The move towards fascism has been building in the UK for a while but almost too slowly too notice. Yet, all of sudden, the reality is crashing all around us. For some reason it hasn’t had the pushback it deserves. Why is that? Well, a big part of the reason is that most people don’t know what fascism is. They think fascism is nationalists in military formation. They don’t realise that fascism is a bit more subtle than that.
Let’s remind ourselves what fascism is. This is fascism defined by Benito Mussolini, who invented it:
‘The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.’ (p. 14)
‘Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.’ (p. 32)
‘The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.‘ (p. 41).
Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.
‘The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.‘
Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: ‘Ardita’ Publishers.
After reading these extracts from Benito that you will agree with me that the evidence of emergent fascism reveals itself with every passing day. If you are not quite at that level of understanding yet, cast your mind back to covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Also, please read up on ESG scores; stakeholder capitalism and Public-private partnerships.
People in Europe 90 years ago can be forgiven for not knowing what fascism meant in practise. We don’t have that excuse any more. So why are people supporting the growth of fascism? They support it because they don’t recognise it as fascism. We, in the West, are constantly told we live in Liberal Democracies.
“Is it not yet clear to the left that the political face of “breakdown capitalism” is fascism, albeit articulated in new and more sophisticated (progressive!) forms of violence and repression?” Fabio Vighi
However, we didn’t see it because it was all being built in the shadows. Only when covid emerged and we saw the tyranny take control did we realise that The Establishment are a LOT more organised than us. They have most of their pieces in places whereas we are a disorganised rag-tag assortment of people without any voice.
A lot of credit must go to the MSM (mainstream media). The media have been becoming increasingly politicised for years. I have long realised that this would be a problem at some point but i thought the problem would come when there was a Left wing government. It turns out there is no longer any difference between so called Left and Right wing governments.
A big factor in this subversive fascism that has crept on us is how cleverly it has been disguised. Fascism has been cloaked in the language of Progressivism. As such, the Left have been fully on board because they have been fooled into thinking the anti-capitalists paradise they have always fever-dreamed about is finally being delivered.
For all their virtue-signalling about how anti-fascist they are the left are very drawn to virtually all aspects of fascism: they like the state control of production because that appeals to their anti-capitalist instincts. They like Big Government because they think governments are there to help them and give them things. They like censorship because they’ve grown up in a world where Progressives are never censored. In short, Leftists like any and all restrictions of their freedoms that are implemented for the sake of a Progressive cause.
The only bits of traditional fascism that the Left don’t like are concentration camps and the persecution of minorities. Two more reasons that they haven’t twigged that the Public Private Partnerships springing up all around us are just a rebranding of what Mussolini called ‘Corporatism’.
As such, the authorities have been very careful to cloak their fascist objectives in progressive clothing:
• We need to protect the vulnerable (lockdown policies and vaccine policies; quarantine camps in Australia);
• We need to protect the planet (15 minute cities; Net zero; ESG scores; Removal of efficient energy sources);
• We need to help the oppressed and the vulnerable (digital ids; online censorship);
• We need to make finance more inclusive (CBDC’s).
Leftists are so stupid they cannot see the prison being built around them. Around all of us. They do not recognise it as fascism because they think fascism is right wing. As such, they have a massive blind spot when it comes to fascists spouting Progressive buzzwords like ‘sustainability’ and ‘inclusivity’ and ‘green’ and ‘our communities’ and ‘vulnerable people’ and ‘no more hate-speech’. This shows just how little leftists understand fascism. As far as Leftists are concerned fascists are people they disagree with. They have no idea that fascists are people very much like themselves because it was people very much like themselves that were fascists 90 years ago.
For me the lurch towards fascism has been very sudden but I can see that the Power Structures have been moving towards this for a long time. For them it has been very slow.
Can modern fascism be resisted? I don’t know. We are so divided, how can we possibly mount a united defence?
The Taliban banned opium production in Afghanistan in 2000. Over the following year, production levels fell to almost zero.
