The Train - A metaphor for the current paradigm

Global Public Private Partnership Architecture

Does the situation today look to you like a war between the 1% and the 99%?

Do you think, "The 99% will win eventually because the truth will out and we'll all wake up and overthrow their minority numbers. We are the 99%!".

If so, I posit that you are wrong and delusional.

The 99% is not a community. It's a large amount of individuals who do not behave rationally, strategically or effectively for the interests of the 99%. They often behave irrationally, myopically, tribally and selfishly, and many are either too comfortable to act or just lazy. They are influenced in ways they are not fully aware of, by forces they don’t recognise. Within the 99% are intelligent, active, capable, caring resistance, but they are in a very small minority - fragmented, under-resourced and under-exposed. Yes, they coalesce into groups and teams and some organisations.

Ultimately, there is no overarching, unifying, strategic movement, force and plan for the future of global citizens. There's no such thing for the future of UK citizens.

But there is an overarching, unifying, strategic movement, force and plan for the future of global neofeudalism, and it takes into account fragmented resistance in multiple, overlapping and interlocking ways. The level of sophistication of The System is so high that it ingrains itself in the hearts and minds of the very individuals who seek to resist it by embedding, almost from birth, then maintaining throughout life the notion of the sovereign individual who pursues largely their own individualistic interests and is rewarded by The System for doing so. The system also totally avoids telling any citizen about itself. It leaves it to the citizen to first wonder whether there even is a system, then to set about trying to work out what it is or how it might manifest. The System, however, does have the confidence to openly present itself and its intent in myriad and even obvious ways.

We've had two years of “Covid”. This is neither over nor ending because it is not about a virus and some vaccines, per se. Nor is “this” a discrete event. “This” is a sentence in the Ongoing History of Mankind, which is an unfinished manuscript.

The System is adapting its tactics in the face of: pockets of resistance to Covid policies; leaked truths; legal hurdles and challenges; its Covid weapons' technical shortcomings. It remains on track for its strategic objectives and its entire strategic network is fully functional. The level of resilience in The System is extremely high and it can survive total, visible abject political failure in any territory because it was built to do so. Political failure is actually a tool of the The System that serves a purpose and can be used over and over again.

The level of political and power ignorance in the hoi polloi is in itself a major problem. Slaves who do not know they are slaves don't even want to be told they are slaves, even if the person telling them is also giving them a way to escape slavery.

The Global Public Private Partnership (G3P)

Below is a structural representation of one aspect of the 1%’s system of Full Spectrum Dominance, titled Global Public Private Partnership (G3P).

Does that look like a pretty patchy or a fairly all-encompassing system design?

Try mapping your life on to this structure. I suspect that most aspects of your life are touched and influenced by every entity on that plan, and you can probably tick off easily half of the 19 entities without even trying. You may be left wondering how the circular entities affect you, but look them up and scan their output, revisit your memories and the media you read and think again. “Build Back Better”.

Why did I refer to Full Spectrum Dominance? It’s a military term, after all:

The cumulative effect of dominance in the air, land, maritime, and space domains and information environment, which includes cyberspace, that permits the conduct of joint operations without effective opposition or prohibitive interference.

CIA Wikipedia: “Full Spectrum Dominance”, US DoD

Take that quote, sit in a high-backed chair and stroke your cat. Now think of how you’d control the planet without overtly having to shoot lots of people because that’s hard and dirty work and bullets are expensive (particularly when you account for the meat you need to employ to fire them). Your cat prefers to be stroked with soft, clean hands.

Can you maintain a manpower-heavy surveillance, army and police infrastructure whose focus is split, perhaps equally, between internal control and external defence? Just ask Chairman Mao. He worked as hard as anyone and he didn’t manage to escape his own borders. China under Mao didn’t manage to compete with the USA. The USA was constantly travelling and bombing the globe while battling the USSR and still came out on top, having even managed to kill two of its most famous brothers, internal civil leaders and other international leaders along the way.

