THE MEN IN BLACK AND HOW THEY OPERATE
Embedded Files
The Unseen Hand: How Global Control Operates
The Unseen Hand: How Global Control Operates
1 source
The provided text, identified as "ESSENTIAL READING — THE MEN IN BLACK AND HOW THEY OPERATE" from The Heist, asserts that democratic governments are largely impotent against powerful economic and political lobbies, preventing elected officials from fulfilling promises. It posits that a "technocratic takeover" has occurred, where unelected experts and financial institutions (like central banks) wield true power, overriding democratic processes through orchestrated crises (economic, health, environmental) and controlling vital "clearing mechanisms" in various sectors, from banking to media. This system, which originated with 19th-century London bankers, expanded globally through an "invisible college" of intellectuals and bureaucrats, even coordinating with Cold War adversaries, ultimately weaponizing virtue and fear to ensure public compliance and usher in a future of AI-driven surveillance and control, posing a significant threat to human autonomy and freedom.
welcome to the lenny and Maria sanchez deep dive podcast show.
Today, we're discussing the intricate ways in which powerful, organized private interests operate, often exceeding the influence of governments. These forces can restrain elected politicians, preventing them from fulfilling promises to voters because they simply lack the necessary power to cut across lobby group interests. It's suggested that Americans often blame elected officials for unkept promises, but the true limitation lies with these powerful interest groups.
Our source details how democracy can be systematically overridden, a process likened to "The Heist". A stark example provided is the swift removal of Liz Truss as UK Prime Minister in 2022, just 49 days after taking office. Her "fatal mistake" was attempting to implement tax cuts without the explicit permission of the Bank of England and its allies. Official statisticians and central bankers quickly declared her plan a danger to the economy, leading financial markets to react severely. The media amplified this panic, effectively forcing her out, despite the fact that economic indicators later deteriorated further under subsequent leadership without similar alarm, suggesting the issue was her disobedience rather than the numbers themselves.
This "playbook" was reportedly rehearsed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unelected health experts presented alarming computer models, compelling elected leaders to follow their recommendations or face public condemnation as "anti-science". The media fueled fear with constant updates, and any questioning of policies like lockdowns was branded as dangerous "misinformation". The core pattern involved an alleged crisis, experts seizing control, media-induced panic, the silencing of dissent, and the sidelining of democratic processes.
The source lays out a terrifying formula for overriding democracy:
First, create a crisis using complex computer models that are difficult for most people to understand but sound authoritative.
Second, declare that only experts can solve the crisis, insisting that normal democratic debate is too slow or "ignorant," thereby handing power to unelected technocrats based on their "data" and "expertise".
Third, sideline or remove any elected leaders who refuse to comply, using economic pressure, inflated statistics, or other means to signal that they are endangering the public.
Fourth, give the public a single approved narrative through media, drowning out alternative viewpoints by labeling them as dangerous misinformation and keeping everyone in a state of fear.
Finally, when the crisis passes, keep the new powers in place, normalizing the idea that unelected authorities make the decisions and setting the stage for the next crisis.
This represents a fundamental shift: in the past, experts advised, and elected officials decided, maintaining accountability to voters. Now, the roles have flipped, with experts deciding and politicians merely announcing decisions crafted by bureaucrats, central bankers, and international committees. This is described as the "death of representative government" disguised as "following the science" or "responsible governance". It raises critical questions about who truly governs if unelected officials can remove prime ministers or global health bureaucrats can override parliaments.
This system is not new; it's the result of a "200-year blueprint" that originated as a banking scheme in 19th-century Britain. The Bank of England established the Clearing House around 1800, which, while appearing to increase efficiency, made the central bank an indispensable middleman for all transactions. Any local bank that defied the Bank of England could be cut off from this clearing system, effectively putting them out of business. This established the principle of "own nothing, control everything".
This model was then replicated in the U.S. in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve System. Though presented as decentralized, the regional Federal Reserve banks answered to the Federal Reserve Board, allowing the central bank to control liquidity and enforce compliance. The model expanded globally with the founding of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in 1930, which became the "central bank of central banks". The BIS coordinates major central banks, allowing them to discipline nations by restricting credit or manipulating currency if a government pursues an independent economic path.
The consistent pattern observed is to create an appearance of decentralization while controlling critical clearing mechanisms behind the scenes. Crises are then used to enforce conformity, denying liquidity or freezing transactions to those who deviate. The illusion of autonomy is maintained while control expands, with each emergency justifying more central intervention that becomes permanent.
The alarming insight is that this banking architecture has been applied to nearly every sector of society:
In healthcare, medical boards, licensing authorities, and insurance billing act as "clearing houses," controlling doctors who stray from approved practices. During crises, hospitals not following central guidelines could lose accreditation or funding.
In science and academia, funding (government grants), peer-reviewed journals, and professional associations serve as chokepoints. Scientists whose work doesn't align with the "consensus" risk losing grants or publication, effectively ending their careers.
In media, despite numerous outlets, most are tied to advertising networks and tech platforms that act as clearing houses for attention and revenue. News organizations reporting contrarian views risk being cut off by advertisers or banned from platforms.
In business, credit and capital from banks, investors, and rating agencies push identical agendas, such as ESG scores. Non-compliant businesses may find their credit pulled or ratings downgraded, while international regulators favor giant corporations.
In essence, apparent independence on the surface conceals central control underneath, with compliance enforced by choking off access to essential systems. Liz Truss's experience is seen as the global financial system's "immune system" reacting to an unexpected input, using markets, data, and media hysteria as weapons to eliminate an anomaly.
The source argues that almost every institution we interact with is a branch of one "giant global clearing house". This means our bank, doctor, employer, kid's school, news, and social media are "quietly networked into central hubs of control". The 19th-century London bankers discovered a formula to make people think they are free while binding them into an "invisible web of obedience". What's described as most brilliant is that most people working within these institutions, from journalists to scientists to bankers, don't realize their environment is structured to reward conformity and punish independence.
The blueprint for this system took a significant leap forward in the 1960s when an "unlikely secret alliance" formed during the Cold War. U.S. President John F. Kennedy, after experiencing the Cuban Missile Crisis, grew wary of letting technocrats and computer models dictate complex policy decisions that affected millions. He pushed back against proposals to expand high-tech management systems, like Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS), beyond the Pentagon and resisted centralizing vast amounts of data under unelected analysts.
However, with Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963, this resistance at the top of the U.S. government "vanished". Within days, President Lyndon B. Johnson reversed JFK's directive to withdraw troops from Vietnam, escalating the war. By 1965, Johnson mandated PPBS across every federal agency, welcomed technocrats, and laid groundwork for domestic surveillance and information control. Significantly, Johnson also granted the Federal Reserve "direct access to vast streams of economic data and new powers to intervene," forming a partnership between central bankers and systems analysts.
Intriguingly, "nearly identical changes" unfolded in the Soviet Union. Following a trip by American banker David Rockefeller to meet Soviet leaders in 1964, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was abruptly removed, replaced by Alexei Kosygin and Leonid Brezhnev. By 1965, Kosygin unveiled the All-State Automated System (OGAS), essentially a Soviet equivalent of PPBS. Despite being ideological opposites, PPBS and OGAS were "nearly twins," relying on computers, mathematical models, and systems theory to replace local decision-making with centralized data collection and algorithmic direction. This parallel development was described as "not an accident; it was coordination".
This coordination occurred through an "invisible college"—an informal, international network of intellectuals, scientists, and bureaucrats who shared a common vision for the future. These individuals, who attended the same conferences and read each other's papers, formed a consensus on how to manage societies more "rationally". They spoke the "same language of cybernetics and systems theory" and believed experts with computers could run things more smoothly than politicians. This network facilitated the adoption of PPBS in America and OGAS in the USSR, allowing surface-level competition (capitalism vs. communism) while both adopted the same underlying model of centralized, expert-driven control.