In October 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan for reasons that weren’t exactly clear. Over the next 20 years opium production ballooned, far exceeding the levels prior to the Taliban’s ban.
This despite repeated statements from the US that one of their objectives in Afghanistan was to end opium production.
The US departed from the country in 2021. Thereafter, the Taliban took control and opium production once again collapsed.
How weird. What are we to make of such a paradox? #AirAmerica
“What is truth? For the multitude, that which it continually reads and hears.” ~ Oswald Spengler
We are told it’s a man’s world. We are told that women are oppressed by the patriarchy. We are told that women are still fighting to achieve equality with men.
Here are some details that indicate men do not have things all their own way:
• Boys perform worse at every stage of education than girls.
• Men are 97% of the prison population, get harsher sentences for the same crimes, and are more likely to be jailed.
• Men are 84% of the homeless.
• Prostate cancer kills more men than breast cancer kills women – but gets half the funding and a fraction of the attention.
• One in three domestic-violence victims are men, yet there are no shelters and almost zero support.
• Men die five years earlier and receive worse healthcare.
• Men work, on average, six hours more per week – 24 hours per month, or two extra months per year (ONS).
• Ninety-nine percent of military deaths are men.
• Ninety-six percent of workplace deaths are men.
• Ninety-nine percent of outdoor manual work is done by men.
• Around 75% of suicides in the UK are men – and it’s the leading cause of death for men under 50.
• Men are more likely to die from substance abuse.
• Men are more likely to be victims of violent crime
Every week sees stories emerge in which the rights of women are placed above those of men. As I write this piece, 2 stories have caught my eye:
One story informs us that Transgirls will no longer be able to join the Girl Guides as the Girl Guides is an organisation that is only open to biological girls. Fair enough, you think. However, the organisation formerly known as the ‘Boy Scouts’ was forced to allow girls to join in 2007 and, consequently, is now known simply as the ‘Scouts’. In the modern patriarchy, girls and women are allowed to have single gender organisations but men are not afforded the same rights.
The second story concerns the killing of women in Italy. This crime is so egregious that a special law is being rushed through that impose harsher penalties on ‘Femicide’ than on those common-all-garden murders of men:
To state there are double standards would be an understatement. The women’s movement has pushed for equality over the last 100 years and, having achieved it, pushed on to gain themselves an advantage. I’m reminded of the following adage:
‘A feminist is a woman that wants the power of a man, the privileges of a woman, but the responsibility of neither.’
Here is a powerful article on the employment headwinds that young whire men now face in Western countries:
Let us remind ourselves that women can dress and behave provocatively around men but if this provokes a reaction from a man who is not attractive to the provocateur, then she can claim she has been objectified.
And what about the world of psychology:
‘Seager argued that psychology suffers from “gender blindness”, in that the profession is reluctant to consider the possibility that men have specific needs. Indeed, Seager argued, we are reluctant to think of men as a gender in their own right at all, thanks to the increasing prevalence of pop-feminism and a widely held and false notion that all men are inherently privileged, regardless of their socio-economic circumstances.’
The fact that the government intend to maintain jury trials only for murder, manslaughter and rape shows us that the government doesn’t care about these crimes.
No, the government agenda is much more insidious: they want control over what we say and think. They want control over who is punished and who is not.
The government is no longer prepared to allow the populace to decide which laws are fair and which should be ignored. No, the government wants to mark its own homework: to pass and enforce any legislation they choose. The objective of dictators throughout the ages is now being grasped.
Once governments have banned jury trials, they will have free reign to bring in any legislation they like, safe in the knowledge that no jury will be able will be able override it in court. Legislation will become more authoritarian, more anti-citizen in its nature. It’s an inevitable consequence once the shackles of checks and balances have been removed.
