which human brains will connect to cloud-based computers via nanobots inside the body.” The US National Intelligence Council report Global Trends 2030 (2012) states that “Brain-machine interfaces could provide ‘superhuman’ abilities” by 2030 (it also predicts “an easily transmissible novel respiratory pathogen” that could serve as a “disruptive global event” reaching to “every corner of the world”…). When that event hit in 2020, Yuval Harari invited us to “Imagine North Korea in 2030, when every citizen has to wear a biometric bracelet 24 hours a day. If you listen to a speech by the Great Leader and the bracelet picks up the tell-tale signs of anger, you are done for.”

Clearly, the powers that (should not) be have a lot invested in the 2030 timeframe. Is this just about producing a narrative around which to rally a technocratic cadre? Will 2030 pass like Y2K did, without anything to live up to the build-up? Will Agenda 2030 just become Agenda 2040 (having previously been Agenda 2021)?

Again, I do not have a crystal ball. But what I do see is the transnational ruling class tobogganing towards disaster as it goes all-in on trying to institute global technocracy, leaving the rest of humanity no choice but to fight back. The status quo cannot be maintained for much longer. I see tumultuous times ahead, which will be of world-historical significance.

10. In your discussions of the Manchester Arena incident, you highlight numerous inconsistencies in the official account. Which of these do you find most compelling as evidence that the narrative requires further scrutiny?

The most compelling evidence that the official account is false is primary observable evidence captured by two different camera phones 12-15 minutes after the bang and posted to social media shortly afterwards. These are the Barr footage, a 43-second-long piece of video captured by a Scottish gentleman named John Barr, and the Parker photograph, which was taken by a homeless man called Chris Parker.

We know that both are genuine, because they not only corroborate one another, but are also consistent with a third piece of footage which was played by the BBC in its propaganda piece, Manchester: The Night of the Bomb. However, the BBC deliberately blurred and distorted its footage so that key details cannot be seen.

The Barr footage and the Parker photograph clearly show that there is no structural damage to the building. All of the lighting is intact. There is no sign of the 3,000 pieces of shrapnel that we are told were in Salman Abedi’s improvised explosive device. A flimsy merchandise stall located only 8-10 metres from the alleged epicentre of the blast survived completely undamaged, as did the massive poster above it. There is no glass on the floor from the giant skylight above, which we were told had shattered.

There are no pools of blood or any definite signs of injury, just some people lying on the floor with others appearing to tend to them. There are nowhere near enough people lying on the ground to account for the number of reported fatalities and seriously injured casualties. There are no severed limbs or body parts. The scene is inconsistent with the horrific effects of a close-range bomb as described by the Inquiry’s “Blast Wave Panel of Experts.”

11. You've spoken about "trauma-based mind control" techniques being applied to entire populations. How does this manifest on a societal level compared to individual cases?

Chapters 2 and 3 of my Covid book are the place to go to for the detail on this. Essentially, what we find is that, over the course of the 20^th century, mind control techniques were gradually expanded from the level of individuals to groups and, ultimately, entire societies.

So, for example, it was discovered after World War I that victims of shell shock were unusually susceptible to psychological manipulation. John Rawlings Rees and the Tavistock Institute immediately saw the potential in this for using psychiatry as a tool of social control (not healing). The CIA’s MKULTRA programme conducted horrendous experiments on victims, using electroshock and other means to “depattern” the mind, followed by “psychic driving” and other methods to try to reprogramme it.

Tavistock’s William Sargant writes in Battle for the Mind (1957) that the same principles of mind control applicable to individuals can also be applied to groups. For example, fear, anger, and excitement can be used to impair judgement and heighten suggestibility, allowing “various types of belief” to be “implemented in many people.” This is especially effective during “periods of common danger,” such as wars and epidemics.

Tavistock’s Fred Emery and Eric Trist in 1963 proposed the paradigm of “permanent social turbulence,” whereby a rolling series of shocks would plunge society into a state of managed psychosis and infantile forms of reasoning, allowing previously unthinkable ideas to appear normal.

Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (2007) explains how shocks of various kinds (e.g. wars, natural disasters, financial crises) have been seized upon by disaster capitalists for social engineering purposes. The modus operandi is always the same: the moment of shock creates a “blank slate” that wipes away conventional wisdom and allows a “new normal” to take its place. After “9/11,” for instance, the previously unthinkable became normalised with the practice of torture and extraordinary renditions.

The Covid “lockdowns” (a prison term) were, as I argue in my book, a shock and awe operation that made use of various MKULTRA techniques which have been deployed against prisoners, including isolation, disruption of regular patterns of behaviour, and creating an unfamiliar and threatening environment. More disturbingly, trauma-based mind control techniques were deployed, such as making people feel responsible for the deaths of others, wearing face masks (a psychological torture technique used on inmates at Guantánamo Bay), and creating chronic stress that manifests in physical debility.

That governments treated citizens in this way is further proof that the social contract has been torn up, and not by the people.

12. What role do you believe advancing technologies like 5G, neural interfaces, and digital currencies play in the development of technocracy?

The new technologies are fundamental to the successful rollout of global technocracy. Anything labelled “smart” is part of it. True, those technologies offers convenience, but ultimately they are helping to build the Internet of Everything (including human bodies) which will facilitate the scientific management of society by technocrats.