Full Spectrum Dominance in civil society

A simple, conventional view of “the military” is that it is a national entity that exists to “defend” a nation from mostly external threats. If the term is broadened into “military security” then a conventional view of external “defence” and internal/external “security” naturally results. In this conventional view, Full Spectrum Dominance would make conventional sense. A military security system should, to some, be able to operate across all spectra - when competent authority deems it should - to fulfill its role. Should one’s “enemies” develop capabilities in another spectrum then, surely, one’s own military security should build capability there as well? Indeed, being ahead of the curve and dominating all spectra all of the time would be the mark of a dominant superpower.

But how would the concept of Full Spectrum Dominance come to apply in non-military terms in civil society? To pursue FSD in that arena would imply a desire to dominate civil society. Isn’t that just what Government does? It certainly defines what citizens can and cannot do and how, in many aspects of their lives. In business terms, is FSD even possible? Not if you think about market competition and anti-monopoly laws, which notionally set constraints on the dominance of a given entity. Or do they? What if you take a step back and consider things from a slightly more unifying and strategic perspective.

Back to the G3P diagram. What do you notice about the relative positioning of its layers? “Public” at the bottom. That’s us in there. Immediately above is “Policy Propagandists”, which is almost everything we read and watch, and is, according to that diagram, riddled with agents who act upon us but not for us. Weird. Next up, our government and its advisors labelled “Policy Enforcers”. Why does the diagram have effectively four extra layers above that?

Which of those superior layers are:

• Democratically elected;

• Publicly owned or accountable;

• Subject to law in a way that you understand;

• Tax payers at rates similar to the Public;

• Geographically or territorially constrained?

One more thing. In a Corporate Stranglehold on Global Citizens: Secret Supply Contracts I introduced the arbitration mechanism of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Try and fit that somewhere into the G3P diagram and consider what it means in terms of power.

So how is G3P doing so far in achieving Full Spectrum Dominance of civil society?

---

So what is G3P?

G3P is a modern, integrated, supranational command, control and resource acquisition and allocation structure. From the diagram it is apparent that national government simply is not the final arbiter or even originator of policy within its own territorial control nor outside it. This is actually self-evident simply from looking at UK Government websites detailing policy, its origins and its mechanics. But no members of the public look at these things because the Mail Online is far more entertaining and requires a much lower reading age thanks to the short sentences that interrupt massive pictures of people’s faces.

Two very brief, illustrative examples of UK Government policy follow.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

First, excerpts from Minister for Digital, Matt Hancock, addresses the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Fourth Industrial Revolution's (4IR) Autumn reception, 2017 (my bold).

Our task, in this building and around the world, is to make this technology, this change, work for humanity. And I’m profoundly confident we can. Because this technology is made by man, so it can be hewn to build a better future for mankind.

And I’m delighted to speak alongside so many impressive colleagues who really understand this, and alongside Professor Klaus Schwab who literally ‘wrote the book’ on the 4th Industrial Revolution. Your work, bringing together as you do all the best minds on the planet, has informed what we are doing, and I’m delighted to work with you.

Earlier this year, the ‘fourth industrial revolution’ was not a very well-known term – at least before it became a central topic at the World Economic Forum. It recently made its way into an item on BBC Breakfast television – this shows we’ve probably started to reach critical mass.

It’s a pleasure now to introduce the man who made the fourth industrial revolution a household phrase: Professor Klaus Schwab.

That’s a fraction of the whole speech. Let’s consider the bold:

• “…this technology is made by man, so it can be hewn to build a better future for mankind”. How was mankind’s genetic engineering technology used in Covid to build a “better future for mankind”? It created a virus, it was used to analyse that virus and keep busy many geneticists throughout a man-made pandemic. It has created a whole alternate ecosystem of economic interests, but it has not - in the case of Covid - benefited mankind overall, only a small subset of it.

• “Professor Klaus Schwab who literally ‘wrote the book’ on the 4th Industrial Revolution”. Hancock is backing and committing to implement a policy designed by Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum. This is a confirmation of the G3P structure. And Matty was delighted to be there with a ticket to the sit on Uncle Klaus’s knee at his 2017 London grotto extravaganza.

• “BBC Breakfast television… reach critical mass.”. Let’s put that in order from top down. WEF - UK Government - BBC - Public. Another confirmation of the G3P structure.

• “It’s a pleasure now to introduce the man who made the fourth industrial revolution a household phrase: Professor Klaus Schwab.”. Is the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” a phrase in your household?