Let’s take a look at who else banned jury trials…
• Vladimir Lenin: 1917-1922 • Benito Mussolini: 1931 • Adolf Hitler: 1934 • Francisco Franco: 1939 • Mao Zedong: 1949 • Fidel Castro: 1959 • Pol Pot: 1975 • Idi Amin: 1971-1972 • Saddam Hussein: 1970s • Muammar Gaddafi: 1973 • Ayatollah Khomeini: 1979 • Hugo Chávez: 1999 onward (intensified under Maduro) • Hafez al-Assad: 1970s • Keir Starmer: 2025
‘The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule’ – Samuel Adams
The Met Office captures temperature data from over 300 Climate Stations located across the UK. From this data, the Met Office produces climate summaries for each year and other metrics such as average annual temperatures for the UK plus long-term averages. From this data it is also possible to glean the highest temperature recorded in each UK country during each year.
The period of 10 years between 2016 and 2025 is, therefore, covered by 40 annual high temps (10 for each country). These 40 annual high temps – have come from just 20 Climate Stations.
The Met Office uses the CIMO classifications, from 1 to 5, for each Climate Station where a Class 1 site would indicate an ideally exposed station that produces reliable temperature information. However, at the other end of the scale, a Class 5 site is blighted by factors that might affect the temperature recorded by up to 5°C and a Class 4 site has location effects up to 2°C. Class 3 locations could lead to inaccuracies of up to 1°C. The class ratings penalise sites that are near any artificial heat sources such as buildings and concrete surfaces.
Of the 20 UK sites that have recorded annual record temps over the last 10 years, 16 (80%) are comprised of Classes 4 & 5. Here is the classification breakdown for all 20 sites:
• 7 are class 5 sites (Aviemore, RAF Northolt, Cambridge Botanical Gardens, Santon Downham, Bute Park Cardiff, Motherwell, Castlederg).
• 8 are class 4 sites (Faversham, Goggerdan, Hawarden Airport, Charterhall, Aboyne, Edinburgh, Glasgow Bishopton, Balliwatticock)
• 4 are class 3 sites (Heathrow Airport, RAF Coningsby, Charlwood (Gatwick), Magilligan)
• 1 is class 1 (Cambridge).
This means that 95% (19/20) of annual record temperatures come from stations that are known to be subject to man-made heat sources.
Eagle-eyed readers will have noticed that 5 (25%) of the 20 sites are associated with aeroplane runways where the man-made heat sources are jet engines (2 RAF bases and 3 airports).
In the UK as a whole:
Class 1 comprises just 6.3% of sites while Class 2 comprises 7.4% of the total.
Class 3 stations form 8.4% of the total.
Class 4 comprises a massive 48.7% of the total 380 stations while 29.2% U.K. Met Office temperature measuring stations are Class 5.
77.9% of UK Climate Stations are ‘Junk’ status
Thus, 86.3% of stations that the Met Office uses to compile UK temp information are known to be sited in locations that produce inaccurate readings. This compares to a 95% figure for stations that have recorded a record temperature over the last 10 years.
Here is a Daily Sceptic article highlighting the inappropriate locations for the vast majority of temperature recording stations:
Despite these levels of inaccuracy, the Met Office produces annual ‘average’ UK temperatures to 2 decimal places. This infers a level of accuracy to one hundredth of a degree which is simply not a reflection of reality.
The Met Office is responsible for setting the classifications for its own weather stations.
Ray Sanders, a citizen journalist, has visited most Climate Stations in the UK and produced reports describing his observations.
Heathrow Airport (Class 3):
The map shows that the Heathrow station is at the junction of the M4 and the North runway.
Ray Sanders’ analysis on the suitability of Heathrow’s weather station:
If Heathrow is class 3, imagine how unsuitable class 4 and class 5 stations are.
RAF Coningsby (Class 3): Another station located next to a runway hosting jet engines. Coningsby set a new English temp record in 2022 at 40.3°C, beating the previous record by 1.6°C as a result of a temperature spike that lasted less than 1 minute. The Met Office refuses to divulge whether this minute coincided with Typhoon Jets taking off or landing.