By the late 1960s, a public relations problem arose for this emerging global managerial system: how to justify deeper international cooperation between rivals and gain public acceptance for top-down control. The solution was found in the environment. In 1969, American and Soviet officials began emphasizing the need for joint action on a global environmental crisis. This "strategic decision to use environmental issues as the public cover for the technocratic convergence" was effective because "who could oppose cleaner air and water?". Key milestones included the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Agreement on Environmental Protection and the United Nations Stockholm Conference. Most notably, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) was jointly created in 1972, bringing together East and West scientists to model global problems like environment, economy, and population, serving as a bridge for the "invisible college".
However, a "snag" arose when independent actors tried a different path. Chile, under President Salvador Allende in the early 1970s, embarked on Project Cybersyn, a computer-driven system similar to PPBS and OGAS. The crucial difference was that Cybersyn was "explicitly designed to empower workers and decentralise decision-making," aiming to increase democratic participation. This "third model" posed a threat to the emerging global order by offering an alternative way to achieve efficiency without sacrificing freedom or sovereignty. On September 11, 1973, Allende's government was overthrown in a CIA-backed military coup, and Project Cybersyn was swiftly destroyed. The engineers involved were jailed or exiled, seen as dangerous to the nascent global clearing system that disallowed autonomous paths.
The source suggests that the Cold War's end in 1989 wasn't a triumph of one system over another, but rather a convergence. By the late 1980s, both sides were "gravitating toward a similar techno-bureaucratic middle ground". When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russian industries were privatized and connected to Western interests, but the same experts continued to manage things, seamlessly transitioning into global institutions. The supposed victory of democracy over communism masked the "victory of the invisible college’s model over any remaining alternatives". In the West, with the Soviet threat gone, global institutions like the EU, WTO, and NATO expanded, further concentrating transnational power away from voters. The Cold War ended because elites on both sides realized they could rule more effectively together, standardizing the world through their shared blueprint of control.
Since the 1990s, the architects of this system have become less hidden, with evidence "right in front of us". Top figures from around the world attend the same elite conferences like the World Economic Forum, Munich Security Conference, and Bilderberg meetings, networking and coordinating global narratives behind closed doors. Major policy agendas, from banking regulations to pandemic response and climate policy, are "strikingly uniform" across countries, justified by the same "expert consensus". Large corporations and financial institutions use the same consulting firms and standards, pushing identical strategies globally. Concepts like "stakeholder capitalism" and "ESG metrics" are mainstreamed by the "invisible college's philosophy". Any non-conforming entity faces "unified punishment" such as sanctions, media smears, or coups. The "invisible college" is now dispersed across think tanks, boardrooms, government agencies, NGOs, and international organizations.
A crucial part of this system is making compliance feel morally righteous, turning it into a "test of virtue". The 1986 Venice Declaration, which stated that science should serve humanity's ethical goals, is seen as a turning point. This paved the way for a feedback loop where dire computer models (e.g., climate or virus predictions) create "absolute moral imperatives". These imperatives then guide what science and policy are allowed to do, with dissenting voices labeled as "unscientific or immoral outliers". A "scientific consensus" is said to "magically" form, validating the original model, with most participants unaware the process was engineered.
This strategy "weaponizes virtue," as people comply to feel "good," and anyone who resists can be painted as "bad". Society is then made to "police" itself, attacking those who question the plan. Examples include:
Public health: "Stay home, save lives" framed lockdowns as a moral duty, equating objections with wanting harm. Masks became a symbol of virtue, and questioning mandates meant not caring about others.
Environment: "Save the planet" is a moral call to arms. Disputing climate policy means being a "climate denier" who hates the Earth.
Social policy: Phrases like "if it saves even one life, it’s worth it" justify extreme measures, framing issues as moral tests where only agreement is allowed. People fear being seen as immoral, silencing debate.
The "carbon guilt trip" is highlighted as an instance where economics is disguised as ethics. Apocalyptic climate models lead to a moral imperative to cut emissions. Policies then create "artificial carbon scarcity" through permits, making everyday life contingent on buying into a carbon control system. Questioning this is branded as "evil," ensuring popular support for what is effectively "central planning in all but name".
This strategy is effective because it hijacks powerful emotional drivers: the need to belong and feel virtuous, along with fear and shame. Public discourse becomes toxic and polarized by design, framing every major issue as an "absolute moral struggle". For example, complying with health mandates is framed as "saving lives," while resisting is seen as "murder". This creates a mental switch where "Obeying authority = being good," and "Questioning authority = being evil". Even politicians comply to avoid being crucified as immoral by conditioned media and voters.
The COVID-19 pandemic is presented as a vivid example of this "playbook" in action. Models predicted millions of deaths, leading to the moral imperative of "Stay Home, Save Lives," which turned policy into a simple morality test. Social pressure led people to police each other, and Big Tech platforms censored "misinformation". The result was crushed small businesses, mental health issues, and loss of rights, while corporations and governments amassed wealth and power, with emergency measures becoming new baselines. The "moral narrative did most of the heavy lifting" in enforcing compliance.
The same structure is now applied to climate change. Predictions of irreversible damage lead to the moral imperative to "Protect the Earth". Social pressure pushes compliance, with children taught to judge parents' habits, and activists demanding adherence to the moral call. This results in increasing energy costs and regulations, centralizing more control to authorities who then deflect blame onto individuals for "harming the planet".
Traditional politics is seen as largely ineffective in fixing this because it operates on a stage controlled by this deeper system. Any politician pushing back is immediately framed as "morally suspect," causing half the population to tune them out. This "poisons" debate, ensuring that mainstream parties enforce the same core policies, as straying invites "character assassination". Outsider movements are either co-opted or crushed.
Despite this, hope exists by "breaking the spell". The "moral" spell only works as long as people believe in the authority casting it. The first step to freedom is recognizing that empathy and the desire to do good have been used as "chains". A system built on fear, manufactured guilt, and deception does not deserve obedience.
The source argues that 2020 and beyond marks a "victory lap" where the system is being used to its fullest extent. This involved the "simultaneous activation" of control across public health, economy, technology, social order, and information flow globally. It was a "globally coordinated script" that fundamentally changed billions of lives by "technocratic decree, in near-unison, justified by expert authority".
Behind this, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is accelerating the control grid, serving as the "ultimate manager's dream". The goal is to create "self-regulating humans within a self-regulating system where open dissent or non-compliance becomes nearly impossible". This trajectory includes:
Smart Cities: Where movement, energy, and consumption are tracked by AI, potentially restricting access if behavior is deemed "suboptimal".
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): Programmable money that could restrict purchases or impose fines based on AI observation of "unhealthy" or "naughty" behavior.
Social Credit and Digital IDs: Linking actions and transactions to a digital identity and using AI to rate compliance, making participation in society conditional on an AI-managed score.
Information Filters: AI tailoring information each person sees based on their profile, subtly editing reality and controlling access to knowledge.
Transhumanist Controls: The future possibility of melding humans with technology, blurring lines between thoughts and system suggestions.
The common theme is to remove human judgment and replace it with automated systems, even for enforcement. This leads to a world where human unpredictability is put into an "algorithmic box". However, the system is not yet invincible, as demonstrated by "glitches" and non-compliance in some areas.
The present moment is deemed a "final crossroads". Choosing compliance means a comfortable "gilded cage" as long as one stays within lines. Resistance, however, requires a fundamental mindset shift and "a thousand little actions". The future could see the elimination of cash, surveillance of every transaction, dwindling private car ownership, strangled independent media, and communities unable to sustain themselves off-grid. Mandatory wearable devices could mark dissenters as suspicious. At that stage, means of resistance would be severely limited, with dissenters cut off digitally. Therefore, "now is the time" to act, as the window of opportunity is closing fast.
Ways to "keep the spark of freedom alive" are suggested:
Stay Human in a Digital World: Refuse monitoring gadgets and apps, preserving offline and untrackable spaces.
Use Cash and Alternatives: Utilize cash for anonymity, support local businesses directly, and trade services or goods in person.
Build Parallel Systems: Engage in homeschooling, micro-schooling, or community-supported agriculture to reduce reliance on mainstream systems.
Decentralise Your Life: Cultivate multiple sources of information, diverse skills, and connections with varied mindsets to avoid single points of failure.
Peaceful Non-Compliance: Practice saying "No" to small intrusions, like scanning QR codes or filling optional surveys, to regain agency.
