Atticus Fox

The Future of Food

In 2019, Sainsbury’s celebrated their 150 year anniversary by commissioning a report that imagines how the UK’s food systems could change over the next 150 years. Specifically, the report focuses on 3 points in the future: 2025, 2050 and 2169.

Here is the report so you can read for yourself:

http://www.department22.uk/uploads/2/2/2/7/22275778/future-of-food.pdf

We are now, in 2025, at the first of those future dates. Furthermore, the Establishment across the World are engaged in a war on farming. As such, I thought it would be a good idea to take a close look at this report and see what the powers-that-be have in mind for our food in the future.

Page 2: ‘Meat, as we know it today, could instead start to become a luxury product.’

Atticus: Yes, it has been clear for a number of years now that meat is being demonised for being somehow unsustainable. At the moment, govt policy is still at the ‘nudging’ stage but it won’t be long before policies are implemented that limit our ability to eat meat.

Page 2: ‘It’s likely that we’ll be consuming our key nutrients
through implants. While nutrition patches and drips could replace our day-to-day
intake.’

Atticus: I’m guessing that such ‘key nutrients’ will have been made in a factory.

Here’s the first food scenario, 2025:

Atticus: There are references to diet being used to manage illnesses which is good to see. However, such philosophy is entirely at odds with the direction of travel in society where medication is prescribed for every ailment. And it is at odds with the quote from page 2 about receiving our nutrients from implants.

Page 6: ‘According to scientists, diet is the single biggest way for people to reduce their environmental impact…’

Atticus: All scientists?

Page 6: ‘… with the rise of an ecologically aware new generation, driven by health concerns and environmental determination, vegetarians
(including vegans) look set to make up a quarter of British people in 2025, and flexitarians just under half of all UK consumers.’

Atticus: Massively misguided predictions which smacks of behavioural ‘nudging’.

Atticus: Page 6 is inconsistent in that it lauds how global ingredients have made UK diets more diverse yet it also tells us we should be buying sustainable local produce.

Page 7: Hydroponically grown plants, cultivated without soil, can be grown in spaces that would otherwise be unused –
underground tunnels, disused warehouses etc., offering new opportunities for urban food
growing. The technology is also twice as space efficient than conventional farming, requires fewer inputs of agrochemicals like pesticides and uses
significantly less water.
When powered by LED lights and renewable energy, the environmental and cost savings make it an attractive investment’

Atticus: What is the source of vitamins for plants grown in tunnels without soil or sunlight? I suspect that ‘agrochemicals’ will be used. Don’t worry, folks, these will be the ‘good’ agrochemicals! Note of the reference to ‘investment’! More on this later.

Page 7: ‘The consolidation of environmental footprinting
apps will also help make our food planet friendly in 2025 by providing much more clarity
to customers about the biggest impacts of our food… will provide accurate, tailored information to customers –
whether they be interested in carbon, calories or chemicals – cutting through the complexity and delivering personalised information. With all the
information in one place, making the right choices for the health of the planet will be far easier for both retailers and their consumers.

Atticus: No mention of taste or cost, it’s all about ‘making the right choices for the health of the Planet’. Isn’t it obvious that if you want to eat sustainably, you shouldn’t be eating advocadoes in the UK, nor should you be eating strawberries in January? Do you really need an app to tell you that?

Page 9: ‘Mushroom-based products, algae milk, seaweed caviar and insects are just some of the increasingly sophisticated options whetting investor appetite.’

Atticus: It’s odd that the report doesn’t refer to demand for these products from their customers. It’s all about the investors. Of course the investors are on board with the idea of making another gazillion pounds by cornering the market in a new product and then convincing us to use that product. I’m reminded of Billy Gates who invested heavily in fake meat and then heavily promoted how it is essential that we all switch to fake meat. However, only a few misguided saps were convinced by Billy and these fake meat products are now languishing in the Bargain Bin.

Bill Gates’ Fake Meat Company ‘Almost Worthless’ After Stock Plunges

Page 9: ‘…scientists are calling for a change in our diets and
the way we consume our protein.’

Atticus: All scientists?

Page 9: ‘Though there are more than 50,000 edible plants in the world, still nearly two-thirds of our food comes from just
four crops – wheat, maize, rice and soybean. According to the FAO, since the 1900s, some 75 per cent of plant genetic diversity has been lost as global markets favour genetically uniform, high-yielding varieties over indigenous varieties…’

Atticus: Supermarkets like Sainsbury’s are one of the main culprits pushing for uniformity and high yield!

Page 10: ‘…chefs such as Senegal-based Pierre Thiam and Danish star Rene Redzepi are
distinguishing themselves through novelty and
experimentation, finding culinary delights in unlikely places, seeking out ancient foods such as lichen or incorporating neglected grains such as fonio. This is helping open up new markets for forgotten crops

Atticus: Yes, that’s what chefs do in an attempt to make a name for themselves but I don’t understand how such niche, low yield food stuffs are going to be the foods of the future. Is Sainsbury’s hoping to increase the yields of these foods? Foods have normally been ‘forgotten’ for a reason.

Page 10: ‘Insect and algae protein sources represent a potential viable, sustainable and radically less
resource-intensive alternative to conventional livestock feed.’

Atticus: It won’t just be humans that will be expected to eat insects.

Page 10: ‘By 2025, it is likely we will feed ourselves, and potentially our livestock, a much broader range of planet-friendly proteins in the UK, in a way that helps mitigate deforestation, supports biodiversity and readdresses the balance of our diets.’

Atticus: how or why our diets need to be readdressed is not explained. The planet-friendly proteins are not flying off the shelves.

Page 11: ‘The idea of food-as-medicine has been around for some time. Medicine and diet, from the medieval period onwards, were seen as inseparable to ensure good health. This link was well known to our ancestors but was forgotten when medicine was professionalised outside the domestic setting.’

Atticus: This short paragraph was an unexpected truth amongst the marketing pitch. Are Sainsbury’s advocating to overthrow the Medical Industrial Complex?

Page 11: ‘…food businesses are beginning to support customers in making healthy choices, in addition to offering products such as bio-fortified foods with potential health benefits.’

So when report nentioned ‘food as nedicine’ on this same page, what they neant was ‘We will add medicine to your food’. I disagree with the practise of adding additives to food by way of making that food ‘healthier’. We passed through the stage of adding Folic acid to bread (2021) and are now at the point where known carcinogens – via Bovaer – are added to cattle feed in order to save the planet by making cows fart less (2024).

(Bovaer is a feed additive composed of silicon dioxide, propylene glycol, and the active ingredient 3-nitrooxypropanol). There has been talk of adding vaccines and other medical products to the food supply ‘for our own good’. These practises remove free choice and must stop.

Page 13: ‘By 2025… our palates, hungry for ‘ecological public health’, will become more and more adventurous in using food as a tool for environmental action.’

Atticus: Oh dear…someone let the office Graduate trainee write the copy.

Second future food scenario (2050):

‘…watch the meat being
printed out…Alongside cultured meat, she offers jellyfish, seaweed and algae…
At one end of the property is a farm, cultivating plants that will provide the growth serum in
which cells are developed… the giant meat-growing vats lead to small conveyor belt where the meat is “assembled” with 3D printing… The artisan factory has a number of its own robots and the only humans involved in the process walk between the belts performing quality control. Her customers really value the
complete transparency of the whole process. The whole process is visible to them, both digitally and physically…Julia receives an alert on her personal robot assistant that links her to real-time data about some marine stocks that are due to come in later that week. She will be able to prepare some customer offers, promoting
the ocean area the stock comes from and the fishermen who harvested it.’

Atticus: Sainsbury’s want you to believe that food production in 2050 will be performed in ‘artisan’ factories complete with ‘vats’ and ‘robots’ where customers can watch their meat being assembled and printed. This is delusional and deliberately misleading. These are industrial scale processes that will be owned by conglomerates yet Sainsbury’s would have you believe that fake meat production will be a cottage industry with an artisan factory in every village. You know, where the butcher’s used to be. Why will we know the name of the fisherman who catch our ‘marine stocks’ in 25 years time?

The report is making an increasingly dystopian food system seem appealing by adding contrived human elements to it.

Page 15: ‘But while ‘cultured meat’ has captured the imagination of some of the world’s food technology investors, in the eyes of the consumer, there are unanswered questions. How will plant-based ‘growth serum’ be free from allergens, and
how might this be labelled?’

Atticus: Another mention of investors! Those investors are doing all this for our benefit, don’t you know! Meanwhile, I don’t think labelling and allergens are the top priorities when it comes to eating chemical sludge that has been packed full of additives to approximate the taste and texture of meat.

Page 15: ‘The big shift in 2050 is predicted to come through
a concerted effort to change social norms and make such products appeal to consumers.’

Atticus: They’ve been trying behavioural nudging for a few years now and it hasn’t worked. I suspect that in the near future that ‘concerted effort’ will come in the form of sticks rather than carrots – i.e. meat taxes and carbon credits. Sainsbury’s won’t be giving the customers more of what they want. Instead, they’ll be giving customers what Sainsbury’s and the govt feel is good for the Planet.

Page 15:

‘This [the Big Shift, referenced above] will possibly involve a radical shift from perceiving
meat as innate to animals to perceiving cultured meat as a healthy and efficient protein tissue that is lab-grown, much in the same way we would brew beer.’

Atticus: Not a very good analogy. Humans didn’t create beer to taste like something else that already existed. The entire reason for the existence of fake meat is to look, feel and taste like an existing organic product. Plus, beer isn’t ‘lab-grown’.