Charlwood (Class 3): Charlwood happens to be next to Gatwick airport and the weather station is located in direct flight path line of the runway. Independent assessors of this station have judged it to be better suited to Class 5 than Class 3.
Cambridge (Class 1): possible proximity to electrical sub-station. The MO covertly moved this station in 2009 and, thereafter, spliced data from the original and current locations. Since the move, the Cambridge station is consistently recording hotter temps.
Furthermore, these junk sites, with known errors of up to 5°C feed into the Met’s calculation of average UK temps, they also feed into long term temp averages.
Sanders had made several inquiries to the weather authority to obtain more detailed information about the weather stations. He reported:
‘Of the 302 locations mentioned, over a third (103) do NOT exist. The Met Office refused to tell me exactly how or where the alleged ‘data’ for these 103 non-existent sites came from.”
The Met Office has hundreds of ‘Climate Stations’ dotted around the country the role of which is to record metrics associated with the weather (mainly temperature and rainfall). How many Climate Stations exist is a matter for debate since the Met Office have admitted to a Freedom of Information request that over 100 Stations don’t exist, yet still contribute to weather records. The Met Office estimates temperatures for these ‘zombie’ sites from other sites in the area that the Met Office feels are ‘correlated’. Yet the Met Office refuses to reveal how they calculate such estimates.
I have only just discovered that MEPs have automatic immunity from prosecution.
I learnt this through reading about the case of Ilaria Salis.
In February 2023, Ilaria Salis, an Italian national, was, allegedly, a member of a group of 20 Antifa activists who attacked Far Right attendees at an event in Budapest commemorating the anniversary of the siege of the Buda castle by the Soviet forces in 1945.
Antifa members launched their attack using steel batons, rubber hammers and gas sprays, wearing gloves lined with lead, and on one occasion, an unidentified sharp object to inflict stab wounds.
Salis was arrested and imprisoned in Budapest. Ilaria’s imprisonment became a high-profile cause in Italy.
In response to this the Italian ‘Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra’ (AWS) coalition party picked Salis, who had no prior political experience, as their leading EP candidate in the June 2024 EP elections.
170,000 Italian voters voted for AWS in the knowledge that, if Salis were to be elected, she would, as an MEP, gain automatic immunity from criminal prosecution. AWS took sixth place and, thus, the final MEP position in the election went to Salis.
In October 2024, Hungary lodged a request to revoke Salis’ immunity. In September 2025, the EP’s Legal Affairs Committee rejected the request.
Due process was subverted. The idea that the law applies equally to everyone is sacrosanct to any civilised society. The EU Establishment have placed themselves above the law. This is not an attribute of a healthy society.
As Aristotle wrote: ‘The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.’
But then, as we know:
‘Equality under the law is the slow triumph of hope over history.’ (Jim Cooper).
On September 12, 2001, the SEC opened an investigation into whether an unknown group of equities traders had made millions of dollars betting against the companies involved in the attacks.
For example, on Thursday, Sep 6, two thousand contracts betting that United Airlines’ stock would go down were purchased. Ninety times more in one day than in three weeks of normal trading. The price of these contracts soared after the attacks.
Many other companies were similarly affected.
There was also a six-fold increase in ‘call’ options on Raytheon, the defence contractor.
The SEC investigation examined 9.5 million securities transactions across 103 different companies trading in seven markets across 32 exchange traded funds while working in co-ordination with the FBI among other agencies.
The SEC’s conclusion of its investigation into suspicious option trading activity just prior to 9/11 was as follows:
‘We have not developed any evidence suggesting that those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information.’
This is an oddly worded statement. This is not saying that the SEC found no evidence of insider trading only that ‘those who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks’ did not engage in insider trading.
This suggests that the SEC was able to identify those who had advance knowledge of the attacks.