Support Truth-Tellers: Defend open debate and the principle of dissent, recognizing the courage it takes.
Reconnect with Real Community: Build trust with neighbors, have offline meetups, and help each other tangibly, as genuine community weakens fear-based messaging.
Hold the Line Locally: Engage with local officials, ask hard questions, demand transparency, and push back against technocratic policies dressed as "sustainability" or "safety".
Shine the Light: Increase awareness by talking to others, asking questions, and tracing decisions, as the system depends on darkness and silent consent.
These actions, while not instantly toppling the system, are crucial for preserving a "parallel society" of free-thinking individuals, acting as a "seed bank" for freedom. The architects of this order are betting on fear, convenience, and inertia. However, when they act so blatantly, "more people do wake up". The task now is to translate awareness into wise, peaceful, but firm action.
The ultimate stakes are "the future of the human species and its capacity for self-governance". Humanity had a glimpse of a different path—bottom-up, emergent order over top-down control. Now, a counterrevolution is advancing under technocratic jargon and moral rhetoric, seeking to convince us to relinquish our free will, privacy, unmediated relationships, and unfiltered thoughts for promises of safety and efficiency. Accepting this path could lead to future generations born into a digital control grid without knowing what was lost. However, recognizing what's happening and choosing differently means facing challenges with humanity intact, using tools as tools, experts as advisors, and cooperating globally without sacrificing local autonomy or personal freedom. The message is clear: "The cage has been built. They are trying to get us to love the cage before they lock it.". The call to action is to not believe it, to wake up, reach out, speak up, stand up, and challenge conformity, because "once the door closes, it might never open again".
thank you for listening to another session of the lenny and Maria sanchez deep dive podcast show produced and archived at the website daily briefs dot info.
This detailed briefing document summarizes the main themes and most important ideas presented in the provided source, "ESSENTIAL READING — THE MEN IN BLACK AND HOW THEY OPERATE," which draws heavily from an article by "The Heist." It includes direct quotes where appropriate to capture the original text's emphasis and tone.
Briefing Document: The "Men in Black" and the Erosion of Democracy
Briefing Document: The "Men in Black" and the Erosion of Democracy
Source: Excerpts from "ESSENTIAL READING — THE MEN IN BLACK AND HOW THEY OPERATE," featuring content from "The Heist" (July 18, 2025), and an introduction by Paul Craig Roberts.
Date: July 24, 2025 (as indicated in the source)
I. Executive Summary
This document details a pervasive and escalating system of global control, referred to metaphorically as "The Men in Black." It argues that true democratic governance has been subtly replaced by a technocratic elite, operating through interconnected networks that dictate policy across finance, health, science, media, and other societal sectors. The core mechanism is a "clearing-house" model, initially developed in banking, which enforces compliance by controlling essential access points (e.g., funding, accreditation, information channels). This system is propelled by manufactured crises, expert-driven narratives, and the "weaponization of virtue," coercing public consent through moralistic framing. The source contends that recent events, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic response, represent a "victory lap" for this system, accelerating towards an AI-driven, surveillance-based future where individual autonomy is severely limited. The document concludes with an urgent call for awareness and non-compliance to preserve human freedom.
II. Main Themes and Key Arguments
A. The "Men in Black" and Their Power Beyond Governments: The central premise is that unelected, organized private interests are more powerful than elected governments. Paul Craig Roberts attests "from personal experience to the general validity of the article’s explanation," stating that "governments, even if they intend to represent the public interest, are restrained by the power of economic and political lobbies." He concludes that "any politician’s promise that cuts across the interest of a lobby group cannot be kept." This power is not attributed to traditional conspiracy groups but to diffuse "organized private interests."
B. The "49-Day Coup" and the Playbook for Overriding Democracy: The ouster of UK Prime Minister Liz Truss is presented as a prime example of this system in action. Truss was "forced out" after "just 49 days in office" because "she tried to govern without asking permission from the real powers in charge." Her attempt to cut taxes was met with a coordinated response: official statisticians declaring crisis, central bankers deeming her plan "dangerous and irresponsible," financial markets "went haywire," and media amplifying panic. The source argues this was not about economic numbers but about a leader who "didn’t obey."
This event illustrates a repeatable "terrifying formula" for overriding democracy:
Create a crisis with computer models: "Predict a horrifying collapse – be it economic, medical, environmental – using complex simulations."
Declare that only experts can solve it: "Hand power to unelected technocrats because they have the ‘data’ and ‘expertise’."
Sideline or remove any elected leaders who won’t comply: "Crash the markets, inflate the case numbers, whatever it takes."
Give the public a single approved narrative through media: "Drown people in dire headlines... Label any alternative viewpoint as dangerous misinformation."
When the crisis passes, keep the new powers in place: "Normalise the idea that unelected authorities call the shots. Then wait for the next crisis and repeat the cycle."
C. The "Clearing House" Model: A 200-Year Blueprint for Control: The article traces the origin of this control system to 19th-century British banking. The Bank of England's "Clearing House" became an "indispensable middleman for every transaction," granting it "enormous power" over seemingly independent local banks. This model, summarized as "Own nothing. Control everything," was replicated in the U.S. with the Federal Reserve in 1913 and globally with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in 1930, becoming "the central bank of central banks."
The "pattern is always the same":
"Create the appearance of decentralisation."
"Control the critical clearing mechanisms behind the scenes."
"Use crises to enforce conformity."
"Maintain the illusion of autonomy while expanding control."
D. Expansion Beyond Finance: Total Societal Control: The "clearing-house" template has been applied to virtually every sector:
Healthcare: Medical boards, licensing, and insurance act as "clearing houses" that can cut off doctors who "stray from approved practice."
Science and Academia: Funding bodies, peer-reviewed journals, and professional associations control access, ensuring work aligns with the "consensus."
Media: Advertising networks and tech platforms act as "clearing houses for attention and revenue," forcing "ostensibly independent media voices [to] end up marching in lockstep narrative."
Business: Credit and capital providers, via ESG scores and other metrics, force compliance, leading to "independent businesses get[ting] folded into the same global corporate network, or they perish."
The source argues that "Almost every institution you interact with is now a branch of one giant global clearing house," creating "an invisible web of obedience."
E. The Cold War Convergence and the "Invisible College": The blueprint's global expansion is linked to a "secret alliance in the midst of the Cold War." President John F. Kennedy's resistance to "technocratic takeover of government" was conveniently removed with his assassination in 1963. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, "enthusiastically embraced the expansion of PPBS" (Planning-Programming-Budgeting System) across every federal agency.
Simultaneously, in the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev's removal in 1964 paved the way for a similar system, OGAS (All-State Automated System). The striking similarity between PPBS and OGAS, despite ideological differences, is presented as evidence of "coordination," not accident. This coordination was facilitated by an "invisible college"—an "international, informal network of intellectuals, scientists, and bureaucrats who shared a common vision for the future," transcending borders through shared ideas, conferences, and academic channels. This network "greased the wheels for PPBS in America and OGAS in the USSR."
F. The Environmental Cover Story and the Destruction of Alternatives: The source claims that "environmental issues" were strategically used as "the public cover for the technocratic convergence." Agreements like the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Environmental Protection Agreement and the founding of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in 1972 are cited as examples of this. The message was "A new age of global management was necessary to protect Earth."
Any independent alternatives were suppressed, as seen with Chile's Project Cybersyn under Salvador Allende in the early 1970s. This system, designed to "empower workers and decentralise decision-making," was swiftly and violently "destroyed" after the 1973 CIA-backed coup, because "An autonomous path was unacceptable." The Cold War's end is reinterpreted not as a victory of capitalism over communism, but as "the victory of the invisible college’s model over any remaining alternatives," with both sides gravitating towards "a similar techno-bureaucratic middle ground."
G. Weaponizing Virtue: Compliance as a Moral Duty: A critical development is the manipulation of human morality to secure compliance. The 1986 Venice Declaration, which asserted science must be guided by ethical goals, is presented as a turning point. This led to a "perfect trap":
"Make dire predictions using computer models."
"Declare that these predictions create an absolute moral imperative."
"Let the declared moral imperative guide what science and policy are allowed to do."
"Only fund and publicise work that supports the original doomsday model."
