Here is the piece that we were working on at the time of our being purged from Facebook, and which we intended to be the ‘story’ of UN-Extinction.

N.b. we’ve now returned to Facespook with a new page:

It has become necessary to clear up a few things about the purpose of UN-Extinction (Rebellion). We’re regularly accused by commenters of being “fake news”, “funded by the oil industry”, “climate deniers”, “conspiracy theorists”, “far-right” and various other predictable slanders. These smears are seemingly deployed, either consciously or unconsciously, as a way of distracting from the substance of our research, and attempting to banish it from the realms of ‘polite conversation’. Fortunately, that’s a realm we have no desire to participate in anyway, since it’s never borne any correspondence to reality.

It’s nonetheless disheartening that those expressing such things lack either the will, emotional composure, or intellectual honesty to address our arguments. As Thomas Sowell so eloquently put it: “One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people’s motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans – anything except reason.” Incidentally, the subject of dumbed-down education brings us straight to the doors and halls of the very same oligarchs that created the United Nations – but that’ll have to be a story for another day.

Up until the point of our being purged from Facebook, we had a pinned post on our page that summarised our position very clearly, and would have quickly addressed any confusion, if only our detractors had taken the trouble of reading it.

Of the many XR supporters that have commented on our posts, perhaps 2 or 3 did so in a way that addressed the substance our research, and none yet in a point-for-point, systematic way. The rest have been unable to do anything more than call us names and make unfounded accusations, whilst accusing us of doing the exact same thing – seemingly in complete ignorance of the hundreds of citations and links to original source documentation we provide as supporting evidence – much of which has been obtained from government records, i.e. company databases, government policy documents, etc.

We know that at least one faithful representative of XR began in earnest the process of a systematic rebuttal – only to realise that what we’ve been saying was in fact an accurate representation of the available information. Admittedly, we also engage in some dot-connecting and at times, even a smidgen of speculation, making sure to draw attention to any such instances. While the information speaks for itself, analysis requires context and an understanding of the bigger picture. The nature of our research concerns itself with complex historical and geopolitical phenomena of a hidden and secretive nature, and consequently at times it’s necessary to hypothesise on the basis of the information available to us mere mortals. And so far, it must be said, our initial instincts have been borne out very well by what’s come to pass since we began sharing our research.

One of the recent allegations made against us by XR members, which no doubt contributed to the removal of the page, was that we’ve been “misleading people” with our name and profile image, or even that we’re pretending to be affiliated with the UN.

What we’ve been trying to achieve with the page is to encourage the questioning of popular narratives around Extinction Rebellion – which is to say those that come from both the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’. In our experience, it’s sometimes necessary to create a little cognitive dissonance to stimulate curiosity in people who’ve been ‘misled’ into accepting unexamined assumptions. We felt that questions such as ‘why would someone combine the UN and XR names/logos?’ might be useful to that end. Although, as we’ve since learned, there are people out there who wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow to the idea that the UN would openly support XR; alas, there’s probably not a great deal that we can do for such a person.

In the words of stand-up comedian Will Franken, “these people can’t recognise irony because they’re living in it all the time.” We’ve had to work very hard to retain our sense of humour in looking at all of this, and in case it wasn’t immediately obvious, the collision of names and imagery constitutes a form of satire (with the double meaning of the prefix ‘un-’ signifying negation) – something it would appear a vanishing number of people, particularly those identified with ‘the Left’, are capable of appreciating. And besides, what of the fact that they’ve completely misdirected ‘our’ environmental movement? In desperate circumstances, one is sometimes forced to resort to ‘guerrilla’ tactics. Evidently, “it’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled” (-Mark Twain)

There has also been disquiet over the fact that we’ve published our work anonymously – which we’ve done to protect ourselves from the kinds of witch-hunts that we know ‘activists’ are more than capable of conducting. Some are likewise apparently uncomfortable that we haven’t provided them with any simplistic labels with which to caricature our political position; something that has led to all manner of comical speculation (the best so far being that we’re actually “Tories”). Again, anyone who actually reads our articles will be able to get a good idea of where we stand. In the first one, we introduce ourselves as coming from a green anarchist background, having been involved in the environmental movement in the past, and describe how we came to have grave doubts over how that movement operates. In addition, we refuse to orient ourselves along the axis of political ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ – one of the primary means through which ‘divide and conquer’ is achieved in society. Why? Because the making of such distinctions is entirely irrelevant to the presence of the hundred-foot tall elephant in the room…

The bigger picture, which most are still failing to see, is that the political systems (and in turn, the cultures) of nearly the entire world are presently under the heel of an economic system based on debt and usury, and guided by the ‘logic’ of the shareholder profit motive – which BY DESIGN gives rise to a parasitical economic mindset and spawns institutions that behave like a cancerous growth, with complete disregard for any long-term consequences. Within this diseased environment, there exist, broadly speaking, two distinct management styles, evolving somewhat over time as follows:

1. Capitalism > Neoliberalism

2. State ‘Socialism’ > Technocratic Communitarianism

If, as we’re constantly encouraged to do, we allow ourselves to be led by our dislike for one management system, then we’re very likely to become blind to the flaws of the other, as well as to the fact that there are vast areas where there’s no disagreement whatsoever between them where it comes to how things should be run. This suits the bankster class very well, since they’ve developed ingenious methods of advancing their goals through both systems. And all the while, their power derives from the practice of institutionalised usury – which neither system challenges, nor even permits into the realms of public discourse.