9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan has uncovered details of a particular suspicious trade that was investigated by the FBI: 56,000 shares of Stratesec were purchased in the days immediately prior to 9/11. Strategic provided security systems to airports. The Stratesec trade traced back to Mr and Mrs Wirt Walker. Wirt is a distant relative of the Bush family and a business partner of Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Wirt and his wife Sally were not interviewed by the FBI because the FBI’s investigation into the couple ‘revealed no ties to terrorism or other negative information’.
However, as Ryan notes, this isn’t true: ‘Walker hired a number of Stratesec employees away from a subsidiary of The Carlyle Group called BDM International which ran secret projects for government agencies. The Carlyle Group was partly financed by members of the Bin Laden family’
Furthermore, Walker has multiple connections to the CIA:
‘Mr Walker ran a number of suspicious companies that went bankrupt, including Stratesec, some of which were underwritten by a company run by a 1st cousin of former CIA Director (and President) George H W Bush. Additionally, Walker was the son of a CIA employer and his first job was at an investment firm run by former US intelligence guru James Forgan where he worked with another former CIA director, William Casey.
There are many similar stories involving connected non-al Qaeda actors suggesting foreknowledge of events. None of which were never followed up by intelligence services.
As James Corbett has commented in his book ‘Reportage’:
‘If those with foreknowledge of the attacks weren’t connected to al-Qaeda, what does that say about the identity of the real 9/11 perpetrators?’
I wrote this very short overview of Sainsbury’s ‘Future of Food’ report in order to post on LinkedIn. However, some might prefer it to the very long overview that I published on WordPress a couple of days ago…
In 2019, Sainsbury’s commissioned a ‘Future of Food’ report that predicted how food systems may evolve over the next 150 years.
It’s worth taking a close look at this report to see what the powers-that-be have in mind for our food in the future
• The report hits all of the right Globalist touchpoints. Hence, there are lots of references to diet changes being required to prevent Climate Change. Transhumanism is touched upon as are high-profile ‘Degrowth’ policies.
• There are lots of references to what exciting things are happening in the non-meat alternative protein market right now. Spoiler alert: it’s fake meat and insects.
• The report calls for increases in the diversity and reduction in the uniformity of the vegetables we eat (which is exactly the opposite of Supermarkets’ practises of the last 60 years).
• In the future vegetables could be grown in tunnels lit by LED lights fed by inorganic chemical compounds.
• All ‘marine stock’ in the future could be farmed.
• The report discusses the importance of ‘food as medicine’. However, the report also states that: ‘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.’ So it seems we will take processed health supplements to accompany nutritionally-dead food.
• We are told several times that food consumers of the future will choose food based on its carbon footprint or calorific content or the chemicals used in its production. Not once does the report mention ‘taste’ or ‘cost’ in relation to future food.
• There are multiple references to ‘investors’ throughout the report as in: ‘Mushroom-based products, algae milk, seaweed caviar and insects are just some of the increasingly sophisticated options whetting investor appetite.’. It is clear that consumers will not have what they want but what the investors want them to have.
• Sainsbury’s want you to believe that fake meat production in 2050 will take place in ‘artisan’ factories – complete with ‘vats’ and ‘robots’ – owned by small businesses where customers can watch their meat being assembled and printed. As if food production will be a cottage industry rather than in the control of conglomerates.
• There are multiple references to the need to change consumer’s perceptions of food so that consumers can accept the radical changes that investors have lined up for them. For example, the report states that consumers must be convinced that growing meat in a lab is no different to brewing beer.
• ‘Waste wasn’t just eliminated, it is a word no longer in use.’ No packaging? No bottles? Sainsbury’s does not explain how that will work.
• Sainsbury’s states ‘that traditional social moments – such as birthdays or weddings – could be bigger and better than ever before, with the pleasures of food strengthening the bonds of community.’ No explanation is provided to support this theory.
• 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?
• In summary, the report is basically saying that the only natural foods we have today – meat, fish and vegetables – are going to be made unnatural and that is going to make us, and the planet, healthier. And if we don’t embrace these changes, the govt taxation stick will nudge us in the right direction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 🤷🏽♂️
Atticus Fox 