"Point to that manufactured consensus as proof the model was right."
This creates a "closed feedback loop" where "They think they’re ‘following the science’ and ‘doing the right thing’, unaware that the entire process was engineered from the start." The "weaponisation of virtue" means that "if they frame compliance as a moral choice, most people will comply eagerly," and "anyone who resists can be painted not just as wrong, but as bad." This applies to public health ("Stay home, save lives"), environment ("Save the planet"), and social policy, leading to a "toxic and polarised" public discourse. The example of "carbon guilt trip" is highlighted, where "They’ve invented a grand moral narrative (‘saving the climate’) to justify the creation of an expansive economic control grid."
H. The 2020 "Victory Lap" and the AI Endgame: The events of 2020 (the COVID-19 pandemic response) are described as the system's "victory lap," demonstrating "simultaneous activation" on a global scale across public health, economy, technology/surveillance, social order, and information flow. This was "a globally coordinated script," where "billions of people’s lives were fundamentally changed by technocratic decree, in near-unison, justified by expert authority."
This trajectory is leading towards an "AI Endgame," where AI is deployed to make the system "permanent." Future developments include:
Smart Cities: "Every movement is tracked by sensors and cameras feeding AI algorithms," potentially allowing automatic restrictions on behavior.
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): "Programmed" money that can "stop working for those purchases" if AI deems behavior "unhealthy" or "naughty."
Social Credit and Digital IDs: Linking "every action and transaction to a digital identity" to rate compliance, where stepping "out of line, and the system flags you in a millisecond."
Information Filters: AI tailoring "what each person sees based on their profile," leading to "your reality could be edited on the fly."
Transhumanist Controls: "Chips in brains, nanobots in bodies," blurring the line between human thoughts and system suggestions.
The ultimate goal is "to create self-regulating humans within a self-regulating system where open dissent or non-compliance becomes nearly impossible."
I. Call to Action: Resistance and Preserving Humanity: The document argues that "The cage has been built. They are trying to get us to love the cage before they lock it." It warns that once these systems are fully implemented (e.g., cashless society, restricted travel, controlled information), resistance will be "exponentially harder."
The "last choice" for individuals is whether to be "a willing participant in this managed hive, or... assert your humanity while you still can." Resistance requires a "fundamental mindset shift and a thousand little actions":
Stay Human in a Digital World: Refuse monitoring tech; preserve offline spaces.
Use Cash and Alternatives: Undermine financial surveillance.
Build Parallel Systems: Create independent communities and services.
Decentralise Your Life: Cultivate diverse skills, information, and connections.
Peaceful Non-Compliance: Practice saying "No" to small intrusions.
Support Truth-Tellers: Defend open debate and dissent.
Reconnect with Real Community: Build local trust and bonds.
Hold the Line Locally: Engage with local officials to push back.
Shine the Light: Promote awareness and understanding of the system.
The document concludes with a powerful plea to "Wake up, reach out, and decide what side of history you want to be on. Speak up, stand up, challenge conformity. Because once the door closes, it might never open again."
convert_to_textConvert to source
Here are 50 key takeaway points from the provided sources, formatted as requested:
I. The Restraint of Governments by Powerful Private Interests ESSENTIAL READING — THE MEN IN BLACK AND HOW THEY OPERATE Paul Craig Roberts You will see that governments, even if they intend to represent the public interest, are restrained by the power of economic and political lobbies.
The reason elected politicians don’t deliver on their promises to voters is they cannot.
II. Impotence of Politicians Against Lobby Groups The fact of the matter is that any politician’s promise that cuts across the interest of a lobby group cannot be kept.
Robert Kennedy cannot ban the Covid vaccines and glyphosate because Big Pharma and agri-business will not permit him.
III. The Heist as a Source on Stolen Democracy The article is from a source called The Heist.
It tells you who the Men in Black are, how they operate, and why they are more powerful than governments.
IV. Liz Truss's Ouster as a Case Study of Undermined Democracy Remember when Liz Truss got fired as UK Prime Minister for trying to cut taxes?
After just 49 days in office, party insiders pushed out the democratically elected Prime Minister and replaced her with someone more ‘acceptable’ to the financial powers-that-be.
V. The Orchestrated Nature of Truss's Removal Official statisticians suddenly declared Truss’s plan had triggered an economic crisis.
Financial markets — tightly intertwined with those same central banking networks — went haywire.
VI. The True Reason Behind Truss's Dismissal The problem was never really the numbers on a spreadsheet; the problem was a leader who didn’t obey.
She announced tax cuts without clearing them with the Bank of England and its friends.
VII. The COVID Pandemic as a Rehearsal for Control We’ve seen this playbook before — most recently during COVID.
The same core pattern from the Truss saga repeated: an alleged crisis, experts seizing control, media- induced panic, dissenters silenced, and democratic process tossed aside.
VIII. Overrule of Elected Governments by Unelected Authorities During COVID Unelected health experts built scary computer models predicting millions of deaths.
But somehow their expert opinions overruled every elected government on Earth simultaneously.
IX. The Repeatable Formula for Overriding Democracy: Crisis Creation Create a crisis with computer models.
Predict a horrifying collapse – be it economic, medical, environmental – using complex simulations that most people can’t understand but that sound authoritative.
X. The Repeatable Formula: Experts Seizing Control Declare that only experts can solve it.
Hand power to unelected technocrats because they have the ‘data’ and ‘expertise’.
XI. The Repeatable Formula: Sideline Non-Compliant Leaders If a politician tries to go against the experts or the narrative, crank up the pressure.
Crash the markets, inflate the case numbers, whatever it takes – send the signal that this leader is endangering the public.
XII. The Repeatable Formula: Controlled Media Narrative Give the public a single approved narrative through media.
Drown people in dire headlines and authoritative pronouncements.
XIII. The Repeatable Formula: Permanent Power Expansion After Crisis When the crisis passes, keep the new powers in place.
Normalise the idea that unelected authorities call the shots.
XIV. The Fundamental Shift in the Role of Experts In the past, experts advised and elected officials decided.
Now, experts decide and politicians obediently announce the decisions; the roles have flipped.
XV. The Death of Representative Government in Real-Time We are watching the death of representative government in real time.
The loss of democracy doesn’t come with tanks in the streets; it comes with technocrats on TV calmly explaining why they need more power.
XVI. The System's Question: Who Is Really in Charge? If unelected officials can remove an elected Prime Minister simply for proposing a tax cut, then who’s really running your country?
Because it’s looking an awful lot like the people you elected aren’t the ones in charge.
XVII. The 200-Year Blueprint of Technocratic Control The system that removed Liz Truss — and that now dominates almost every country on Earth — wasn’t invented yesterday.
Over two centuries, that scheme evolved into a global model for technocratic control.
XVIII. The Original Scam: London's Bankers and the Clearing House The Bank of England (Britain’s central bank) steps in with a ‘helpful’ solution around 1800: the Clearing House.
Instead of each bank individually moving money, all the banks agree to settle through the Bank of England.
XIX. The Bank of England's Indispensable Middleman Role The local banks appeared independent, yet the Bank of England became the indispensable middleman for every transaction.
Any local bank that defied the Bank of England could be cut off from the clearing system.
XX. The American Copy: Birth of the Federal Reserve After a series of financial panics, American bankers and politicians decided to ‘modernise’ the U.S. banking system.
They created the Federal Reserve System and sold it as a decentralised network.
XXI. The Federal Reserve's Control Over Banking The U.S. now had a central bank pulling strings in the background, able to create money, set interest rates, and, crucially, bail out or shut down banks at will by controlling the clearing of funds.
During any crisis the Fed could simply deny liquidity to any institution that bucked its wishes, forcing compliance.
XXII. The Global Expansion: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) In 1930, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) was founded in Switzerland.
It quickly morphed into something else: the central bank of central banks.
XXIII. The BIS as the Central Bank of Central Banks The BIS took the clearing-house concept and applied it to entire nations.
It became the secretive hub through which major central banks coordinate and settle transactions.
XXIV. The Constant Pattern of Centralized Control Create the appearance of decentralisation.
Control the critical clearing mechanisms behind the scenes.
XXV. The Extension of the Clearing House Model Beyond Banking What started as a banking architecture has now been applied to nearly every sector of society.
The key is to create dependency on a central clearing mechanism that you control, and you can dominate any field.
XXVI. Healthcare: Central Bureaucracy and Control Your local doctor or hospital feels independent, but behind them stand medical boards, licensing authorities, and insurance billing codes that all serve as ‘clearing houses’.
During a health ‘crisis’, hospitals that didn’t follow World Health Organisation or CDC guidelines could lose accreditation or funding.
XXVII. Science and Academia: Funding as a Chokepoint for Consensus Their funding and reputations are cleared through a few key chokepoints: government grants, peer- reviewed journals, professional associations.
If a scientist’s work doesn’t align with the ‘consensus’ set by bodies like the National Science Foundation, major journals, or the big funding foundations, their grants dry up and their papers don’t get published.
XXVIII. Media Control Through Financial and Platform Dependence Thousands of media outlets operate, yet nearly all are plugged into a few advertising networks and tech platforms that serve as clearing houses for attention and revenue.
If a news organisation reports something truly contrarian that threatens the system’s interests, they risk being cut off by advertisers, delisted by Google, or banned from social media.
XXIX. Business Control Through Credit, Capital, and Regulations A business that doesn’t comply might find its credit line pulled or its rating downgraded, making it hard to raise money.
International regulators coordinate rules that favor giant corporations and squeeze out unfavored players.
XXX. Compliance Enforced by Choking Access to Essential Systems Compliance is enforced not by overt dictatorship, but by choking off access to the systems every participant needs to survive.
Apparent independence on the surface, central control beneath.
XXXI. Liz Truss's Crime: Acting as a Genuine Head of Government She attempted to act like a genuine head of government, pursuing a policy (tax cuts) that her voters wanted.
Truss was crushed not by a flaw in her policy per se, but by the operating system of global finance reacting to an unexpected input.
XXXII. The Global Clearing House: A Pervasive Network of Control Almost every institution you interact with is now a branch of one giant global clearing house.
Your bank, your doctor, your employer, your kid’s school, the news you read, the social media you use — all of it is quietly networked into central hubs of control.
XXXIII. The Hidden Nature of the Control System for Most Participants Most of the people working within these institutions don’t even realise it.
Each of them fails to see how their entire environment has been structured to reward conformity and punish true independence.
XXXIV. The Critical Moment: Global Convergence in the 1960s That changed in the 1960s, when a series of quiet moves ensured that even rival superpowers would implement the same technocratic system.
This was the decade when the blueprint went truly global.
XXXV. President John F. Kennedy's Resistance to Technocratic Takeover Kennedy started questioning the wisdom of letting technocrats and computers dictate policy.
He was, in essence, saying no to the emerging technocratic takeover of government.
XXXVI. The Assassination of JFK and the Technocratic Agenda's Advancement On November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.
In that single moment, the resistance at the very top of the United States government vanished.
XXXVII. Lyndon B. Johnson's Embrace of Technocratic Systems Within days, President Lyndon B. Johnson quietly reversed JFK’s directive to begin withdrawing American troops from Vietnam.
By 1965, he issued an executive order mandating PPBS across every federal agency.
XXXVIII. The Cold War Coincidence: Parallel System Implementations In 1964, at the peak of Cold War tensions, American banker David Rockefeller made a highly unusual trip behind the Iron Curtain to meet with Soviet leaders.
Just as in the U.S., a change at the top suddenly paved the way for a new technocratic direction.
XXXIX. The Striking Similarities Between PPBS and OGAS Despite capitalism and communism being mortal opposites, PPBS and OGAS were nearly twins.
Both aimed to replace slower, locally informed decision-making with centralised data collection and algorithmic direction.
XL. The Coordination Behind the Cold War Systems: Not an Accident What are the odds that the United States and the Soviet Union would independently reinvent their governments along such similar high-tech lines at the very same time?
This was not an accident; it was coordination.
XLI. The "Invisible College": An Informal Network of Technocrats In 1965, renowned economist Kenneth Boulding provided a clue.
He wrote about the emergence of what he called an ‘invisible college’ – an international, informal network of intellectuals, scientists, and bureaucrats who shared a common vision for the future.
XLII. The Invisible College's Shared Vision and Methods They spoke the same language of cybernetics and systems theory.
They shared the belief that experts armed with big computers could run things more smoothly than politicians or local administrators.
XLIII. Environmental Issues as a Public Cover for Technocratic Convergence This wasn’t a coincidence.
It was a strategic decision to use environmental issues as the public cover for the technocratic convergence.
XLIV. Key Milestones Solidifying Global Environmental Governance In 1972, U.S. President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin signed a landmark Agreement on Environmental Protection between the two countries.
Most tellingly, also in 1972, the U.S. and USSR jointly helped create the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
XLV. The Destruction of Project Cybersyn in Chile as an Alternative Under President Salvador Allende, Chile embarked on a bold experiment called Project Cybersyn.
On September 11, 1973, Allende’s government was overthrown in a military coup backed by the CIA.
XLVI. The Unacceptability of an Autonomous Technocratic Path An autonomous path was unacceptable.
Just as a local bank in 1850 couldn’t be allowed to bypass the Bank of England’s clearing house, a country in 1973 couldn’t be allowed to bypass the nascent global clearing system.
XLVII. The Cold War's True End: Convergence of Control Systems The two systems had already merged in practice.
Both sides were, in effect, gravitating toward a similar techno-bureaucratic middle ground.
XLVIII. The Victory of the Invisible College's Model The supposed victory of democracy over communism masked the real story: the victory of the invisible college’s model over any remaining alternatives.
With the Soviet threat gone, Western leaders eagerly expanded global institutions: the European Union grew, the World Trade Organisation was formed, NATO shifted from defense to ‘stability operations’, and so on.
XLIX. The Openness of the System's Architects Since the 1990s The same folks who built this system no longer have to hide it as much.
The evidence is right in front of us.
L. The Upcoming Phase: Full-Scale System Activation By the late 20th century, the blueprint for control was fully built and tested.
In the 2020s, that’s exactly what they began to do.
This detailed briefing document summarizes the main themes and most important ideas presented in the provided source, "ESSENTIAL READING — THE MEN IN BLACK AND HOW THEY OPERATE," which draws heavily from an article by "The Heist." It includes direct quotes where appropriate to capture the original text's emphasis and tone.
Briefing Document: The "Men in Black" and the Erosion of Democracy
Briefing Document: The "Men in Black" and the Erosion of Democracy
Source: Excerpts from "ESSENTIAL READING — THE MEN IN BLACK AND HOW THEY OPERATE," featuring content from "The Heist" (July 18, 2025), and an introduction by Paul Craig Roberts.
Date: July 24, 2025 (as indicated in the source)
I. Executive Summary
This document details a pervasive and escalating system of global control, referred to metaphorically as "The Men in Black." It argues that true democratic governance has been subtly replaced by a technocratic elite, operating through interconnected networks that dictate policy across finance, health, science, media, and other societal sectors. The core mechanism is a "clearing-house" model, initially developed in banking, which enforces compliance by controlling essential access points (e.g., funding, accreditation, information channels). This system is propelled by manufactured crises, expert-driven narratives, and the "weaponization of virtue," coercing public consent through moralistic framing. The source contends that recent events, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic response, represent a "victory lap" for this system, accelerating towards an AI-driven, surveillance-based future where individual autonomy is severely limited. The document concludes with an urgent call for awareness and non-compliance to preserve human freedom.
II. Main Themes and Key Arguments
A. The "Men in Black" and Their Power Beyond Governments: The central premise is that unelected, organized private interests are more powerful than elected governments. Paul Craig Roberts attests "from personal experience to the general validity of the article’s explanation," stating that "governments, even if they intend to represent the public interest, are restrained by the power of economic and political lobbies." He concludes that "any politician’s promise that cuts across the interest of a lobby group cannot be kept." This power is not attributed to traditional conspiracy groups but to diffuse "organized private interests."