Page 15: ‘That’s not to say we won’t have any meat from slaughtered animals, but it will no longer be the dominant form of meat.’

Atticus: Only the rich – Billy Gates, for example – and politicians will eat meat in the future (if the rich and the politicians get their way).

Page 16 ‘Hosting beautiful photography and graphic videos, interviews with visionary scientists, experts,
renowned chefs and critics, the design fiction platform aims to provoke discussion on the ethics, aesthetics and prospects of lab-grown meat, with a view to making a new food culture possible. It illustrates how by 2050, restaurants and retailers
will have perfected their in-vitro [scientist phrase meaning ‘outside a natural biological environment’] offerings with a playful creativity that tests the boundaries of our current ethics around meat.’

Atticus: Massive amounts of propaganda and marketing are incoming to convince us to eat something we don’t want to eat. There are lots of references to restaurants in Sainsbury’s ‘Future of Food’ report. However, I’ll make a prediction: if meat and fish become rare treats due to restrictions, most restaurants will close. People will not be as keen to spend time and money eating fake food.

Page 16: ‘By 2050, there is no doubt that this [fake meat] will be a genuine market competitor to farmed meat’

Atticus: Only if they thumb the scale by reducing accessibility to meat. Beyond Meat has shown that people would rather have the real thing than an inferior chemical imitator.

Page 21 ‘Using the latest mobile technology, consumers can already scan products on the shop floor to bring up information about the origin and journey of food and other products they are interested in
purchasing. This additional layer of intelligence is likely to become increasingly common in 30 year’s time.’

Atticus: Could be useful if you want to boycott food from a certain country.

Page 21: ‘We will be able to
discover everything there is to know about the apple we are looking at: the tree it grew on,
the CO2 it produced, the chemical treatments it received, and its journey to the supermarket shelf.’

Atticus: I’d be interested in the chemical treatments but I don’t believe that info would ever be made available.

Page 21: ‘Lee predicts that uniform, mass production and
marketing will have fallen out of favour and food will be highly tailored to each individual customer. With every customer having their own Food ID, diets could be extremely customised, with fruit such as mangoes offered to us at our preferred
stage of ripeness, and 3D printed savoury snacks on demand according to our exact spice tolerance.’

Atticus: Sainsbury’s is predicting that, in parallel with big growths in population, customers will be offered more choice than ever: more products and more info. Whilst, simultaneously, mass oroduction will be replaced by small, bespoke batches. Is this what technology will bring? We’ll see. Technology requires a lot of energy which seems inconsistent with the utopian tableau of man living in perfect harmony with nature that is envisaged by the Future of Food report.

Third future food scenario (2169):

Atticus: Resuscitating the desert reversed Climate Change? I’d like to see the science behind that theory!

Page 23: ‘In the last 50 years, communities around the world have worked tirelessly to re-introduce the plants and vegetables that were once indigenous to their regions.’

Atticus: I think the inference here is that Climate Change killed off indigenous plants.

Page 23: ‘Waste wasn’t just eliminated, it is a word no longer in use.’

No packaging? No bottles? No explanation for how this will work?

Page 24: ‘…human intelligence and coordinated global action could likely lead to a very different outcome: the
renaissance of a lush, biodiverse Planet Earth.’

Atticus: Rises in CO2 is already having that effect today.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Page 24: ‘As the reality of climate change sets in, society may be compelled to implement previously unthinkable measures such as a fully circular
economy, a ‘half-earth’ rule…’

Atticus: It seems that loss of property rights will be accompanied by ever increasing authoritarianism over the next 150 years.

Page 28: ‘Slow Food…where the food on offer reflects the
undeniable connection between plate to planet – to connecting virtual communities around the
world.’

Atticus: I am surprised that Sainsbury’s had the gall to compare their anti-human, anti-food vision of future food scenarios with the Slow Food movement. The Slow Food movement advocates for local foods, traditional gastronomy, and sustainable farming practices from small, local farms, aiming to preserve regional culinary traditions, and small-scale producers.
As such, Slow Food is the antithesis of Sainsbury’s anti-meat, anti-tradition, mega-farm vision.

The report makes repeated references to sustainability. However, what is sustainable about entirely artificial food systems – hydroponics, fake meat and farmed fish – that are entirely disconnected from age-old farming and fishing practices and entirely dependent on technology and energy for their existence? If your food system cannot survive an energy crisis or a cyber-attack, in what way is it sustainable? Also, energy costs are spiralling up across the West. Do we want a food system that is dependent on energy?

That’s all the main points.

In conclusion, I will make the observation that an ingenue would infer from the repeated references to health and food quality in this report that Sainsbury’s is a health food shop. There is no mention of either the aisles of sugar-laden cakes and sweets sold by Sainsbury’s, nor the aisles of processed foods that are choc-full of E numbers. What does Sainsbury’s predict about the future of these foods? Only meat, fish and vegetables are discussed in the report.

Globalists Want Your Food

The recently published report from the EAT Lancet Commission argues that controlling food systems is the key to controlling every major sector—linking nutrition, climate, economics, and governance under one unified global framework.

That is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.

If you want International authorities and private foundations to ‘redefine food as the central lever for solving global crises …where unelected institutions, under the banner of sustainability, unilaterally dictate how nations farm, trade, and eat.’ then the ‘top-down, totalitarian system of control over the most basic human necessity’ is a good thing

If you don’t fancy being limited to miserly daily rations of meat and milk through schemes such as carbon credits and social credit scoring because the Commission has decided that all humans must be forced into a largely plant based diet via a huge programme of financial reengineering then you are likely to think the report’s proposals are bad.

The report plainly shows that food inequalities are no longer assessed at national levels but at global levels, which explains why food mgt systems are now being designed on the assumption that everyone on the planet will eat the same amount of the same foods.

As such, the report proposes a ‘unified global framework to remake farming, finance, and diet around quantified “planetary” rules.’
A new global food system being designed and rolled out by Global Stakeholders? What could possibly go wrong?

‘By the Commission’s own wording, this transformation would entail worldwide diet targets, a half-trillion-dollar financial redirection, and continuous monitoring of nations’ food systems.’

Sounds groovy. If I had to make one minor criticism I would suggest that there’s nothing democratic about this. No power will reside with national governments so voters are powerless. The govt will in all likelihood sign up to such a scheme without any mandate from voters and, thereafter, unelected institutions will operate without transparency or accountability. As the Commission’s rules evolve – maybe in relation to genetic engineering, for example – there will be no opportunity for any pushback.

But that’s just me. On the other hand, lots of people will be excited about the job opportunities that this next stage of the New World Order will bring about. After all, that half a trillion dollars needs to be spent somewhere.

Once again sustainability comes wrapped in layers of Globalist control. It’s almost like sustainability is a golden ticket that gives Global Stakeholder a free pass to do whatever they want. 🤷🏽‍♂️

Here are some further details:

https://modernity.news/2025/10/06/rockefeller-bill-gates-dystopian-plan-to-govern-the-worlds-diet-with-great-food-transformation/

Here is The Lancet report

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01201-2/fulltext

ESG: The Social Credit System

ESG – Environmental Social & Governance – is a social credit system for companies. ESG coerces companies into adopting certain Establishment narratives – eg DEI, Climate Change initiatives – in order to obtain financing.

ESG is purely political yet operates entirely outside of democratic control.

Global ESG rules are set by the International Sustainability Standards Board. Unelected, you won’t be surprised to discover.

This is what technocratic control looks like.

Governance without consent, without democratic representation, without accountability and without even oversight, or the possibility of appeal.

Degrowth Is Coming

You probably haven’t heard of ‘Degrowth’, but you will soon start to experience it.
Degrowth is the new economic movement that will nudge us into accepting lower living standards as part of Net Zero and Sustainability initiatives.

Degrowth is being promoted by all the usual Globalist organisations, thereby showing that Globalists have recognised the need to manage the regression in living standards that will accompany the delivery of the UNs Sustainable Development Goals.

Here are 4 articles on Degrowth so you can discover what to expect:

1) World Economic Forum

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/06/what-is-degrowth-economics-climate-change/

‘Degrowth broadly means shrinking rather than growing economies, so we use less of the world’s energy and resources and put wellbeing ahead of profit.’

‘Society’s current model of economic growth is unsustainable.

‘It [Degrowth] might mean people in rich countries changing their diets, living in smaller houses and driving and travelling less.

2) Harvard Business Review:

https://hbr.org/2020/02/why-de-growth-shouldnt-scare-businesses

‘The start-up The 30 Year Sweatshirt sells high-quality, durable products that run counter to fast fashion principles.’

Patagonia — that explicitly follows an “antigrowth” strategy — is the poster child for this philosophy, offering a worn-wear store and providing free repairs for not only their own products, but also for those of other garment manufacturers.

3) Phys.org

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-degrowth-planet.html

‘Degrowth is possible, desirable and necessary to halt further ecological destruction and to build socially just and ecologically sustainable societies.’ [This isn’t consumer-driven]

‘Degrowthers [i.e. Globalists] are convinced that degrowth must and will happen, either by design or by disaster.’

‘It [Degrowth] is, as Kate Soper argues, about an alternative hedonism.’ [Because nothing says ‘hedonism’ like wearing a 30 year old sweatshirt and travelling less]

4) Medium

View at Medium.com

This article contains the most detailed and realistic description of what Degrowth will entail:

‘A Degrowth transition may experience less of an unemployment problem than anticipated as it is likely to be a more labour-intensive economy.’

‘Universal access to affordable housing, public transport and food, public healthcare and education as well as access to recreational activities and public spaces — could ensure that everyone has access to the goods and services required for a good life without needing high salaries.’ [Oh, I get it. It’s Communism]

‘To offset reductions in hours of paid work it is important for work-sharing to be accompanied by other interventions such as a Universal Basic Income (UBI), living wage policy and expansion of social services.’ [Definitely Communism]

Most people have no idea what’s coming.

From Democracy to Algocracy

One of the purposes of Digital ID will be to centralise a country’s data so that it can be fed into AI LLP (Large Language Programmes) which can analyse that data and make or adjust policy based on the results.
Yes, people,we are heading for a system of ‘Algocracy’, ie rule by algorithm.

This article in Gizmodo documents Ellison calling for the centralisation of national data that can then be fed into AI systems.

https://gizmodo.com/oracle-billionaire-encourages-world-leaders-to-funnel-all-of-their-data-to-ai-and-maybe-his-data-centers-2000563769

‘Fragmented sets of data about a population’s health, agriculture, infrastructure, procurement and borders should be unified into a single, secure database that can be accessed by AI models.’ Larry Ellison

The article references the quote about AI that Ellison’s made in 2024:

“We’re going to have supervision…Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”

It is no coincidence that all the Tech Bros – Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, the Palantir Boys, Mark Andreessen etc are extolling the virtues of AI at the same time that Digital IDs are being rolled out all across the Western World: they are all angling to be at the centre of the new system of technocratic control that will emerge with the exponential increase in power for Tech Bros that will come with that. Why else would Musk have accepted a job at DOGE?

If you thought governments were over-reaching their remit now, wait until you see what they seek to incorporate once they have the power of AI fed by unlimited data at their disposal. A huge centralisation of control will follow thereafter. Governments will justify this expansion of remit in the usual ways: increased safety / economic benefits / better health/ reduced costs / the greater good.

Here is YouTube link to Ellison’s interview by Tony Blair at the World Government’s Summit in Dubai earlier this year:

https://youtu.be/lIYIKpvFQOM?si=d5zeVcFPjRaqorsm

There’s another term for Tech Bros that is much more apt: Oligarchs.

They are businessmen with immense wealth and close links to the heads of government. They are Oligarchs.

Covid – A Thought Experiment

I thought I should document my current understanding of the Covid19 ‘situation’.

I’ll take you through the evidence and let’s see if we reach the same conclusions.

Is it technically possible for a government to employ psychological manipulation to scare the population into believing that a non-existant new pathogen is killing people in large numbers?

This isn’t a question about motives, just a question about the power of propaganda.

To do so, I suggest that the following steps would need to be taken:

• Restrict assembly so that people cannot easily share their own experiences about the new pathogen.

• Engineer a high initial death rate to scare the population.

• Blame the new pathogen for the high death rate.

• Remove certain checks and balances to encourage deaths to be attributed to the new pathogen.

• Report that hospitals are overloaded with patients suffering from the new pathogen.

• Make available a test kit for the new pathogen that records a high rate of false positives.

• Declare that recipients of false positive tests are ‘asymptomatic carriers / transmitters’.

• Silence / censor experts who have alternative explanations for what is going on and how it is being handled.

• Instigate round-the-clock fear propaganda via nudge units and media

Entirely by accident, the UK government took all of the steps described above.

Restrict assembly: lockdowns

High initial death rate:
The mortality rate for 2020 was unexceptional. The only mortality spike occurred in March / April which coincided with elderly and vulnerable people with complex health issues people being denied hospital care while in care homes:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/30/nhs-made-secret-pandemic-plan-deny-care-elderly/

We also know that there was excessive over-use of ‘Do Not Resuccitate’ notices at this time:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-matt-hancock-do-not-resuscitate-judicial-threat-kate-masters-nhs-a9612451.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55163009

Plus, the NHS was using midazolam like it was going out of fashion:

https://expose-news.com/2024/02/18/midazolam-murders-nhs-document/

As a result of these factors, deaths in care homes were 195% higher in April 2020 compared to the previous 5 year average.

Plus, doctors were encouraged to add c19 to the death certificate if there was any suspicion that c19 could have been a factor. This would have artificially boosted the c19 death toll.

Remove checks and balances:
The process for death certificatation was relaxed so that only 1 doctor needed to sign death certificate and, as long as the notes had been read, the doctor did not need to have seen the patient.

Also, jury inquests into deaths were suspended:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/part/1/crossheading/inquests/enacted

Hospitals are overloaded:

Contrary to what we were told, figures show that hospitals were the quietest in living memory.
In the 3 months of April to June, hospital bed occupancy was 63% (34,140 empty beds)

Hence, all those TikTok videos of dancing medical staff.

