I know two young men, both approaching the age of 30, who were born just months apart in the mid-nineties. We will call them Aaron and Zach.

Aaron was born on a northern council estate to unmarried parents who both left school at 16 with few qualifications. The household was low income, and, before he had reached secondary school age, Aaron's parents had split up. Aaron went to a local comprehensive school, where he qualified for free school dinners, and left school at 16 with a handful of GCSEs.

Zach was born in an affluent part of the south to married parents who had both graduated from one of the world's most prestigious universities. The household was high income, and Zach attended a private school. His parents stayed together, and funded his education through to university. Taking a year out between A-levels and university, Zach graduated with an arts' degree aged 22.

Fast forward a few years, and one of these two young men is currently earning nearly £40,000 a year and living with his long-term girlfriend, where they regularly enjoy meals out, music festivals, and travel. He is confident, enthusiastic, and optimistic about the future.

The other has recently been laid off from his part-time minimum-wage bar work, and is staying rent-free in a friend's spare room whilst he desperately searches for more work. He is single, can't afford much of a social life, and struggles with anxiety and depression.

Can you guess which is which?

Conventional wisdom would tell us - and would have been right up until about ten years ago - that the high-earning success story would be graduate Zach, whilst it was school-leaver Aaron struggling with employment, housing, and mental health.

After all, Zach began life with every advantage, whilst Aaron's upbringing was a textbook example of underprivilege. The kind of backdrop Ken Loach might make a film about, with a 5-star review in the Guardian overusing the word 'stark'.

The reality?

It's actually Zach, the middle-class son of affluent parents, who is so profoundly struggling, and working class Aaron who is enjoying the solvent, successful life.

How did this happen?

Following a period of stacking shelves after he left school. Aaron decided to seek out an apprenticeship as a plumber, inspired by another lad he knew from his estate who was doing just that. It took Aaron quite some time to secure a place (apprenticeships are competitive, and, aged in his early twenties by then, he was considered a bit on the old side). But he persevered, found a place, became the scheme's star pupil, and completed his apprenticeship aged 26, graduating to a salary of nearly £30,000 - which has, and will continue to, rise as he accrues more experience. He'll never want for work again in his life.

Zach, conversely, upon graduating from university with an arts degree aged 22, was completely unable to find work in his graduate field - or in any graduate field. He applied fruitlessly for dozens of jobs, and, eventually, found bar work, securing a full-time position in a busy city-centre bar.

But as the bar struggled to make ends meet post-pandemic, his hours were slashed first to part-time, and then his position was terminated altogether.

Realising that there is not only no future in the the graduate field he's qualified in, but that hospitality doesn't represent a secure future either, now Zach is facing the prospect of retraining as he approaches his thirties - but in what?

Most trades would consider him too old for an apprenticeship, and he's not good with his hands, anyway (like many young men of his age, exposed to the ramped up '90s vaccine schedule, he has a dyspraxia diagnosis). There's no point going back to university for another useless degree, and to accrue more whopping student debt.

(Aaron has no debt: he was paid a liveable wage throughout his apprenticeship.)

So what now?

A similar dilemma faces many.

Aaron and Zach are real people, with just a couple of identifying details changed, and there are more and more like them (there was even a meme made about them once) - and they reflect a burgeoning new reality: that a monumental social shift is taking place, which will totally transform and redefine the concepts of work, class, money, and social status as we know them.

Aaron, the young plumber, is "working class", a term which has, historically, been used by some as a pejorative, meant to suggest a person might be lacking in certain aspirations or abilities, as opposed to the supposedly more rarefied "middle classes".

Yet all that is set to profoundly change. In the near future, "working class" will become a badge of great prestige and honour - as in, the class that works, those people who play vital social roles and keep society going - as opposed to the idle, surplus, useless class, who don't.

The always contentious debate around people's social worth and their ability to undertake paid work has been reignited again in recent days, owing to the UK Labour government's abrupt and extreme cuts to disability benefits.