B. The "49-Day Coup" and the Playbook for Overriding Democracy: The ouster of UK Prime Minister Liz Truss is presented as a prime example of this system in action. Truss was "forced out" after "just 49 days in office" because "she tried to govern without asking permission from the real powers in charge." Her attempt to cut taxes was met with a coordinated response: official statisticians declaring crisis, central bankers deeming her plan "dangerous and irresponsible," financial markets "went haywire," and media amplifying panic. The source argues this was not about economic numbers but about a leader who "didn’t obey."
This event illustrates a repeatable "terrifying formula" for overriding democracy:
Create a crisis with computer models: "Predict a horrifying collapse – be it economic, medical, environmental – using complex simulations."
Declare that only experts can solve it: "Hand power to unelected technocrats because they have the ‘data’ and ‘expertise’."
Sideline or remove any elected leaders who won’t comply: "Crash the markets, inflate the case numbers, whatever it takes."
Give the public a single approved narrative through media: "Drown people in dire headlines... Label any alternative viewpoint as dangerous misinformation."
When the crisis passes, keep the new powers in place: "Normalise the idea that unelected authorities call the shots. Then wait for the next crisis and repeat the cycle."
C. The "Clearing House" Model: A 200-Year Blueprint for Control: The article traces the origin of this control system to 19th-century British banking. The Bank of England's "Clearing House" became an "indispensable middleman for every transaction," granting it "enormous power" over seemingly independent local banks. This model, summarized as "Own nothing. Control everything," was replicated in the U.S. with the Federal Reserve in 1913 and globally with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in 1930, becoming "the central bank of central banks."
The "pattern is always the same":
"Create the appearance of decentralisation."
"Control the critical clearing mechanisms behind the scenes."
"Use crises to enforce conformity."
"Maintain the illusion of autonomy while expanding control."
D. Expansion Beyond Finance: Total Societal Control: The "clearing-house" template has been applied to virtually every sector:
Healthcare: Medical boards, licensing, and insurance act as "clearing houses" that can cut off doctors who "stray from approved practice."
Science and Academia: Funding bodies, peer-reviewed journals, and professional associations control access, ensuring work aligns with the "consensus."
Media: Advertising networks and tech platforms act as "clearing houses for attention and revenue," forcing "ostensibly independent media voices [to] end up marching in lockstep narrative."
Business: Credit and capital providers, via ESG scores and other metrics, force compliance, leading to "independent businesses get[ting] folded into the same global corporate network, or they perish."
The source argues that "Almost every institution you interact with is now a branch of one giant global clearing house," creating "an invisible web of obedience."
E. The Cold War Convergence and the "Invisible College": The blueprint's global expansion is linked to a "secret alliance in the midst of the Cold War." President John F. Kennedy's resistance to "technocratic takeover of government" was conveniently removed with his assassination in 1963. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, "enthusiastically embraced the expansion of PPBS" (Planning-Programming-Budgeting System) across every federal agency.
Simultaneously, in the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev's removal in 1964 paved the way for a similar system, OGAS (All-State Automated System). The striking similarity between PPBS and OGAS, despite ideological differences, is presented as evidence of "coordination," not accident. This coordination was facilitated by an "invisible college"—an "international, informal network of intellectuals, scientists, and bureaucrats who shared a common vision for the future," transcending borders through shared ideas, conferences, and academic channels. This network "greased the wheels for PPBS in America and OGAS in the USSR."
F. The Environmental Cover Story and the Destruction of Alternatives: The source claims that "environmental issues" were strategically used as "the public cover for the technocratic convergence." Agreements like the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Environmental Protection Agreement and the founding of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in 1972 are cited as examples of this. The message was "A new age of global management was necessary to protect Earth."
Any independent alternatives were suppressed, as seen with Chile's Project Cybersyn under Salvador Allende in the early 1970s. This system, designed to "empower workers and decentralise decision-making," was swiftly and violently "destroyed" after the 1973 CIA-backed coup, because "An autonomous path was unacceptable." The Cold War's end is reinterpreted not as a victory of capitalism over communism, but as "the victory of the invisible college’s model over any remaining alternatives," with both sides gravitating towards "a similar techno-bureaucratic middle ground."
G. Weaponizing Virtue: Compliance as a Moral Duty: A critical development is the manipulation of human morality to secure compliance. The 1986 Venice Declaration, which asserted science must be guided by ethical goals, is presented as a turning point. This led to a "perfect trap":
"Make dire predictions using computer models."
"Declare that these predictions create an absolute moral imperative."
"Let the declared moral imperative guide what science and policy are allowed to do."
"Only fund and publicise work that supports the original doomsday model."
"Point to that manufactured consensus as proof the model was right."
This creates a "closed feedback loop" where "They think they’re ‘following the science’ and ‘doing the right thing’, unaware that the entire process was engineered from the start." The "weaponisation of virtue" means that "if they frame compliance as a moral choice, most people will comply eagerly," and "anyone who resists can be painted not just as wrong, but as bad." This applies to public health ("Stay home, save lives"), environment ("Save the planet"), and social policy, leading to a "toxic and polarised" public discourse. The example of "carbon guilt trip" is highlighted, where "They’ve invented a grand moral narrative (‘saving the climate’) to justify the creation of an expansive economic control grid."
H. The 2020 "Victory Lap" and the AI Endgame: The events of 2020 (the COVID-19 pandemic response) are described as the system's "victory lap," demonstrating "simultaneous activation" on a global scale across public health, economy, technology/surveillance, social order, and information flow. This was "a globally coordinated script," where "billions of people’s lives were fundamentally changed by technocratic decree, in near-unison, justified by expert authority."
This trajectory is leading towards an "AI Endgame," where AI is deployed to make the system "permanent." Future developments include:
Smart Cities: "Every movement is tracked by sensors and cameras feeding AI algorithms," potentially allowing automatic restrictions on behavior.
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): "Programmed" money that can "stop working for those purchases" if AI deems behavior "unhealthy" or "naughty."
Social Credit and Digital IDs: Linking "every action and transaction to a digital identity" to rate compliance, where stepping "out of line, and the system flags you in a millisecond."
Information Filters: AI tailoring "what each person sees based on their profile," leading to "your reality could be edited on the fly."
Transhumanist Controls: "Chips in brains, nanobots in bodies," blurring the line between human thoughts and system suggestions.
The ultimate goal is "to create self-regulating humans within a self-regulating system where open dissent or non-compliance becomes nearly impossible."
I. Call to Action: Resistance and Preserving Humanity: The document argues that "The cage has been built. They are trying to get us to love the cage before they lock it." It warns that once these systems are fully implemented (e.g., cashless society, restricted travel, controlled information), resistance will be "exponentially harder."
The "last choice" for individuals is whether to be "a willing participant in this managed hive, or... assert your humanity while you still can." Resistance requires a "fundamental mindset shift and a thousand little actions":
Stay Human in a Digital World: Refuse monitoring tech; preserve offline spaces.
Use Cash and Alternatives: Undermine financial surveillance.
Build Parallel Systems: Create independent communities and services.
Decentralise Your Life: Cultivate diverse skills, information, and connections.
Peaceful Non-Compliance: Practice saying "No" to small intrusions.
Support Truth-Tellers: Defend open debate and dissent.
Reconnect with Real Community: Build local trust and bonds.
Hold the Line Locally: Engage with local officials to push back.
Shine the Light: Promote awareness and understanding of the system.
The document concludes with a powerful plea to "Wake up, reach out, and decide what side of history you want to be on. Speak up, stand up, challenge conformity. Because once the door closes, it might never open again."
welcome to the lenny and Maria sanchez deep dive podcast show.
Today, we're discussing the intricate ways in which powerful, organized private interests operate, often exceeding the influence of governments. These forces can restrain elected politicians, preventing them from fulfilling promises to voters because they simply lack the necessary power to cut across lobby group interests. It's suggested that Americans often blame elected officials for unkept promises, but the true limitation lies with these powerful interest groups.
Our source details how democracy can be systematically overridden, a process likened to "The Heist". A stark example provided is the swift removal of Liz Truss as UK Prime Minister in 2022, just 49 days after taking office. Her "fatal mistake" was attempting to implement tax cuts without the explicit permission of the Bank of England and its allies. Official statisticians and central bankers quickly declared her plan a danger to the economy, leading financial markets to react severely. The media amplified this panic, effectively forcing her out, despite the fact that economic indicators later deteriorated further under subsequent leadership without similar alarm, suggesting the issue was her disobedience rather than the numbers themselves.
This "playbook" was reportedly rehearsed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unelected health experts presented alarming computer models, compelling elected leaders to follow their recommendations or face public condemnation as "anti-science". The media fueled fear with constant updates, and any questioning of policies like lockdowns was branded as dangerous "misinformation". The core pattern involved an alleged crisis, experts seizing control, media-induced panic, the silencing of dissent, and the sidelining of democratic processes.
The source lays out a terrifying formula for overriding democracy:
First, create a crisis using complex computer models that are difficult for most people to understand but sound authoritative.
Second, declare that only experts can solve the crisis, insisting that normal democratic debate is too slow or "ignorant," thereby handing power to unelected technocrats based on their "data" and "expertise".
Third, sideline or remove any elected leaders who refuse to comply, using economic pressure, inflated statistics, or other means to signal that they are endangering the public.
Fourth, give the public a single approved narrative through media, drowning out alternative viewpoints by labeling them as dangerous misinformation and keeping everyone in a state of fear.
Finally, when the crisis passes, keep the new powers in place, normalizing the idea that unelected authorities make the decisions and setting the stage for the next crisis.
This represents a fundamental shift: in the past, experts advised, and elected officials decided, maintaining accountability to voters. Now, the roles have flipped, with experts deciding and politicians merely announcing decisions crafted by bureaucrats, central bankers, and international committees. This is described as the "death of representative government" disguised as "following the science" or "responsible governance". It raises critical questions about who truly governs if unelected officials can remove prime ministers or global health bureaucrats can override parliaments.
This system is not new; it's the result of a "200-year blueprint" that originated as a banking scheme in 19th-century Britain. The Bank of England established the Clearing House around 1800, which, while appearing to increase efficiency, made the central bank an indispensable middleman for all transactions. Any local bank that defied the Bank of England could be cut off from this clearing system, effectively putting them out of business. This established the principle of "own nothing, control everything".
This model was then replicated in the U.S. in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve System. Though presented as decentralized, the regional Federal Reserve banks answered to the Federal Reserve Board, allowing the central bank to control liquidity and enforce compliance. The model expanded globally with the founding of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in 1930, which became the "central bank of central banks". The BIS coordinates major central banks, allowing them to discipline nations by restricting credit or manipulating currency if a government pursues an independent economic path.
The consistent pattern observed is to create an appearance of decentralization while controlling critical clearing mechanisms behind the scenes. Crises are then used to enforce conformity, denying liquidity or freezing transactions to those who deviate. The illusion of autonomy is maintained while control expands, with each emergency justifying more central intervention that becomes permanent.
The alarming insight is that this banking architecture has been applied to nearly every sector of society:
In healthcare, medical boards, licensing authorities, and insurance billing act as "clearing houses," controlling doctors who stray from approved practices. During crises, hospitals not following central guidelines could lose accreditation or funding.
In science and academia, funding (government grants), peer-reviewed journals, and professional associations serve as chokepoints. Scientists whose work doesn't align with the "consensus" risk losing grants or publication, effectively ending their careers.
In media, despite numerous outlets, most are tied to advertising networks and tech platforms that act as clearing houses for attention and revenue. News organizations reporting contrarian views risk being cut off by advertisers or banned from platforms.
In business, credit and capital from banks, investors, and rating agencies push identical agendas, such as ESG scores. Non-compliant businesses may find their credit pulled or ratings downgraded, while international regulators favor giant corporations.
In essence, apparent independence on the surface conceals central control underneath, with compliance enforced by choking off access to essential systems. Liz Truss's experience is seen as the global financial system's "immune system" reacting to an unexpected input, using markets, data, and media hysteria as weapons to eliminate an anomaly.
The source argues that almost every institution we interact with is a branch of one "giant global clearing house". This means our bank, doctor, employer, kid's school, news, and social media are "quietly networked into central hubs of control". The 19th-century London bankers discovered a formula to make people think they are free while binding them into an "invisible web of obedience". What's described as most brilliant is that most people working within these institutions, from journalists to scientists to bankers, don't realize their environment is structured to reward conformity and punish independence.
The blueprint for this system took a significant leap forward in the 1960s when an "unlikely secret alliance" formed during the Cold War. U.S. President John F. Kennedy, after experiencing the Cuban Missile Crisis, grew wary of letting technocrats and computer models dictate complex policy decisions that affected millions. He pushed back against proposals to expand high-tech management systems, like Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS), beyond the Pentagon and resisted centralizing vast amounts of data under unelected analysts.
However, with Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963, this resistance at the top of the U.S. government "vanished". Within days, President Lyndon B. Johnson reversed JFK's directive to withdraw troops from Vietnam, escalating the war. By 1965, Johnson mandated PPBS across every federal agency, welcomed technocrats, and laid groundwork for domestic surveillance and information control. Significantly, Johnson also granted the Federal Reserve "direct access to vast streams of economic data and new powers to intervene," forming a partnership between central bankers and systems analysts.
Intriguingly, "nearly identical changes" unfolded in the Soviet Union. Following a trip by American banker David Rockefeller to meet Soviet leaders in 1964, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was abruptly removed, replaced by Alexei Kosygin and Leonid Brezhnev. By 1965, Kosygin unveiled the All-State Automated System (OGAS), essentially a Soviet equivalent of PPBS. Despite being ideological opposites, PPBS and OGAS were "nearly twins," relying on computers, mathematical models, and systems theory to replace local decision-making with centralized data collection and algorithmic direction. This parallel development was described as "not an accident; it was coordination".
This coordination occurred through an "invisible college"—an informal, international network of intellectuals, scientists, and bureaucrats who shared a common vision for the future. These individuals, who attended the same conferences and read each other's papers, formed a consensus on how to manage societies more "rationally". They spoke the "same language of cybernetics and systems theory" and believed experts with computers could run things more smoothly than politicians. This network facilitated the adoption of PPBS in America and OGAS in the USSR, allowing surface-level competition (capitalism vs. communism) while both adopted the same underlying model of centralized, expert-driven control.
By the late 1960s, a public relations problem arose for this emerging global managerial system: how to justify deeper international cooperation between rivals and gain public acceptance for top-down control. The solution was found in the environment. In 1969, American and Soviet officials began emphasizing the need for joint action on a global environmental crisis. This "strategic decision to use environmental issues as the public cover for the technocratic convergence" was effective because "who could oppose cleaner air and water?". Key milestones included the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Agreement on Environmental Protection and the United Nations Stockholm Conference. Most notably, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) was jointly created in 1972, bringing together East and West scientists to model global problems like environment, economy, and population, serving as a bridge for the "invisible college".
However, a "snag" arose when independent actors tried a different path. Chile, under President Salvador Allende in the early 1970s, embarked on Project Cybersyn, a computer-driven system similar to PPBS and OGAS. The crucial difference was that Cybersyn was "explicitly designed to empower workers and decentralise decision-making," aiming to increase democratic participation. This "third model" posed a threat to the emerging global order by offering an alternative way to achieve efficiency without sacrificing freedom or sovereignty. On September 11, 1973, Allende's government was overthrown in a CIA-backed military coup, and Project Cybersyn was swiftly destroyed. The engineers involved were jailed or exiled, seen as dangerous to the nascent global clearing system that disallowed autonomous paths.
The source suggests that the Cold War's end in 1989 wasn't a triumph of one system over another, but rather a convergence. By the late 1980s, both sides were "gravitating toward a similar techno-bureaucratic middle ground". When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russian industries were privatized and connected to Western interests, but the same experts continued to manage things, seamlessly transitioning into global institutions. The supposed victory of democracy over communism masked the "victory of the invisible college’s model over any remaining alternatives". In the West, with the Soviet threat gone, global institutions like the EU, WTO, and NATO expanded, further concentrating transnational power away from voters. The Cold War ended because elites on both sides realized they could rule more effectively together, standardizing the world through their shared blueprint of control.