An all-digital financial system is of grave concern. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) would be one fulfilment of this, although other forms of digital currency are also possible. The head of the Bank for International Settlements, Augustín Carstens, revealed in November 2020 that “the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.” In other words, money will no longer exist as a free medium of exchange; instead, there will be a totalitarian control system in which the central bank determines how, when, where, and if its currency can be used. Should such a system be implemented, dissent could be stamped out simply by turning off a person’s ability to transact financially.

Other technologies, involving EMF and neural interfaces, are being developed in a dual use capacity and are marketed as offering potentially revolutionary breakthroughs in, say, telecommunications and health care. However, the clear and present danger is that a weapons system is being built that would allow those behind the controls to interfere with a person’s body remotely. As discussed during the second Omniwar symposium, it is unclear how advanced the technology actually is, because classified military technology will undoubtedly come into play.

13. Your work suggests parallels between current events and historical operations like Operation Gladio. How useful are these historical comparisons in understanding contemporary situations?

Historical comparisons are always risky, because no two eras are exactly alike. However, history does have some very important lessons to teach.

In Chapter 2 of Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State, I draw extensive parallels between the political economy of 1930s Nazi Germany and the political economy of the West since 2020, as well as noting some important discontinuities. For those who know their history, the parallels are too numerous and too striking to ignore.

For example, in both eras, constitutional guarantees were suspended in the name of “protecting” the public based on a staged event. Legislatures capitulated to executive power and began legislating tyranny, including legalized state crime, dangerously expanded police powers, and the criminalization of dissent. A revolution from above was initiated, seeking to remake the whole of society in a new image (today, it goes by the name of the “Great Reset”). The working and middle classes were attacked by a fusion of state power and Big Business. Individual rights were attacked by collectivism. Gleichschaltung (the production of ideological conformity) resulted in a moral collapse across the citizenry, the professions, the churches, the “Left,” and trade unions. Those who did not “fit in” were stigmatized, ostracized, and censored. The media effectively became a state propaganda machine. Health surveillance, in the form of “health passports” and mapping the population’s biodata, suddenly became important. The health professions were subordinated to the state and used for biopolitical purposes, involving widespread violations of medical ethics. Eugenics and euthanasia reared their ugly heads. Morality and conscience were hijacked to make evil/harmful acts seem good/safe and vice versa. Ecopolitics was prevalent.

I spend the rest of the book arguing that these extensive parallels are non-accidental, and that the transnational deep state which recruited ex-Nazis in its early days has always been committed to totalitarianism as the most ruthless and efficient means of suppressing class conflict. It therefore makes sense that the attempt to engineer global technocracy (a new form of totalitarianism) has involved so many overt continuities with the Third Reich.

Chapter 7 of my book warns where the current historical trajectory will lead if the global technocratic coup is not put down. We can see this from the Nazi past, and it is dark. Power centralized in a New World Order, a global land grab cloaked in ecological disguise, the return of slavery, use of the food supply to create starvation, imprisoning dissidents and judicial murder, eugenics experiments, life in a biodigital concentration camp, and systematic mass murder in the name of morality – these are just some elements of the dystopian future that awaits us if we do not act to stop it.

14. You've discussed the "battle for the brain" as a key aspect of current conflicts. What exactly does this entail, and why do you consider it so important?

Ever since Winston Churchill declared in 1943 that “The empires of the future are the empires of the mind,” it was clear that social control was to be maintained, not so much by physical threat and coercion, but, rather, through psychological means.

The insidious power of propaganda, psychological operations, behavioural psychology, etc. to condition human perception, cognition, and behaviour cannot be underestimated.

Nevertheless, novel 21st-century technologies are opening up frightening new possibilities for mind control by engaging directly with the brain.

In the context of the Omniwar, we must take seriously Pentagon neuroscience adviser James Giordano’s claim that the brain will be the 21st-century battlescape.

Attacks on the brain through electromagnetic warfare have a long history, as do military intelligence projects to develop brain-computer interfaces. We also know about NATO’s cognitive warfare doctrine (2020).

Since 2013, the US Brain Initiative, the EU’s Human Brain Project, and other similar projects transnationally have seen huge amounts of money flow into brain technology research. A key aim seems to be syringe-injectable nanotechnologies that can cross the blood-brain barrier. It is unclear how far along this path the technology currently is, but the agenda is clear enough.

If it becomes possible to influence the brain via a combination of such technologies and acoustic, magnetic, and/or electrical frequencies, then the evil potential of weaponised neurotechnology knows no bounds. It could be used to alter cognition, induce debility, or even cause death.

Whereas around a fifth of the population seems to be immune to psychological operations of various kinds, it is not clear that anyone could resist a successful neurological attack.

15. What are you currently focused on in your research, and how can interested readers follow and support your work?

I always have multiple projects on the go at once. Right now, I am working on creating a video presentation to convey the ideas in Chapter 2 of my Wall Street book to a wider audience. I think that this is one of the most important, but least recognized, parts of my research.

Volume 2 of the Covid book continues to progress behind the scenes, but it is a big project, and many other things keep coming up.

Similarly, I have most of a book-length series on the woes of academia written and ready to go. I thought I would publish it last autumn, but other projects have taken priority.

Iain Davis and I intend to do a multi-part series together on the Manchester Arena incident.

I would like to get my Covid book translated into other languages. The simplest way would probably be to use A.I. and to get native speakers to edit the translations. If anyone is able to help with this, please get in touch.

Interested readers can follow my work on Substack here.

Those who wish to support my work financially can find a range of support options at https://davidahughes.net/support.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.