Interview with Rusere Shoniwa

On Election Systems, Fluoride, Eugenics, Geoengineering, Digital ID and much more.

I recently discovered Rusere’s work and immediately felt a connection.

I’m thrilled that he agreed to this interview, as it provides the perfect opportunity to spotlight his work. This conversation was enriching for me, and I’m confident you’ll find it equally valuable.

With thanks to Rusere Shoniwa.

---

---

1. Rusere, can you please share your background and what inspired your journey into exploring controversial and complex topics like public health policies, election systems, and geoengineering?

I have a background in finance, specialising in financial reporting, which is the process of compiling and presenting financial statements for public consumption. I started out as an audit specialist and spent the first half of my career looking for errors and fraud, so I’ve always regarded scepticism as healthy and necessary.

It was clear before Covid that the world was pretty rotten, but I hadn’t appreciated the full extent of the rot. When the 2020 lockdowns imprisoned the world, most of humanity joined a cult, while a small but sizeable minority remained calm and questioned things. I, like most others who read the sort of content that you and I offer, was part of the questioning minority. As it became clearer that a colossal and planned crime was being committed, and that ‘mistakes’ were not being made, I decided to channel my fury into writing, exploring and understanding. I realised that so many people and institutions I had held in high esteem were either malevolent, or simply not as intelligent as I had assumed, and often both. It was also clear that anyone who was concerned and able to communicate was qualified to offer credible counternarratives to the prevailing lies and propaganda. So I did!

2. Your work spans various themes, from geoengineering to fluoride in drinking water and election systems. How do you choose the topics you investigate?

The criteria I use for delving into something is the same criteria we should use to select a job or any other activity that is going to occupy your waking hours. It’s the intersection of interest and aptitude. On the subject of aptitude, I do not necessarily regard expertise as a prerequisite since I write to learn. One needs to be willing to do research, and have a nose for assessing the evidentiary power of information to support credible theories. So I write about a wide range of issues. If it seems that a massive lie is being propagated, and that understanding it better will shed light on the bigger picture, I will pursue anything of interest.

I don’t think I want to be an expert in any particular field, partly because life would become uninteresting very quickly, but also because being an expert increases the risk of losing sight of the big picture. Covering a lot of issues might allow a pattern to emerge which is harder to discern when focusing on one area.

3. In your analysis of election systems, you’ve highlighted the illusion of choice in modern democracies. How does this impact public engagement with governance?

Illusion, as we know, is the magician’s primary tool. The magicians in Western politics are the money powers, and the plutocrats who really run the show. The most apt catch-all I have come across for these vested corporate and financial interests is: the Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital (OCGFC). In a more recent piece I wrote, I called them the Plantation Owners, which is an allegorical reference to liberal democracy. The plantation theme was developed by Larken Rose in his 2023 movie Jones Plantation. The plantation owning class of yesterday has morphed into today’s modern plutocracy whose tentacles are wrapped around all major government and international policy-making institutions in the West, and indeed the world.

Crucially, Big Finance and Big Business are also intertwined with the military industrial complex and the intelligence apparatus in the West. The precursors to the CIA, from their inception, were in fact projections of Wall Street power. The CIA at its core is a criminal joint venture operation between Wall Street and the military, and its power extends into government and the uniparty system. Of course, the shorthand for the projection of this web of power into government is the Deep State, and this is where power really resides in Western ‘democracies’. The West’s Deep State is transnational by virtue of the NATO alliance and established partnerships such as the 5 eyes intelligence network.

I’m pretty sure this is all common knowledge to your readers, but I state it because your question refers to the illusion of choice in modern democracies, when in fact the primary illusion is that of modern ‘democracy’ itself. Mesmerising the voter with the election ritual is a smokescreen to mask this primary illusion. So we have an illusion within an illusion, and this hall of mirrors called ‘liberal democracy’ underpins the most sophisticated organised crime syndicate in history.