Since the 1990s, the architects of this system have become less hidden, with evidence "right in front of us". Top figures from around the world attend the same elite conferences like the World Economic Forum, Munich Security Conference, and Bilderberg meetings, networking and coordinating global narratives behind closed doors. Major policy agendas, from banking regulations to pandemic response and climate policy, are "strikingly uniform" across countries, justified by the same "expert consensus". Large corporations and financial institutions use the same consulting firms and standards, pushing identical strategies globally. Concepts like "stakeholder capitalism" and "ESG metrics" are mainstreamed by the "invisible college's philosophy". Any non-conforming entity faces "unified punishment" such as sanctions, media smears, or coups. The "invisible college" is now dispersed across think tanks, boardrooms, government agencies, NGOs, and international organizations.
A crucial part of this system is making compliance feel morally righteous, turning it into a "test of virtue". The 1986 Venice Declaration, which stated that science should serve humanity's ethical goals, is seen as a turning point. This paved the way for a feedback loop where dire computer models (e.g., climate or virus predictions) create "absolute moral imperatives". These imperatives then guide what science and policy are allowed to do, with dissenting voices labeled as "unscientific or immoral outliers". A "scientific consensus" is said to "magically" form, validating the original model, with most participants unaware the process was engineered.
This strategy "weaponizes virtue," as people comply to feel "good," and anyone who resists can be painted as "bad". Society is then made to "police" itself, attacking those who question the plan. Examples include:
Public health: "Stay home, save lives" framed lockdowns as a moral duty, equating objections with wanting harm. Masks became a symbol of virtue, and questioning mandates meant not caring about others.
Environment: "Save the planet" is a moral call to arms. Disputing climate policy means being a "climate denier" who hates the Earth.
Social policy: Phrases like "if it saves even one life, it’s worth it" justify extreme measures, framing issues as moral tests where only agreement is allowed. People fear being seen as immoral, silencing debate.
The "carbon guilt trip" is highlighted as an instance where economics is disguised as ethics. Apocalyptic climate models lead to a moral imperative to cut emissions. Policies then create "artificial carbon scarcity" through permits, making everyday life contingent on buying into a carbon control system. Questioning this is branded as "evil," ensuring popular support for what is effectively "central planning in all but name".
This strategy is effective because it hijacks powerful emotional drivers: the need to belong and feel virtuous, along with fear and shame. Public discourse becomes toxic and polarized by design, framing every major issue as an "absolute moral struggle". For example, complying with health mandates is framed as "saving lives," while resisting is seen as "murder". This creates a mental switch where "Obeying authority = being good," and "Questioning authority = being evil". Even politicians comply to avoid being crucified as immoral by conditioned media and voters.
The COVID-19 pandemic is presented as a vivid example of this "playbook" in action. Models predicted millions of deaths, leading to the moral imperative of "Stay Home, Save Lives," which turned policy into a simple morality test. Social pressure led people to police each other, and Big Tech platforms censored "misinformation". The result was crushed small businesses, mental health issues, and loss of rights, while corporations and governments amassed wealth and power, with emergency measures becoming new baselines. The "moral narrative did most of the heavy lifting" in enforcing compliance.
The same structure is now applied to climate change. Predictions of irreversible damage lead to the moral imperative to "Protect the Earth". Social pressure pushes compliance, with children taught to judge parents' habits, and activists demanding adherence to the moral call. This results in increasing energy costs and regulations, centralizing more control to authorities who then deflect blame onto individuals for "harming the planet".
Traditional politics is seen as largely ineffective in fixing this because it operates on a stage controlled by this deeper system. Any politician pushing back is immediately framed as "morally suspect," causing half the population to tune them out. This "poisons" debate, ensuring that mainstream parties enforce the same core policies, as straying invites "character assassination". Outsider movements are either co-opted or crushed.
Despite this, hope exists by "breaking the spell". The "moral" spell only works as long as people believe in the authority casting it. The first step to freedom is recognizing that empathy and the desire to do good have been used as "chains". A system built on fear, manufactured guilt, and deception does not deserve obedience.
The source argues that 2020 and beyond marks a "victory lap" where the system is being used to its fullest extent. This involved the "simultaneous activation" of control across public health, economy, technology, social order, and information flow globally. It was a "globally coordinated script" that fundamentally changed billions of lives by "technocratic decree, in near-unison, justified by expert authority".
Behind this, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is accelerating the control grid, serving as the "ultimate manager's dream". The goal is to create "self-regulating humans within a self-regulating system where open dissent or non-compliance becomes nearly impossible". This trajectory includes:
Smart Cities: Where movement, energy, and consumption are tracked by AI, potentially restricting access if behavior is deemed "suboptimal".
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): Programmable money that could restrict purchases or impose fines based on AI observation of "unhealthy" or "naughty" behavior.
Social Credit and Digital IDs: Linking actions and transactions to a digital identity and using AI to rate compliance, making participation in society conditional on an AI-managed score.
Information Filters: AI tailoring information each person sees based on their profile, subtly editing reality and controlling access to knowledge.
Transhumanist Controls: The future possibility of melding humans with technology, blurring lines between thoughts and system suggestions.
The common theme is to remove human judgment and replace it with automated systems, even for enforcement. This leads to a world where human unpredictability is put into an "algorithmic box". However, the system is not yet invincible, as demonstrated by "glitches" and non-compliance in some areas.
The present moment is deemed a "final crossroads". Choosing compliance means a comfortable "gilded cage" as long as one stays within lines. Resistance, however, requires a fundamental mindset shift and "a thousand little actions". The future could see the elimination of cash, surveillance of every transaction, dwindling private car ownership, strangled independent media, and communities unable to sustain themselves off-grid. Mandatory wearable devices could mark dissenters as suspicious. At that stage, means of resistance would be severely limited, with dissenters cut off digitally. Therefore, "now is the time" to act, as the window of opportunity is closing fast.
Ways to "keep the spark of freedom alive" are suggested:
Stay Human in a Digital World: Refuse monitoring gadgets and apps, preserving offline and untrackable spaces.
Use Cash and Alternatives: Utilize cash for anonymity, support local businesses directly, and trade services or goods in person.
Build Parallel Systems: Engage in homeschooling, micro-schooling, or community-supported agriculture to reduce reliance on mainstream systems.
Decentralise Your Life: Cultivate multiple sources of information, diverse skills, and connections with varied mindsets to avoid single points of failure.
Peaceful Non-Compliance: Practice saying "No" to small intrusions, like scanning QR codes or filling optional surveys, to regain agency.
Support Truth-Tellers: Defend open debate and the principle of dissent, recognizing the courage it takes.
Reconnect with Real Community: Build trust with neighbors, have offline meetups, and help each other tangibly, as genuine community weakens fear-based messaging.
Hold the Line Locally: Engage with local officials, ask hard questions, demand transparency, and push back against technocratic policies dressed as "sustainability" or "safety".
Shine the Light: Increase awareness by talking to others, asking questions, and tracing decisions, as the system depends on darkness and silent consent.
These actions, while not instantly toppling the system, are crucial for preserving a "parallel society" of free-thinking individuals, acting as a "seed bank" for freedom. The architects of this order are betting on fear, convenience, and inertia. However, when they act so blatantly, "more people do wake up". The task now is to translate awareness into wise, peaceful, but firm action.
The ultimate stakes are "the future of the human species and its capacity for self-governance". Humanity had a glimpse of a different path—bottom-up, emergent order over top-down control. Now, a counterrevolution is advancing under technocratic jargon and moral rhetoric, seeking to convince us to relinquish our free will, privacy, unmediated relationships, and unfiltered thoughts for promises of safety and efficiency. Accepting this path could lead to future generations born into a digital control grid without knowing what was lost. However, recognizing what's happening and choosing differently means facing challenges with humanity intact, using tools as tools, experts as advisors, and cooperating globally without sacrificing local autonomy or personal freedom. The message is clear: "The cage has been built. They are trying to get us to love the cage before they lock it.". The call to action is to not believe it, to wake up, reach out, speak up, stand up, and challenge conformity, because "once the door closes, it might never open again".
thank you for listening to another session of the lenny and Maria sanchez deep dive podcast show produced and archived at the website daily briefs dot info.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse