(First published January 25th, 2023, and now available in audio format at my YouTube channel.)
No, this is not just clickbait (although I will be interested to see if such a title does garner more engagement than my average offering...) - it is an observation on the current agenda that appears to be being slyly pushed by the social engineers.
While The Great Reveal is in full swing, with suspension of the mRNA bioweapons looking imminent (and all the explosive fallout that will follow), one could be forgiven for overlooking the other, comparatively subtle, social programming increasingly weaving its way through the military-grade psy-op that is the mainstream media.
On my apocalypse bingo card, I have long since had 'prohibition' - but not just for alcohol, for 'amorousness', as well. Sounds like a shade of conspiraquackery too far? Well, let's break down the constituent parts of my definitely-not-cllickbait-because-I'm-so-hideously-shadow-banned headline...
First up: my predictions of an alcohol ban:
I have mentioned this before, only for others to understandably object, "but why would the depopulation-obsessed overlords want to ban alcohol when alcohol abuse helps kill so many people off?". To which I would reply, because of the so-called "alcohol paradox", a phenomenon which sees heavy drinkers actually live longer than teetotallers (yes, you read that correctly). Abusing alcohol or any substance is indisputably bad, and obviously there are serious problem drinkers who need to stop, but the fact remains that regular alcohol consumption correlates with increased longevity. The reason for this appears to be because alcohol consumption very often correlates with increased socialising - it often taking place at pubs, parties, picnics, etc. - and because the health protective effects of social connectivity are so powerful, they help to override many of the health dangers associated with alcohol consumption - making drinking and socialising statistically a healthier pursuit than abstaining alone.
So, as the overlords want us as lonely and isolated as possible (not least because loneliness and isolation are strongly predictive of premature death), then one of the primary facilitators for regular and sustained socialising in Britain - alcohol - has to go.
Without alcohol, the one remaining and robust community connector in every British town - the pub - will collapse. Pubs may try to reinvent themselves as eateries and coffee shops, but they will not hold the same appeal. People will, by and large, not brave the elements in the dead of winter, nor look forward all week, to piling into a Starbucks for a few bracing shots of espresso of a Friday night. They will choose instead to stay at home, save money, watch Netflix - just as the overlords desire.
The social engineers have been after the pub for a long time, determined to destroy the communal atmosphere and opportunity to network and organise that pub culture presents. It started with the smoking ban, which ostensibly was to protect pub goers from passive smoking - but why would an establishment openly committed to reducing the population want to do this? As always when the ruling classes do anything, there are two reasons for it: 1) the reason given to the public to make it palatable, and 2) the real reason. Please note also that many scholars believe the risks of passive smoking have been massively overblown.
The real reason for the smoking ban was to deliver a heavy blow to pub culture from which it could not recover - many of its smoking patrons now preferring to stay at home where they can smoke freely, rather than spending the extra money to go to the pub and having to shiver in the cold and rain every time they want a cigarette (and this is Britain: it's always raining). UK pub culture has never recovered from this ban, just as it was never intended to, and has been on an ever-increasing downward trajectory ever since.
The next catastrophic blow to this industry was lockdown, which immediately caused the permanent closure of thousands of licenced premises, which could not keep meeting their financial obligations once they were barred from operating, and many more closed following the absurdist "rules" when they were permitted to open again (remember not being allowed to have an alcoholic drink in a pub unless it came with a 'substantial meal' ?).
Such harsh prescriptions were nothing to do with protecting the nation's health, as you were still permitted to order as much alcohol as you liked to your home - you simply weren't permitted to consume it in a social setting in the company of others you might talk to (maybe about the insane government tyranny you were currently living under, and what you might do about it). Remember when you weren't allowed to mingle in public communal spaces like pubs, but had to stay "in your bubbles"? This was an explicit attempt of the state to destroy any attempts to network and organise - as the establishment is and always has been terrified of the day the resistance organises properly.
By the time pubs were finally permitted to go back to normal, huge and irreparable damage had been done to the sector, with many venues already failing to survive - but then came the engineered 'cost of living crisis', which has hit pubs with the double hammer blow of less patrons, as they have less disposable income to spend on leisure, coupled with spiralling costs for the venues themselves, in terms of energy bills and supplies.
We are now in a situation where 50 pubs are closing permanently every month, and this trend will not reverse - it will accelerate, as the cost of living crisis continues to intensify, and there is more financial pressure placed on pubs, coupled with less and less custom.
Of course, pubs are not the only industry facing this crisis (far from it), but they will be feeling it particularly acutely, as when cash-strapped people are looking at how they can cut costs, one of the first things to go is "going out" (out out).