Our contention is that any approach which seeks to address the crisis of our times, but fails to articulate the deeper dynamic that has been at play for well over a century now is not only a waste of everybody’s time – but is also highly vulnerable to co-optation. Extinction Rebellion’s insistence that getting the government to ‘tell the truth’, combined with the creation of a ‘Citizens’ Assembly’ will somehow be capable of overcoming such entrenched interests (whilst avoiding manipulation therefrom) is quite simply laughable. This is compounded by the fact that not once have we seen anyone within Extinction Rebellion acknowledge that the ‘Nonviolent Direct Action’ strategy they employ, developed by Gene Sharp, was weaponised decades ago by the US Intelligence Services for the purpose of destabilising undesirable regimes – something explored in our introductory article. Nor have they been able to answer our questions as to why avowed globalists such as Farhana Yamin and depopulation fanatics like Stanley Johnson (Boris’ father) have attached themselves to the group.

This might be a good juncture for us to comment on XR’s three demands:

1. Asking governments to ‘tell the truth’ demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of political institutions, their function, history, and operational dynamics – including the ‘cultural’ context in which state-formation and maintenance occurs. In other words, ‘statecraft’: the systemic violence inherent in the process of political and economic centralisation, and necessary for its continuation.

2. Science is not a group therapy session; objective reality does not yield to ‘consensus’. As such, the oft bandied-about term, ‘scientific consensus’ is a contradiction in terms. As ‘climate change’ rapidly becomes the new state religion, we reserve the right to remain agnostic. Troubled as we are with the destruction that has been and continues to be rained down upon the Earth, we cannot and will not stand by and allow the corporate-financial oligarchy, hiding behind the United Nations’ PR image, to offer ‘solutions’ to their own excesses. These are the very last people we should trust to correctly identify problems, and then devise and implement appropriate solutions.

3. Regarding your ‘Citizens’ Assembly’ panacea, how difficult do you really think it would be for the intelligence services to either stage a consensus decisionmaking process, or direct it to their intended outcome using partisan ‘experts’ employing linguistic wizardry? Especially considering what we know about how much practice they already have under their belts promoting single-issue ‘climateism’ within Climate Camp, Occupy, and the like? This can only lead us to speculate as to why you’ve decided to make such a demand – after all, it fits in rather well with what Gail Bradbrook said to Sky News about representatives of Theresa May telling XR that you were needed to create “social permission” to justify their plans.

For an incisive take on the co-optation of protest movements, we’ll turn to an extract from Theodore Kaczynski (himself a victim of Deep State subversion):

“(I)n a nutshell, the System’s neatest trick is this:

1. For the sake of its own efficiency and security, the System needs to bring about deep and radical social changes to match the changed conditions resulting from technological progress.

2. The frustration of life under the circumstances imposed by the System leads to rebellious impulses.

3. Rebellious impulses are co-opted by the System in the service of the social changes it requires; activists “rebel” against the old and outmoded values that are no longer of use to the System and in favor of the new values that the System needs us to accept.

4. In this way rebellious impulses, which otherwise might have been dangerous to the System, are given an outlet that is not only harmless to the System, but useful to it.

5. Much of the public resentment resulting from the imposition of social changes is drawn away from the System and its institutions and is directed instead at the radicals who spearhead the social changes.”

– Theodore Kaczynski, The System’s Neatest Trick

Despite the limitations of his outlook, given the trauma he sustained, we feel that he’s right on the money with this analysis. If one wishes to do something that stands a chance of meaningfully changing the current situation, then they must first come to a clear understanding of what’s at play – something XR has singularly failed to do. For a detailed analysis of how the elites have been ‘playing’ the ‘climate emergency movement’, aside from our own articles, we again refer you to the extensive writings of Cory Morningstar, as well as to the work of Kim Hill, among others.

There is so much more to this story, and getting all of the facts straight is a superhuman task. We send our deepest respect to all those who are attempting it, against the odds, and at the same time we call for the rest of you to muck in with the effort in whichever way you can. Open-Source Intelligence (or OSINT) requires, as the name suggests, that we share our sources, and likewise peer-review each other’s research. We’re wrestling with a colossal body of information, and being only human, we’re prone to making mistakes as we try to get a handle on it all – which is why we request that our critics inform us of exactly where they’ve found errors in our research, rather than name-calling. The more of us get involved in this task, the faster and more accurately we’ll be able to recognise patterns, and build a collective understanding of what’s truly happening behind the narratives that get launched at us from on high.

If you’re interested in helping with our research, and especially if you have experience with investigative journalism or OSINT analysis and intelligence gathering, then please get in touch via email:

Who knows; if we all work together here, we might even prevent this technocratic totalitarian world government-in-waiting from using ‘carbon neutrality’ as a foil for ‘securing’ the world’s resources, via a global campaign of land clearances and enclosures – laying waste to the remaining intact ecosystems and indigenous cultures in the name of so-called ‘green technology’. And if enough of us actively expose the astroturf ‘campaign groups’ that are spearheading this agenda, and instead unite over the issues that actually matter, then we may actually be able to ‘save the world’ by freeing humanity from the burden of Empire, removing the yoke of debt-slavery, and getting on with the ecological restoration work that’s so desperately needed. The problem, in effect, is the solution: we must unite against the ‘United Nations’, before that ‘Empire of Eternal Love’ brings its Carbon Footprint down on us all.

Love and Lightning,


P.S. In case this is your first time here, follow this link to our series on XR:

2 thoughts on “UN-Extinction: A Guide for the Perplexed

  1. Ok, so you may have a point. I find your articles to long winded. What’s your basic argument? Analysis, diagnosis, action proposition? Thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.