Of the UK's 16 million registered disabled people, many are unable to work full-time, and thus, rely on state benefits to survive. Labour intends to make cuts that will make it impossible for some people - some of the country's most vulnerable - to make ends meet, thus hurling them into a dire and deeply insecure future.

Yes, certainly, there are benefits cheats who shouldn't be claiming in the first place and these cuts will penalise them - but there are also millions of very genuinely disabled people (a lot more since 2021) who desperately need these funds to live - and the brutal cuts that are coming are being directly targeted at them, too.

Observing the national reaction to this situation, therefore, has been interesting, instructive - and moderately terrifying.

Whilst there are plenty of passionate advocates for disability rights who are fighting tirelessly to ensure disabled people are able to continue to access all the help and support they need, the response from some self-described "hard-working people" to the cuts has been rather different.

I witnessed an exchange on Twitter where a disabled wheelchair user explained the proposed cuts to her benefits would make her continued independent existence near impossible, as well as resulting in more unemployment, because she would have to fire her gardener and cleaner.

Cue Twitter erupting like a particularly vitriolic Vesuvius...

"I'm going to work slaving away all day so you can be indulged with luxuries like a cleaner and gardener!" Was the general theme of the outraged apoplexy. "Get up and do your own cleaning, you lazy sod, and whilst you're at it, get an effin' job!"

To reiterate, this lady is in a wheelchair.

She can't walk.

If she doesn't have someone to come in and do her cleaning, it won't get done, and she will have to live in squalor. If she doesn't have a gardener, her front lawn won't get mowed, which will become obstructive, and thus she won't be able to leave her house.

Yet that was not seen to matter. The general consensus seemed to be, if she is not directly "earning" a living (i.e., generating a taxable income), then she doesn't deserve to have one.

So, what witnessing this exchange (and many similar exchanges) demonstrated to me was that the overall national attitude is very clear: if you don't work - no matter your reasons - you simply are not a worthwhile person who is deserving of even the most basic human dignities such as having a clean house and a front door you can get out of - never mind an existence that might in any way be meaningful or enjoyable to you.

Because, just see how the average person reacts if you suggest a disabled person might use some of their benefits to go out for a meal or to see a show... Quite frankly, convicted murderers get more social sympathy (see Luigi).

This world view - that only those in paid work deserve to have adequate standards of living and enjoy their lives - is very deeply woven into us, even if we try to resist it. I mean, be totally honest - when you were reading the opening examples of Aaron and Zach I gave at this essay's start, didn't you make certain judgments about them, even if subconsciously?

That Adam must be harder working, more capable, more deserving of a successful life: that Zach must have some kind of innate moral failing to be where he is, that his bad fortune must be down to some kind of personal ineptitude?

We have all been trained to think like this, because when the system fails, we have been taught to blame the victims of said failure, rather than its orchestrators and perpetrators, so that the orchestrators and perpetrators can continue to get away with what they are doing.

And what they are doing is - quite frankly - committing a genocide.

That may seem a little far-fetched a claim at first glance, but we have to remember that genocide doesn't just happen overnight, and, as all historical examples prove, there are several prerequisite stages before whole groups of people can be successfully wiped out.

The first stage of genocide is "classification", which is the distinguishing of people into "us and them" categories - worthy, and unworthy. Fully human, and not. There have been many different ways of so-classifying people in history, in a way that has ultimately led to their demise, and these have included disability, race, and religion.

But the genocide being orchestrated currently won't strictly demarcate people in these terms, rather, it will simply be: those who generate a taxable income (the working class) and those who do not (the useless class, as the WEF has already described them).

Those who have a vital social role, and those who don't. Those who are - to use pandemic-speak - "essential", and those who are not.

By slashing disability benefits now (just as they have ruthlessly disabled millions more with their Covid injections), the ruling classes are testing the waters for social attitudes towards non-workers. They are evaluating the public reaction, to see whether there is uniform outrage that vulnerable people are being penalised and jeopardised like this, or rather, if the populace can be stirred up to support the cuts, by being encouraged to see the non-working as a useless, parasitical class, sucking up workers' hard-earned wealth.