Now, consider for yourself Hancock’s speech “Reimagining Policy-Making for the Fourth Industrial Revolution” delivered at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.

Can you imagine Matty’s sheer excitement to have a ticket to the children’s table at the 2018 WEF Dinner for People Who Know What They’re Doing? I bet he wet himself. I know I would. They do the best chicken dippers on the planet!

One thing from the speech I will highlight:

Firstly, Governments that put technology at the heart of all their interactions with citizens will thrive.

Matt Hancock MP, Minister DCMS

Why does Government need to thrive? Government is an entity. Governance is a process. Do citizens who pay taxes to the support the business of Government want a thriving Government entity (that they pay more and more for) or do they simply want a working, value-for-money governance process that protects their interests and allows citizens to thrive?

Introduction to UK digital health and care (DHaC)

Second, the landing page of the UK Government “Guidance on Digital Health and Care”:

Introduction to UK digital health and care
The National Health Service (NHS), the world’s largest integrated health system, employs over 1.7 million people and deals with over 1 million patients every 36 hours. It generates and manages vast amounts of data, providing significant innovative opportunities.
The UK is an attractive place for life sciences companies to grow.

Companies in the digital health and care sector can benefit from

• a tax structure that rewards innovation

• a world class science base

• a track record of life sciences excellence

• the people and facilities to develop your ideas all the way from inception to clinical trials

Numerous UK organisations give support, advice or useful information for each stage of the development life cycle for digital health and care products."

There is nothing in the above about citizen benefit. It is all about the size of the NHS and the amount of data it generates, and the opportunities and incentives it provides to other businesses. This landing page isn't even addressing the citizen in a way that explains how each of the following aspects could directly benefit a citizen.

Inherent in the above is the notion that data sucked from the NHS can be accessed and used by businesses to make money, and the UK Government is willing to let them do it and incentivise them to do so. What would be somewhat more equitable is if, at the same time as letting businesses run wild throughout the NHS, the UK Government actively educated citizens on what is going on and how. An example of abject failure (in representing citizens’ interests) in this regard was the practically giving of patient data to Google without patient knowledge or permission, and the intention to sell all of it en masse at rock bottom rates to any business with no return for citizens.

DHaC into G3P

Now, position this UK Government DHaC page into G3P. The public are the livestock filling the NHS and consuming treatment and generating data. There’s a business input opportunity (treatment) and an additional kickback opportunity (data) and, as long as the treatments are not cures, there’s repeat business in both. These business interests and their financing sit around the government box and extend above it. DHaC is a manifestation of the government enforcing policies (give business access to the NHS and The Public’s personal data) that were made by business and money (superior levels of G3P).

---

G3P through the eyes of a previous world leader

Consider all of the above through someone else’s lens:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).

Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

Mussolini on the Corporate State

---

The Train - A metaphor for the current paradigm

One group that is not in the G3P diagram but should be considered is allowed businesses. They are essentially business entities that are connected to, financed and therefore “owned” by elements of the top two layers of the G3P. These businesses may not look like Global Corporations or obvious extensions of the other entities, but money and investment return pathways make them such.

In the current paradigm, the 1% (Policy Makers, Distributors, Enforcers and Propagandists plus allowed businesses) is sitting in a super luxury, nearly indestructible train. All the seats are taken and the tickets were totally unaffordable to anyone who isn't already in the train.

The strategic trajectory is set and dominated by the 0.1% Policy Makers and Distributors, not the entire 1% of the whole G3P. The difference between the two - the 0.9% (Policy Enforcers and Propagandists plus allowed businesses) - are riding on the coat tails of and serving and entertaining the 0.1% Policy Makers and Distributors, who are the real strategic leadership.

G3P Policy Enforcers “drive” the train by pulling the levers and pressing the buttons, but all they actually do is marginally slow or speed up the train along its route. The drivers are engaged in pure theatre. They do not stop the train or affect its direction.

The direction of the train is determined by the tracks and the points, which are built and switched by the 0.1% on that train through means no one else has direct access to. The primary ingredients of the train tracks, points and network are money, power and influence. The secondary ingredients are physical resources like steel and then labour.