This obviously is especially so in 'Dry January', where, for years, giving up alcohol for the post-Christmas period has been touted as a sensible step for one's health, waistline and wallet. There is always press coverage regarding Dry January throughout the eponymous month, but this year, I have noticed a very distinct difference - the press is not calling for people to stop boozing for one month only. It is calling for this abstention to be permanent.
"I tried Dry January and now I haven't drunk for three years," reports one 'confessional' in the Daily Mail, featuring a couple who are so abstemious, they didn't even serve alcohol at their wedding.
"The 99% sober movement: should we keep Dry January going all year?" Asks The Guardian, solemnly warning us there is "no such thing" as a safe level of alcohol consumption (and we learned through the pandemic with just what levels of religious fervour the left-wing press regards the concept of "safety").
This is in concert with new health guidelines released by the especially despotic and tyrannical country of Canada, that people should consume no more than 1-2 alcoholic drinks per week. And yes, this is the same Canada that responds to citizens struggling with disability or poverty with an offer to kill them, so we can certainly be sure their new drinking guidelines are absolutely about optimising your health (/sarcasm off...).
The Western world is going lockstep with demonising alcohol and promoting complete abstention, because a full alcohol ban is looming, for the sole and simple reason that alcohol facilitates too much socialising which can lead to networking and organising, potentially against the government. There is a long and distinguished history in the UK of anti-establishment dissidents convening and conspiring in pubs (indeed, the famed pub said to be the birthplace of that most famous anti-state dissident of all, Guy Fawkes, even has "a conspirator's menu").
Even if some pubs remain as physical premises, serving non-alcoholic alternatives, that sturdy sense of community will nevertheless be lost, as cash-strapped patrons will not pay over the odds for a coffee in a pub, when they can drink it at home for a tenth of the price, just like smokers stopped paying pub premiums, once they could no longer smoke there. Once neither drinking or smoking is permitted in pubs, the vast majority of pub goers will stop going.
The knock-on effect of this is that, once pubs are no longer ordering from breweries, which depend on the pub trade for a large portion of their sales, these will collapse as well (as many already have), hence less and less booze will be on sale in shops, and what is there will become more and more expensive, leading to less and less people buying it. All these things therefore combine to create the perfect conditions for an outright alcohol ban. Note that South Africa already went completely dry at one point in "the pandemic" - all for your safety, of course.
So, that, I believe, is how and why they'll get rid of alcohol (and pubs).
But what about the other things I mentioned? Isn't a "sex ban" a bit, well, far-fetched?
Not really. Consider that, in the very recent past, we were instructed not to go within two metres of another individual, as that was far too dangerous and disease-ridden a prospect, and indeed that innumerable sexual relationships became outright illegal as they were labelled too much of a health risk. Hence, the ruling classes have already successfully sewn the idea in the heads of millions that other humans are nothing but filthy germ factories who could transmit a deadly illness to you if you get too near to them... so how does that really square for the future of intimate relationships?
The social programmers always tell us what they're doing well in advance, so please behold this "sex scene" from 1993's chillingly prophetic 'Demolition Man' (and don't worry, the scene is totally safe to view in a public environment, as the characters don't get within six feet of each other).
Did you catch what Sandra Bullock's aptly name character, Ms. Huxley, said there, when explaining why 'traditional' intimacy is no longer permitted? She explicitly declares:
"Rampant exchange of bodily fluids was one of the major reasons for the downfall of society."
She continues, "After AIDS, there was NRS. After NRS, there was UBT..."
To sum: a series of alleged 'pandemics' made sex (and even kissing) too dangerous to engage in, so they were outlawed.
That's what today's social engineers are building up to, too, and are currently pushing this agenda with January's newly unveiled "cervical cancer awareness month", whereby there are lots of gory horror stories in the press about the grisly realities associated with this condition (e.g., extensive butchering surgeries such as full hysterectomies simply because a person - with no symptoms of any illness - 'tests positive' for a virus) - and the declaration that the only women not at risk of this condition are those who have never had sex (they are told there is still a minor risk, but it is so small, it is not worth routinely screening them).
The social engineers have been playing the long-game with the cervical cancer scare, as they always do, and it started with the demise of 'Big Brother' star Jade Goody, which was used to frighten the populace into believing 12-year-old girls (and later boys) all needed to be "vaccinated" against this terrible killer.
This led to the unleashing of one of the most useless and dangerous injections ever created (until the current time, of course), the HPV vaccine. Based on an entirely faulty and unproven premise (that the HPV virus causes cancer), this particularly aggressive bioweapon has led to untold suffering in the thousands of young people it has adversely affected.
So, to put it simply: the ruling classes have created an increase in cervical cancer cases (partly by creating innumerable false positives with their ridiculous and flawed testing), and are now telling people the only way this terrible killer cancer virus can be reliably avoided, is by avoiding sex altogether. As the current press coverage is at pains to impress upon people, even if you've only been in one monogamous relationship your entire life, you're still "at risk".
The reality is that you're "at risk" of a virus that is almost always completely benign and naturally cleared by the body, and has not actually been proven conclusively to cause cancer. But obviously, the idea of contracting a sexually transmitted virus that appears linked to cancer, especially when it sounds so much like 'HIV', is scary (and intentionally being made scary). So, there's only one fail-safe way of mitigating that scary risk completely.
The next generation is already being successfully primed for a sex-free life, with the adults of Generation Z (the oldest of whom are now 26) having far less sex than previous generations, including adults currently in their 30s and 40s.
But why would the ruling classes want to engineer the masses away from sex, you may ask? For the same reason they want them out of the pub: because the goal is to abolish human connection and strong social bonds, and intimate relationships are both bonding and connecting. So, they're being phased out - again, just like the booze ban, all for your safety, of course (after all, you wouldn't want to contract horrible, filthy HPV, would you? Or pass it on to someone else, saddling them with a potential death sentence? Why be so selfish and disgusting when you can recreate exactly the same sensations with a hygienic VR headset?).
Okay, you may say, maybe there's some credibility in these arguments, I can sort of see where you're coming from... the ruling classes want us isolated and alone, pubs and relationships make us less isolated and alone, so they're being targeted for destruction. But... where do book bans fit into all of this?
Right here. This is legitimately one of the most terrifying things I have ever read in the mainstream media (and I read The Guardian daily, so...), and reads like it came straight out of the Tavistock Institute, which it probably did.
To save you the full undulating horror of reading the piece in its entirety (which describes book-owning as an "extreme fetish"), what it basically says is that owning books is a neurotic middle-class disease which must swiftly be eradicated by only possessing one tome at a time, which, as soon as it is read, must be immediately passed on to someone else.
"You will own nothing and be happy", remember? You won't own books, you will rent them - briefly, and only one at a time - and only those deemed socially acceptable for you to read, of course. Hey, it's for your safety.
In an eerie bit of synchronicity, just a couple of days before I read this piece, I was saying to my co-resident that we should stock up on books, because they're physical artefacts that can't be tinkered with and erased, the way online offerings can. We know that "they" are priming for The Great Reset, where they completely remake the world, and whenever devious social engineers have attempted to do this in the past, it always involves a lot of rewriting of history. They will do this again, because - if the people of the future are to be "happy" with their lifestyles of owning nothing, living in SMART pods, and not being allowed out of their 15-minute districts - then it's necessary that they don't know there was ever anything different, or rather, they don't receive an accurate portrayal of what things were like when they were different.
Physical books provide indelible and unambiguous evidence that there was a 'before' - and that this 'before', the relative freedom we enjoyed prior to "the pandemic" was not the festering disease-ridden horror show social engineers of the future will attempt to depict it as.
Demolition Man provides a perfect example of this. The people of Demolition Man's fictional future regard the past (the 1990s) with revulsion and horror, believing people back then were all untempered, slavering beasts, obsessed with sex and violence and living primitive, degenerate lives (I mean, I guess that does describe the average city centre on a Saturday night, but still...).
It is only the rebel class, the literal outlaws who live underground, who retain a real record of what life back then was like, and who understand why the retention of freedom is so important - why we must preserve personal freedom, with all its attendant risks and responsibilities, rather than embracing the ultimate form of tyranny, which is controlling people "for their safety". Note in Demolition Man that alcohol, sex, meat, and swearing are all illegal - because they're bad for you, and things that are bad, says Lenina Huxley solemnly, are not good, and therefore should be banned.
One of the primary reasons the social engineers want to move all culture online, and why they make this so affordable (a month's Netflix subscription being less than buying a single DVD), is because they then have complete control of it and can adjust or erase it at will. Your virtual library or online streaming service can be eliminated at the touch of a button - not so with physical representations of art and culture, especially books, which are entirely unelectronic and don't depend on 'the grid' at all (even DVDs and CDs need devices and electricity to play them, etc).
So, that is why The Guardian is now condemning book ownership as snobbish elitism (the one thing Guardian readers are most fearful of being accused of), even going so far as to state that not owning books is (that particularly trendy religion in such circles) a "Buddhist" thing to do.
The Guardian makes no mention of the "evils" of having stuffed-full Kindles or a veritable library of e-books - it is only the "old-fashioned" type of tomes that represent over-privileged neurosis, apparently, and that is for the reasons I say: because e-books and online libraries are entirely controllable - and erasable. Real books aren't.
So, who would have thought it: the sedate suburban monotony of yesteryear - living with a partner with a wine collection and a study full of books - will become the veritable libertine rebellion of the future...
Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...
Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.