Pathogen test kit:

The PCR test is not a diagnostic tool. It can find a gene sequence it is looking for but it cannot determine whether the sequence is active nor inactive. Nor can it determine if the viral sequence exists in sufficient quantities to make you ill. Plus, countries were accused of turning up the PCR amplication up to over 40 cycles which makes the test highly sensitive. Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, said:

“with PCR you can find anything in anything”.

https://youtu.be/ZmZft4fXhQQ?si=hWvKZ6DU28gJ1Wh4

Using PCR tests with a high amplication rate is guaranteed to produce high numbers of positive cases which led to the interpretation of ‘asymptomatic transmission’.

Asymptomatic Transmission:

How can you transmit a disease if you are asymptomatic? If you are carrying a high enough load of a virus to be able to transmit that virus to others, then you will have symptoms as your body will be fighting that high viral load.

I’m not saying that is what happened. I’m merely asking, as an exercise in Critical Thinking, if a government could fake a pandemic.

I suspect it is technically possible and we must always be alert to that possibility.

The UK Govt Loves Corporatism

The burdensome administrative task of recruiting members of the British Armed Forces has been outsourced to external companies, led by Serco (who appear to be the favoured partner of the UK Govt in every endeavour these days).

I can’t help but feel that the best organisations to recruit members of the British Armed Forces would be the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

The UK government’s eagerness to embrace Public-Private-Partnerships reminds me of Mussolini’s famous observation:

‘Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.’

There should be a healthy distance between govts and multinational corporations. That is no longer the case.

As we learnt with the Horizon Post Office scandal, govts are inclined to cover up corporate scandals that might cause embarrassment to themselves and their Preferred Partners (Fujitsu in this case)

See also Grenfell scandal (Alcoa, Kingspan), NHS tainted blood scandal (Alpha, Armour, Battery, Bayer and others)

Govts are there to keep multinationals honest, not become embroiled in corporate malfeasance.

‘…As members of ‘Team Serco’, Adecco and Akkodis will join a consortium of partners led by Serco, the international provider of critical government services and prime contractor for the contract. Together, they will deliver a comprehensive, end-to-end recruitment service, covering everything from candidate attraction and assessment to enlistment and onboarding onto initial training. The initiative will involve a blended workforce, including military personnel…’

https://bit.ly/3EIQ2A6

The Economics of Renewable Energy pt 2 – Solar

Ed Miliband has stated many times that renewable energy is cheaper than gas and will bring down household energy bills. We all instinctively knew that Ed was lying but I’m going to present the evidence that he was lying. I will present the economics of solar in this post, having already presented wind energy in a recent post.

1) Ed is proud that the UK is leading the way on renewable energy yet the UK has the highest energy costs in the G20. The UK’s energy costs are 4 times those of US.

2) A report commissioned in 2020 by the World Bank ranked the UK’s suitability for solar energy production at 229th out of 230 countries (Ireland came last). .

https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/466331592817725242/global-photovoltaic-power-potential-by-country

3) The UK currently spends approx. £8bn on natural gas per year. Ed wants to spend £260-£290bn by 2030 on his Clean Power plan – £43bn to £48bn per year. Much of this spending is to connect remote windfarms. Prices cannot come down when costs are skyrocketing.
https://www.neso.energy/publications/clean-power-2030

4) The UK paid over £12bn on subsidies for renewal energy in 2024. Plus £2.5bn for grid balancing and £1bn for the capacity market. Solar energy’s share of these costs is aporox. £3bn. Yet Ed wants to increase solar energy capacity from 15GW to 47GW by 2030. More capacity equals more subsidies.

5) In 2023, according to energy trends data, the UK generated 135.8TWh from all renewables, mostly wind, solar and biomass. The subsidies and extra costs for this electricity cost us around £113 per MWh. Adding the market price of electricity would mean the total cost of renewables is around £180 per MWh. The market price of gas is around £60 per MWh

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables

6) The govt applies a carbon tax to gas of approx. £60 per MWh, thereby almost doubling the price paid by consumers. When Ed tells you that renewables are cheaper than gas, he is referring to the market price of renewables without subsidies (£180 – £113 = £67 per MWh) compared to the retail price of natural gas, inclusive of carbon tax (£60 + £60 = £120 per MWh.
Whereas the economic cost of renewables is £180 per MWh compared to £60 per MWh for gas.

Most revenue for renewable energy is comprised of govt subsidy

7) A commitment to increase total solar capacity from 15GW to 47GW within a decade implies a minimum level of subsidies of £6 billion per year at 2023 prices.

8) After 3 years, the efficacy of solar panels reduces by 1% to 2% per year.
As such, useful economic life of solar panels is 20 years. However, the payback period for solar plants – the overnight capital cost divided by the annual operating margin – is 35 years based on the average prices from 2017 to 2023 (cf. usual commercial average of payback period of 10 years). This confirms that solar plants will always require subsidies to attract private investment.