The two political parties presented to the voting public are so obviously devoted to managing the vested interests of the OCGFC, and identity politics is weaponised to goad voters into ripping each other’s throats out over issues that the magician couldn’t care less about, like critical race theory, or issues that are deliberately thrown into the fire purely to exploit division and advance control agendas, like immigration. Core issues that matter to the controllers are successfully advanced by marketing them differently to each group. When the blue team is in power, the digital ID agenda is sold as a way to control ‘hate speech’. When the red team is in power, it’s sold as a way to control illegal immigrants. Digital ID gets advanced no matter who’s in the driving seat.

In the meantime, astronomical debt levels, money printing to fund criminally insane wars and a colossal asset grab by the oligarchy, as well as impoverishment by inflation and de-industrialisation – these issues all hum along in the background like bad elevator music. They’re not up for discussion in any meaningful way and, in any case, both sides of the uniparty have exactly the same positions on these issues.

This is how the US and UK plutocracies were able to stage elections in which a bunch of Blue rabid Zionist Technocrats were pitted against a bunch of Red rabid Zionist technocrats. Funnily enough, a bunch of rabid Zionist technocrats won. Even funnier is that the blue voters were unhappy and the red ones were ecstatic. To be fair, many voters knew this wasn’t much of a choice but convinced themselves that they had to choose between the lesser of two evils. That too is part of the diabolical genius of the system. The actors on stage are crude caricatures of everything that the other side detests. If you’ve been emotionally sucked into the cultural war, but know that both parties are corrupt, you’re going to feel compelled to vote if only to stop the evil character you hate from winning the game. It’s like nuclear deterrence. You’re not voting to achieve something positive. You’re voting because you believe that if the other side gets in, they’ll kill you!

From the establishment’s perspective, a vital object of the game is to ensure that voters keep coming back to legitimise the charade. The risk to the establishment is that too many voters will simply refuse to vote. That would delegitimise the whole system, and the game would be up. For the deception to work, the ‘winners’ have to be made to feel that they got what they wanted and the losers have to be made to feel that they lost fair and square, so that they remain engaged and return to roll the dice once again.

There are signs in both the UK and the US that the game may be reaching the end of its shelf life. In the US, it all hinges on whether enough Republican voters will be savvy enough to realise that they’re being played, if or when Trump starts to deliver them into the jaws of Thiel’s digital gulag, which I believe he will. In the UK, nearly 3 million people have signed a petition calling for another general election. On the one hand, it’s disappointing that they still want to play the election game. On the other hand, they’re calling time on the government after only 5 months, so there’s a chance to accelerate the collapse of the fake voting system by accelerating the failure rate.

4. You describe fluoridation as a form of "forced medication." How do you address arguments from proponents who see it as a public health necessity?

We should first be clear on what a public health necessity is insofar as it affects our water supply. The remit of public health bodies in this regard is to provide clean, drinkable water. That is the necessity. Fluoride is not a necessity in the delivery of potable water, and no-one has claimed that it is. The fraudulent claim from the very beginning was that it prevents tooth decay. In other words, it was claimed to have a medicinal effect. That being the case, whether to ingest fluoride or not should have been a private matter between a patient and his or her doctor, with doctors either making a case for or against fluoride medication, and patients deciding whether they agreed with their doctors.

Instead, public health authorities made fraudulent claims about fluoride’s medicinal properties and, worse still, forced the public to ingest fluoride by inserting it in the public water supply. Even if it could be proven that fluoride was as beneficial as Vitamin D, no-one has the right to force a population to take it. The idea that the state has a right to enforce medication premised on a claimed benefit is an insidious form of authoritarianism. Its acceptance in so-called liberal democracies defies explanation and belief, especially when we consider that Nazi doctors were hanged after the Second World War for this crime.

In arguing with proponents of fluoride as a public health necessity, we need not get bogged down in scientific claims. The question is a simple one: does each individual have the right to decide what goes into their body? If not, we are slaves. Whether the substance is necessary for health is neither here nor there. After all, vitamin D is unquestionably necessary, but forcing it down our throats has never been on the public health authorities’ agenda. If you accept my earlier argument (in question 3 above) that government is a criminal enterprise, then its penchant for force-medicating us with fluoride instead of Vitamin D should tell you everything you need to know about the claimed benefits of fluoride! It is unquestionably a toxin, and I have written about the history of how this toxin got into our water supply. A recent court ruling in the US now confirms the toxicity of fluoride, after nearly 75 years of poisoning the public.

5. The history of fluoride’s use in public water is fraught with industrial and governmental influence. What does this teach us about the intersection of science and policy?

Your question strongly hints at the corruption of science by the government-corporate nexus, but it is worth repeating in order to understand how this corruption of science impacts policy. The growth of the corporatocracy over the last century (probably longer) has resulted in a takeover of government by that global corporatocracy. Science and technology were obviously key catalysts of the corporatocracy’s growth, and ensuring that science continued to serve the interests of capital was a no-brainer for the captains of finance and industry.

As I outlined in my main fluoride piece, US industrial titans in the early 20^th century saw the control of science as a commercial imperative and had begun funding large corporate research labs. These labs went on to play a crucial role in the development of the atomic bomb, which required gargantuan amounts of fluoride. The Mellon Institute was one such lab at the forefront of a grand corporate strategy to “get dominion over basic science, wrestle control of health information from labour groups, and in turn, reinvest that medical expertise in the hands of industry-anointed specialists.”¹

The controlling psychopathic drive of this ruling clique is to literally own The Science in order to put it to work in the service of profit, power and control. Science is not seen by the government-corporate nexus as a tool of ongoing exploration and discovery to benefit all of humanity. It is treated as a way to justify predetermined control and policy agendas. Thus, science becomes a pretext for political action. The obvious result of this corruption of science is that it is weaponised in policymaking. The Science is bought and paid for, and the results of that corruption are at least twofold: research money is funnelled into projects that satisfy the agendas of the funders, and the conclusions of ‘scientific’ studies have a strong tendency to align with preset agendas.

The covid-19 psychological operation and climate alarmism are two of the most prominent manifestations of this abysmal scientific corruption. It is no exaggeration to say that the pandemic and climate industries fuelled by corrupt science could play a key role in the end of humanity, not just because of the destruction that these industries will wreak on economies, nature and the human body, but because they are also the trojan horses for the implementation of technocratic feudalism. This is the stark reality of the intersection of corrupt science and government policy.

Putting aside endemic corruption, science should have a role to play in policy, but only as a tool and not the sole arbiter of all decision-making. Increasing Godlessness in the age of scientific materialism has elevated science into a new religion. This is patently ridiculous because science is a method for understanding the material world. It is a way of getting nearer to the truth. It is not THE truth, and was never supposed to be. The scientific method is premised on an intellectual effort to prove that a hypothesis is wrong. The scientist’s duty is to try to falsify the hypothesis. When we hold up a study to support a claim, and assuming the study is not flawed, we are saying, “This is what we know at this point in time.” When a hypotheses is proven wrong, a revision or scrapping of previous postulates is in order, and the search for answers continues. Science was, at its birth, accepted as inherently fallible precisely because it was understood to be a process of ongoing exploration. This is its strength, not its weakness. I wonder what science religionists would have to say about John Ioannides’ 2005 scientific (!) study which proved that most claimed research findings are false. Would they accept that they are worshipping a false idol?

6. In your view, how does the concept of consent apply not only to geoengineering but also to other large-scale governmental actions like mandatory vaccinations or lockdowns?

The whole concept of consent is underpinned by morality. Whether it’s geoengineering or anything else, I start with some simple questions.

Are we free sovereign human beings or are we cattle that can be sprayed, herded and injected at the whim of the ranch owner? Even if the decision appears to have been reached by a majority of my fellow citizens, they do not have the right to restrict my sovereignty and my right to be free. Arguments that my freedom impinges on theirs are always false, on both moral grounds and whatever scientific grounds are put forward. They are free to restrict their own movements or to inject themselves with whatever they wish if they believe their lives depend on it, but their safety is not conditional on the loss of my freedom of movement or sovereignty over my body. To suggest otherwise is to argue that it is right for one person to become another’s slave. In the examples you provide, the false logic is: I am concerned for my health, so I can imprison you, or inject you. At a psychological level this suggests a psychotic blurring of bodily boundaries, perhaps as a result of a breakdown in the process of individuation.

Should we be governed by Natural Law principles or a tyranny of either government or a majority? Freely given consent and the idea of personal freedom are not whacky ‘right-wing’ obsessions. They are universal design laws for human flourishing. Consent and voluntaryism are life affirming, while coercion is their opposite, and is inimical to life. Consent and voluntaryism align firmly with the law of love. Coercion is force. Force itself is borne of fear and signifies operating at a low level of consciousness. It leads to resentment, anger and rebellion. And rightly so, because we are designed to be free! The systematic use of coercion is clearly a sign of a low emotional and moral IQ. You cannot claim to be opposed to tyranny and also favour coercive policies since tyranny is coercion in one form or another. It’s really quite simple: you are either a tyrant who favours some degree of coercion, or you are in tune with human design laws that require consent for life to flourish.

I think it is vital to frame these issues in moral terms because ultimately, the battle we are in is a spiritual one. The crimes against humanity of geoengineering, mandatory vaccination and lockdowns have not occurred primarily because a tiny psychopathic ruling class have engineered these events, although that is true. These events have occurred primarily because societies have collectively acceded to the rule of a parasitic class. The surrender of our power to psychologically damaged parasites is a manifestation of psychological damage to societies at large. It is the direct result of a tilt towards being loveless, soulless, and anti-human. We have to fix ourselves if we are to fix the corrupt world we live in.

7. Your work critiques the concentration of power within systems like NATO and multinational corporations. How does this concentration affect global decision-making?

Not only have governments subordinated themselves to the concentrated power of the global corporatocracy, but that global corporatocracy has infiltrated global policy-making bodies that are unaccountable to national electorates, but which governments insist are the only means of solving so-called global problems. It would in fact be more accurate to say that global policy-making bodies such as the UN are not merely infiltrated by the OCGFC: they were set up by the global corporatocracy. The UN, as the successor to the failed League of Nations, was the brainchild of the Rockefeller Foundation, which acquired and donated the real estate for the UN headquarters. They expect a return on their investment, and the return is a global order run and owned by the OCGFC.

So the way it works is that the Bank for International Settlements, the UN, the WHO etc, determine policies based on ‘catastrophic’ global scenarios concocted by a complex network of international policy quangos funded by the global corporates operating under philanthropic-sounding banners. These policies are handed to national governments for implementation without any transparent scrutiny. The mere signing up by the government to membership of these global institutions is the pretext for legal acceptance of whatever diktat emanates from them. The government claims it is out of their hands – global problems, like climate change or pandemics, demand global solutions. This is how a global billionaire class is driving technocratic control agendas, like Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and Central Bank Digital Currencies, in your locality.

8. What do you believe is the most pressing issue today that exemplifies the themes of centralized control and public manipulation?

It’s difficult to prioritise a single issue out of the many traps that the controllers are building in tandem. If I said that I was most concerned about digital ID and information censorship, that might be misconstrued as a view that issues like Central Bank Digital Currencies or reducing diversity of the food supply are of secondary concern, which of course they aren’t. I think a conscious decision has been made to imprison us at pace, on the basis that overwhelming us with a multi-pronged assault is going to be more successful than a gradualist approach. They’ve been chipping away for well over a century, and desperation is starting to set in.

But I am becoming more concerned about the push towards a global digital ID system. This is really quite frightening. If it gains any sort of traction, digital ID will essentially work as a ‘licence’ to conduct online activity, whether that’s banking or simply accessing information. If governments succeed in enforcing the premise that everyone requires a digital ID, then that ID will become the lynchpin of surveillance and behaviour modification.

9. You’ve referenced the Hegelian dialectic in your work. How does this concept help explain the push for solutions like geoengineering or mandatory public health measures?

Climate alarmism makes the public more receptive to the idea that artificial solutions to global warming are necessary to avert so-called catastrophic climate change, including the barbarous idea that we should block the sun by spraying aluminium, barium and strontium into the atmosphere. I doubt very much whether senior-ranking controllers actually believe the ridiculous, overly simplistic CO2 narrative being pedalled. There is IPCC ‘science’ for public consumption, and then there is the more grown-up science that recognises the immense complexity of weather and climate systems, and acknowledges the many variables contributing to this complex dynamic system. I cannot accept that they aren’t fully aware of the latter, and I therefore don’t accept that they really believe that the atrocity of sun-dimming is necessary to ‘save the planet’.

That’s the cover story, but it still isn’t good enough to get people to accept solar radiation management because even an ardent believer in CO2-driven ‘catastrophic climate change’ would probably concede that poisoning the atmosphere with an array of heavy metals and other undisclosed materials is not a rational approach to managing the perceived risk. So governments are just doing it anyway, because they probably couldn’t get consent. On the one hand, there is a problem-reaction-solution dynamic at play, but on the other hand, the proposed fake solution is understood by the controllers to be so outrageous that they’re just forcing it through without any debate.

Conducting non-consensual experimentation on the population is a long-standing feature of military strategies and tactics. The only factor that changes over time is the technology they are testing. So what’s the real agenda behind geoengineering – the ‘solution’ part of the dialectic?

In the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) in which AI, data, the internet of things, the internet of bodies, and transhumanism all intersect in a profit-driven technocratic control system, it is entirely reasonable to speculate, as many others now have, that inserting these materials into the atmosphere is part of an experiment to alter our biology in ways that enhance human integration with an environment heavily polluted by electromagnetic frequencies. The entire ethos of data-driven technocracy entails a natural shift from population control at the macro level to micro control of the individual, which is more clinical and absolute. The insane thinking is that no one should be allowed to slip through the net. No one of course except the controllers at the top of the system. The 21^st century technocrat’s dream is to have each individual fully accounted for from cradle to grave, as a data point or node in the internet of bodies and things. For that to be achieved, each human must be automatically and remotely accessible to a control matrix.

The entire array of public health measures complements this objective. Mandatory health measures afford opportunities to make the individual’s bio-health record accessible to a central database, and to make the individual’s access to basic services conditional on up-to-date compliance with the latest medical experimentation being trialled to serve the 4IR agenda.

Zooming out a bit further on the whole problem-reaction-solution dynamic deployed to steer events in a certain direction, I think that the entire control agenda being unfurled now can be seen as a new iteration of a long-standing mind virus of the parasitic ruling class – eugenics. I don’t see eugenics as being rooted in a true desire for an ‘improved’ human. Rather, I believe it is rooted in the desire to exercise the power to decide who lives and who dies. Those who live will be the ones who provide a service to the ruling class, and those slated to die will be the ones who don’t provide a service – the ‘useless eaters’, to use the infamous phrase coined by World Economic Forum luminaries. At base, this has always been the underlying drive animating eugenics, and the only way this sickness will disappear is if the parasitic ruling class of psychopaths disappears, or if we put them in a proverbial pen where they can’t do any more harm. That means disempowering them.

We have seen more than a doubling in the human population over the last 75 years, and the ruling class is bound to react to this growth spurt with alarm and despondency. They have been overtaken by a feeling of complete loss of control over who lives and who dies, and they are re-asserting what they believe is their divine right to control the herd.

10. Finally, what are you currently focused on, and how can readers stay connected with your work or contribute to the discussions you’re fostering?

I want to do a piece on the global multipolar order that seems to be emerging. I believe that it’s a version of national election politics but at the global level, which then raises the question: who is the puppeteer? I’ve strongly hinted at that, but there seems to be quite a bit of resistance within the freedom movement to the answer, in spite of the evidence. So the challenge is to explain why.

I then want to explore whether Israel will fall as a state and be forced to undergo a reconstitution into a more sane entity, or whether it will succeed in its genocidal aims and wider domination in the Middle East.

All of my work is on Substack at:

---

1. Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 3, pg. 37