To confirm this fact, Prime Minister Keir Starmer keeps reiterating that his government is making decisions solely on the basis of benefitting "working" people. Not simply "people", or even "tax-payers", but specifically "working" people.

This is a deeply invidious distinction to make, when many large groups of people don't work, and for very good reason. Not just (some) disabled people, but also some or all:

-Under 18s

-Full-time students

-Stay-at-home mothers

-Pensioners

-Job seekers

Therefore, by making a pejorative distinction between the worth of all the aforementioned groups, and those who are "working" (i.e., earning a taxable income, since obviously, stay-at-home mothers work, they just don't get paid for it), the government seeks to engage in the initial "classification" stage of genocide.

To divide the populace into us (the working worthwhile) and them (the parasitic freeloaders).

The government, and governments around the world, are heavily invested in pushing this classification now, because of how the world of work is so rapidly changing.

At the current time, there is not an available employment vacancy for every unemployed adult in the country.

To be clear, even if every job vacancy was filled tomorrow, there would still be millions of unemployed people, both able and disabled.

There are already not enough jobs to go around, a typical job vacancy is inundated with applications, and that situation is about to be amplified to an almost unfathomable - and historically unprecedented - degree, as AI takes over millions of jobs that had, up until now, been done by human beings.

Already, Keir Starmer has announced his plans to axe thousands of civil service jobs and replace them with AI.

Starmer has also abruptly abolished NHS England, the commissioning board for the national health service in this country, putting around 10,000 jobs at risk - and many more similar operations are earmarked for abolition, leading to a further jobs' blood bath.

Most people who are thrown into redundancy by these cuts won't simply be redeployed into a similar role elsewhere, as there won't be similar roles elsewhere - not for human beings, now that AI can successfully undertake so many bureaucratic and administrative tasks.

Not all of these now-unemployed people can - as out-of-touch talking heads often patronisingly prescribe - "just go and get a job at Tesco's" (something even qualified doctors have been attempting recently).

This is because Tesco's, like all supermarkets, is a sought-after employer and, as such, is not experiencing a staffing crisis - on the contrary. Any advertised supermarket vacancy is instantly deluged with applications, enabling Tesco's and similar outfits to take their pick. And someone who has worked in NHS administration for the last 20 years is not going to be high up on their desirability criteria.

They're over-qualified and will typically be passed over for someone who's a better demographic fit - this is the case for many minimum-wage jobs. The idea that those who are made redundant from professional careers can rely on "just getting any old job until something better comes along" is long-outdated.

In addition, supermarkets, like many other employers throughout the retail world, are rapidly becoming more automated, and dispensing with more and more human staff. Call centres, a stalwart employer for many struggling to find work, are set to be almost entirely automated by 2030. Even McDonald's is going that way - a change predicted to cost 'millions' of jobs.

The ominous future careering towards us at such a breakneck speed that not everyone's had a chance to fully take it in yet, is that, in the imminent future, we will have a very large cohort of people who do not work.

Not because they physically can't.

Not because they don't want to.

But simply because there aren't enough available jobs. AI and automation will have taken many of the previously available human vacancies, whilst industries like hospitality and travel are dramatically contracting or collapsing due to spiralling costs and (fully engineered and anticipated) post-lockdown complications.

So what do we do with all these people who can't get jobs?

It is my opinion that the Labour government has intentionally orchestrated a crisis situation now, by simultaneously slashing disability benefits, and plunging thousands into unemployment through abolishing major employers, so people become vocally and visibly desperate for a solution (classic "problem-reaction-solution").

Because if you can't rely on a job for an income...

And you can't rely on benefits...

How about UBI to save the day?

The only (interim at least) solution to a problem where millions of people cannot accrue the funds they need to live either through work or benefits, is the introduction of a universal basic income that is available to all, and that ensures everyone has enough money to live, regardless of their ability to access or undertake paid work. Thought leaders in AI have already told us UBI is an inevitability because of all the jobs AI will take.

The introduction of UBI will, in the context of the current crisis (which is set to escalate for a good while yet), be hailed by many as manna from heaven, a desperately-needed, literal lifeline.

But where does the money for UBI come from?

From the taxes of working people.

Once UBI is introduced, therefore, the tensions that are already being aggressively agitated between those who work and those who do not will intensify exponentially.

The media will relentlessly stoke this fire by portraying the "lazy layabout" UBI class as idling away their time, at best getting stoned and playing video games all day (as predicted by the WEF), and, at worst, being involved in anti-social behaviour and violent crime - "all bankrolled by our hardworking essential class".

While a small minority of UBI recipients will indeed be violent and dangerous - just as a small minority of benefits claimants are now - the reality of life for most on UBI will be that of subsisting in a bleak and hopeless prison.

The amount of money received will be carefully calculated to be just enough to pay the essential living costs - rent, bills, basic food - but nothing more. Not enough for high-quality food, or health supplements, or exercise equipment. Not enough for a car, or a pet, or a meal out.

And certainly not enough, as we learned earlier, for a cleaner or gardener, even if you are physically incapable of undertaking these tasks yourself.

In short, it will enable recipients to stay alive, but not live.

It will mimic life under lockdown (a test run of the future the ruling classes envisage for most), where life is lived entirely alone, indoors, and through a screen.

Only the working classes - the essentials - will have the means to have a high quality of life; to enjoy leisure and travel; and to retain what sinister social engineer, Marc Andressen, calls "reality privilege".

The UBI class won't be able to afford it.

And - just as there is little sympathy today for disabled people who protest they haven't enough money to live, only to exist - there will be precious little interest in the plight of the UBI class and their lack of stimulating, meaningful lives.

"Want a more interesting life? Get a job," the working, essential classes will sneer at the UBI class, just as they do to the disabled class today. "Stop freeloading off our hard work."

Many will try - just as many disabled people do today - but will face an unimaginably competitive climate, where even the most basic, low-skilled work is flooded with applicants willing to do anything - including working for free - to give them the slightest hope of having a meaningful social role that ultimately leads to a wage (the stage has already been set for this, with the increasing ubiquity of the "unpaid internship").

If these UBI recipients can't get a job (and huge swathes won't be able to), the unremittingly bleak nature of life under UBI will cause many to develop depression and related health problems. The lack of meaning, structure, and social integration, will literally reduce their lifespan, as it is known to do.

And therefore, inevitably, many will ultimately opt for assisted dying, which is also, very conveniently, currently being bulldozed into place.

Who, after all, is going to stop this annihilation of the UBI class?

When the working populace has been trained for so long to see non-workers as worthless parasites simply taking from others, and contributing nothing useful in return, are they going to put up a meaningful fight to stop this class from simply being euthanised en masse?

No, they are not, and that is how the genocide is being designed to unfold. To push people into such a bleak and hopeless situation, which for many will involve chronic health problems they can't afford to treat (there have been an explosion of such problems since 2021), that they will simply opt for death, instead - which the state is conveniently making available right on cue - and which many "hard-working tax-payers" will cheer on.

Because to genocide a population, you have to first dehumanise them, and that is what the social engineers have, in the minds of many, already successfully done.

Those parasites.

Those freeloaders.

Aren't us valuable hard-workers better off without them?

I always thought that Starmer's installation in government had two key purposes: one was to bring in assisted dying, and the other, UBI, because the two are inextricably linked.

UBI is the pathway to assisted dying. That's why they will introduce it. That's what it's for.

The cruel irony is that it will be received with rapturous applause by many of the very people it is designed to disenfranchise, demoralise, and kill.

That's why it's vital we're alive to the real purposes, and real risks, of UBI now, and continue to vigorously oppose it. It is not the solution to the disability benefits cuts, it is not the solution to jobs' cuts, and, if introduced, will make a grim situation very much worse.

For the same reasons that you shouldn't take health advice from a group of people openly committed to depopulation (as millions did during the "Covid" episode, many of whom have since "died suddenly" or developed severe health problems), nor should you rely financially on a government which is currently pushing through a bill to enable it to legally execute its citizens.

The ruling classes only put up with the rest of us as long as we are generating taxes for them through paid work. The moment we are not, they are incentivised to do nothing but get rid of us, hence why the 'flu vaccine becomes free annually as soon as one reaches retirement age. This programme is nothing more than a eugenic books' balancing exercise to reduce welfare spending by killing off pensioners, as the government itself essentially admits - see this article (and many similar like it), "flu vaccine blunder brought unexpected benefits for Britain's pensions' black hole".

It's also why the disabled were prioritised for repeat Covid injections. It's because they as a class are less likely to undertake paid work, and more likely to need state-funded care, especially as they age. Hence, they are perceived as a burden and the government wants to get rid of them. Nobody can be in any doubt of that fact in light of the disability benefits cuts.

This being the case, to openly rely on the government for all of one's income, with no prospect of paid work at all, as much of the future UBI class are set to do, is reckless to the point of life-endangering. It is simply putting a target directly on one's head.

I often have to remind the utopian advocates of this scheme, who believe UBI will unlock humanity's true creative potential and so on, that the U in UBI stands for 'universal', and not 'unconditional': that is to say, however the scheme is initially introduced in order to entice people to use it, it is inevitable that conditions will creep in - such as, getting "vaccinated" during a "pandemic".

So we must resist this supposed lifeline - which, in classic Orwellian doublespeak, is actually the exact opposite - at all costs, and focus on finding creative and autonomous solutions to the challenges ahead of us: challenges which, if they don't already, will soon affect every family and community.

Part of that solution lies in rebuilding said families and communities, which social engineers have relentlessly broken up over the post-war decades, leaving many isolated, atomised, and therefore, very vulnerable (all predators know the most successful hunting strategy is to first isolate their prey). I wrote about that in more detail here.

Not only are integrated communities vital to human wellbeing, they also make it easier to find paid work. Many available job vacancies aren't advertised anywhere, and get filled not through some recruitment consultant wading through hundreds of faceless CVs, but via word of mouth, family connections, and friends. But job seekers will never know about these opportunities if they don't have family and friends, and aren't connected to their local, real-world communities in this way.

Equally as important is totally reframing how we evaluate our own, and one another's, worth, recognising our shared and insoluble human value, regardless of age, ability level, or employment status. It is a fact that, in the imminent future, millions of people who want a full-time steady job won't be able to acquire one, and they will therefore need support to reshape their lives - and it is incumbent on us as a society to find ways to get this support to them without exclusively relying on the "help" of a predator class who wants us dead. Human communities possess the skills and resources to build a better future than that, and to ensure vulnerable people are protected and provided for.

Further solutions lie is accepting that the old social model is irretrievably broken, and so the old advice we used to give to people about how to be successful in life is not going to work. It already isn't working for millions, and young people beginning their careers now need very different advice to that which they have traditionally received.

It's also well worth those of all ages looking to increase their skillset and consider retraining, in fields that are expanding and largely invulnerable to AI takeover, such as certain health occupations (including alternative health). I wrote about that in much more detail in this article.

It's true we are hurtling headlong into a (fully engineered and planned) social and economic crisis. It's a unique crisis, in terms of the specific obstacles we have to overcome, but it's a universal one, too, insofar as societal sands have shifted on many past historical occasions, and people have found ways to creatively respond, survive, and thrive.

"Crisis", after all, doesn't just have to signify danger and destruction, it can also herald opportunity and new beginnings, see "healing crisis".

Our society is deeply fractured in many places. But whether we respond to the current crisis in a way that causes more breakages, or that starts to engender healing, does ultimately remain within our control.

We know what "they", the ruthless predator class want for us. But by highlighting their plans - and showing what their endgame really is - we minimise their power, and start to reclaim our own.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.