9) The breakeven price of electricity for new investment in solar plants is about £150 per MWh at 2023 prices over a 25-year life. (Cf. £60 per MWh for natural gas). Another reason that UK energy prices will be staying high.

10) NESO has confirmed that all existing gas power stations will need to be retained as backup for when renewable energy isn’t sufficient. NESO predict 5% of energy will continue to come from gas. This means all the fixed costs of gas stations will remain. Also, gas stations are less efficient when not running at full capacity meaning much higher per unit gas prices.

11) Ed’s predictions for ‘saved’ carbon emissions from Renewables do not include the emissions from manufacturing solar panels in China nor the emissions from shipping the panels to the UK.

12) Energy from renewables cannot be effectively stored. The battery plants that are being proposed will be hugely expensive and will not be able to provide energy at a national scale for more than a couple of minutes. Plus, they are highly inefficient meaning much of the stored energy is lost.

Conclusion – The combination of limited solar resources plus high capital and operating costs imply that solar plants are and will continue to be a poor investment in purely commercial terms, requiring huge subsidies and associated infrastructure costs. Very high energy prices are here to stay. Ed may well choose to bury the true costs of renewables in the public finances, but, one way or the other, UK taxpayers will still be paying to run 2 energy systems in parallel, one of which is loss-making.

For Those That Haven’t Figured It Out Yet

1) Smart meters are the means by which your access to energy will be limited during the coming energy transition when there won’t be enough energy for everyone.

2) The WEF, Bilderberg Group, The UN, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and all other elitist forums meet for the purpose of furthering their interests, not yours.

3) The price of gold is at record highs because there is a growing feeling that there is going to be an economic collapse during which stocks, shares and deposits will be seized in line with recent ‘bail-in’ legislation.

4) Ditto for cryptocurrencies.

5) No one ever gets into trouble for lying at the behest of the Establishment.

6) The perpetual demonisation of Russia by Western politicians and media reflects the West’s desire to wage war on Russia, not Russia’s desire to wage war on the West.

7) Fascism is a left wing ideology built around central planning. Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists.

8) Digital IDs are the foundation stone of the intended social credit system in the West.

9) Every piece of legislation the govt introduces to protect our safety, removes aspects of our freedom.

10) ‘Sustainability’ is a synonym for ‘restrictions’.

11) Anthropogenic Climate Change is just money, power and politics.

12) You should never use any type of plastic in the microwave

13) The c19 response was nothing to do with health.

14) Internet censorship laws are not about protecting children. They are the means by which the govt seeks to control the online narrative.

15) The main purpose of regulations is to push SMEs out of business by introducing burdens that large corporations are better able to absorb. When the SMEs are gone the big companies then lobby to reduce the regulations.

16) Ditto the main purpose of ‘Employment Rights’.

17) The UK govt has more unchecked power than any British monarch ever had.

18) There are a number of Global Stakeholders, each of whom has more influence on UK government policy than all of the British electorate combined.

19) ULEZ’s; LTN’s; 15 minute cities etc are not about improving air quality or traffic flow. They are about setting up the surveillance infrastructure for ‘Smart Cities’ and reducing freedom of movement.

20) The vaccine passports that many Western countries tried to implement in 2020, were just an under-hand attempt at introducing a digital ID

21) Global bodies such as the UN (Inc WHO, IPCC) are exaggerating / inventing ‘global threats’ in order to accrue more powers to oversee ‘global solutions’.

22) Public private partnerships are the definition of ‘fascism’.

23) 1930s-style fascism was comprised of Public Private Partnerships where the govt called the shots. 2020s-style fascism is comprised of Public Private Partnerships where the corporations call the shots.

24) People are not all the same.

25) Cultures are not all the same.

26) Progressivism is a trojan horse for Communism.

27) When politicians and journalists refer to the ‘far right’, they mean white people.

28) Western countries are falling into chaos because their govts are following global policies rather than national policies.

29) 19th and early 20th century eugenics theory and practise never went away. It was just re-branded as ‘environmentalism’ and ‘health’ policies.

30) The bulk of practical politics in 2025 is devoted to social engineering in order to make the populace accepting or even clamouring for the policies that the government have already decided to roll-out.

31) Globalists are seeking global governance.

32) Socio-political systems have to evolve, they cannot be designed as designed systems always fail.

33) The Establishment is instigating the conditions for societal collapse in order to create the opportunities under which it can implement a new socio-political system.

34) A new socio- political system is being built around us: technocracy.

35) ESG is a social credit system for companies to ensure that all large companies are brought into alignment in advance of The Great Reset and that most SMEs will collapse.

36) Western countries are no longer democracies representing the wishes of their electorates but oligarchies representing the wishes of Stakeholder Capitalists.

37) UK house prices and stock markets are bubbles, detached from fundanentals.

38) Most Western govts are engaged in a war on farming because farmers are de-centralised and independent. Centralised farming is the objective.

39) Things will make more sense if you assume the government is lying at all times.

40) Most Regulators have been captured by the industries they are supposed to be regulating.

41) The govt achieves compliance by promoting their objectives as moral choices

42) The dictum of practical politics in the 21st century is not to appeal to public opinion but to control it.

43) Global stakeholders have decided that public consent is optional. Consent can be fabricated when necessary.

44) Social media sites are surveillance and censorship engines for the government.

45) We don’t learn the lessons of history. We learn the lessons of history the suit the purposes of the ruling class.

The Economics of Renewable Energy pt. 1 – Wind

Here’s why everything Miliband says about Renewable energy is false.

Firstly, everyone needs to recognise that Renewable energy infrastructure is a second energy system that will operate in parallel with the existing energy system.

NESO have admitted in their Clean Power 2030 report that all existing gas power stations will need to be retained in order to provide back up. As such, all the costs of wind power documented here are in addition to existing costs of maintaining gas stations.

Prices will not be coming down.

• The UK currently spends approx. £7bn on natural gas per year. Ed wants to spend £260-£290bn by 2030 on his ‘Clean Power 2030’ plan – £43bn to £48bn per year or £1,500 to £1,650 per household. Much of this spending is to connect remote windfarms. Energy prices cannot drop when costs are skyrocketing.

• Assuming a cost of capital of 8% and operations and maintenance costs of 2% for CP2030, would give an ongoing cost of £26-29bn per year or £900-1,000 per household. Energy costs will not be falling any time soon.

• Offshore wind providers were guaranteed an average price of £153 per MWh in 2024. At an average reference – ie market – price of £67 per MWh, this meant subsidies of £86 per MWh were paid by the taxpayer, meaning that on average offshore wind farms received more of their revenue from subsidies (56%) than from selling their power on the market.

• The average retail price of onshore wind farms are guaranteed an average of £111.6 per MWh. The market price was £63.6 per MWh. The subsidy paid by the govt was £48 per MWh (43%).

Looks like the taxpayers are taking it up the tailpipe

• Over last 20 years there have been two major spikes in the price of gas – in 2008 and 2021-23. Omitting those years the average market price at 2024 prices was £56 and there has been no clear trend in real market prices during those 20 years.

• There is much talk that the UK’s system of ‘Marginal Cost Pricing’ keeps UK energy costs artificially high because energy prices are linked to international price of gas. The truth is if marginal cost pricing were to be scrapped, wind farms would still need to receive £111 per MWh (onshore) or £153 per MWh (offshore). A lower market price would have to be topped up with bigger subsidies.

• The cost of renewables is rising and projects like Norfolk Boreas and Hornsea Project Four have been cancelled because the developers cannot make money at the prices they agreed during contract actions.

• Onshore wind requires about ~370x the land area for the production of the equivalent amount of energy as nuclear (offshore requires ~200x the area of nuclear). Think about how many wind turbines will be required to run a single AI data centre.

• Uk has capacity factor of 29.8% for onshore wind and 25% for offshore wind. Cf refers to amount of energy generated as proportion of its technical maximun. When you hear that a new wind farm can power 600 homes, apply the CF calculation.

• The CF of wind turbines reduces with age, dropping by about 1% per year, thus increasing the backup required. The useful life of a turbine is about 20 to 25 years (less for offshore locations). Turbines need to be replaced frequently, and require extensive upkeep and maintenance. The blades are not recyclable so go to landfill.

• We can expect the total cost of subsidies of about £12bn, or the equivalent of £420 per household to continue to go up over the next few years. UK renewables are subsidised by three different schemes.

• Feed-in-Tariffs (FiTs) fund mostly solar power. The latest report for 2022-23 shows the scheme cost over £1.7bn and average total payment was ~£193/MWh.

• Contracts for Difference (CfDs) fund a range of technologies, but most of the subsidy goes to offshore wind. The total CfD subsidy paid for the last 12 months is over £2bn.

• By far the biggest subsidy scheme is Renewables Obligations Certificates, costing over £7bn per year.

• In addition, we pay extra for balancing the grid when the wind is not blowing (or blowing too hard) and the sun is not shining. In the year ending March 2024, these balancing services cost £2.46bn

• All wind farms are govt subsidised. The more farms, the more subsidies will be required. Also, the strike prices are index-linked throughout the life of the contract meaning that costs do not drop in real terms with each passing year. Energy costs will not be coming down

• Over the last 20 years, the proportion of the energy prices paid by businesses to cover the costs of buying electricity at wholesale prices has fallen from an average of 71% of the total energy in 2005-06 to 29% in 2023-24. For households the proportion has fallen from 41% to 24%.
These drops are explained by the costs of Renewables – taxes, subsidies, system and network charges – which have been going up over time.