The train pulls a massive number of carts filled with resources including coal. Some enterprising, daring and/or desperate people have managed to jump onto those carts and pilfer some of the resources either for their use, or in the hope of finding rare diamonds in the coal. But they will never get into the train carriages or engine and most eventually get off, or are pushed off or killed or imprisoned by the guards. Meanwhile, the train rumbles along its tracks, passing the 99%, who watch it with open mouths, wishing they could get on it or affect it.

Points to consider:

• Initiating, somehow, the braking system on the train will trigger a massive braking distance. The train is so heavy it will takes decades to stop, in which time the brakes can be released or repaired by the 1% on board. Essentially, piecemeal action will not result in significantly large changes that mean enough to the collective interests of the 99% who still can't board the train to get to the resources. Even if they could, they would be massacred by the guards in the ensuing fight, some or all of the carts could be jettisoned and the train itself would still continue on because there are sufficient numbers of the 99% still willing to build tracks for some pay and reward and the points can still be switched.

• Interfering with the track building process is extremely difficult because the system and protocols for doing so are almost impenetrable and based on long-standing, known relationships with co-opted or vested interests. Moreover, track building requires literally massive resources that the 0.1% have on hand but the 99% would have to co-ordinate and muster over a long time with a lot of concerted crowdfunding. In short, building your own tracks in direct competition to the 0.1% is extremely difficult and the train is moving quickly.

• There remains one other way to affect the train. That is to blow the tracks. Doing so will certainly cost the 99% in time, effort and lives to some extent. It will also require some degree of risk in the process. But it will also result in anything from reform to paradigm shift as the train derails, ploughs into the undergrowth and takes out people and things along its length as its momentum dissipates. At that point, there is then a chance for the 99% to take control of the entire train and its cargo, or at least grab something worth having in the future. If the carriages and engine are damaged enough that there's a way in, then there's the chance for retribution in whatever form once the 1% become somehow accessible to the 99%.

For the literalists amongst you, this is not a parallel with violent rebellion, even though pockets of this are always occurring around the globe. “Blowing tracks” is a metaphor for intervening in and sufficiently, meaningfully changing the paradigm to something more in the wider interests of citizens. It is about effective asymmetric or leveraged actions or interventions in all channels and all forms that can change the relationship of the 99% to both the train and the 1% on board it. If your interpretation of this is literally about blowing things up then you will never be able to get ahead of the train and never be in a position to "blow the tracks" in the truly meant, broader and more abstract sense because this is a systemic problem.

In order to achieve this, particularly within the frame of Covid, you don't need all of the 99%. To try to actively recruit them would take forever. At first, you only need a sufficient, capable and motivated minority who understand how to fight out of that position and can operate strategically and tactically. Pockets of these people already exist. But does a unifying strategic plan exist that joins them? Are these resistance teams working #together (see www.togetherdeclaration.org) at the strategic international level?

The question of how the rest of the 99% are managed and guided, possibly educated, recruited and set to useful work in protecting their own interests to eventually get the best net outcomes from the derailed train is a whole other set of strategic and tactical objectives that should be worked on and executed in parallel.

The scale of the task is immense, when you consider it in encapsulating strategic terms because the level of global systems integration (the scale of G3P) is huge. Just look at the global financial crisis and the systemic effects of that, and how it was “fixed” (hint - it never was for citizens). That's how hard this problem is. But in no way does it make it impossible or not worth trying. It is a question of knowledge, motivation and will, above all else.

No matter what, the tracks aren't getting blown tomorrow. The train has way too much speed, weighs too much and the 99% are still highly fragmented, largely unaware and not strategically unified. Yet they face a strategically unified, maximally resourced, visionary foe that has the patience and ability to build and implement the G3P in plain sight of the 99%. Just what, exactly, have the 99% been looking at all these years?

The dirt. Eastenders. Football. Nuts Magazine. Strictly Come Dancing. Themselves. Facebook. Instagram. Tik Tok.

Meanwhile, G3P (which includes China) has been looking at the 99% in increasingly minute detail.

"We are the 99%!intera, we are a tiny fragment of the 99%. Whether we want to become an effective part of a bigger fragment of the 99% is a question we need to ask ourselves, then we need to ask, “How?”.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights