Continuism: a philosophy for humanity in the technocratic onslaught

How do we stop dystopian science-fiction movies coming true? Are we destined to be ruled by robots, and to relinquish our free will and creativity to artificial intelligence? Such questions are becoming more prescient as a global elite directs technology beyond human advancement towards technocratic tyranny.

A unified resistance is needed, and the hymn sheet from which people sing should be a rationale for preserving humanity as we know it.

Striving to awaken the general public to the totalitarian near future, I am one of a local team of volunteers regularly distributing The Light newspaper and displaying slogans on yellow boards. Some people ask what we are protesting about, having seen a medley of messages about cash, Net Zero, farming, censorship, militarism, geoengineering and digital surveillance.

A few hecklers call us conspiracy theorists, libertarian lunatics, or worse. It’s amazing how they perceive ‘keep cash’, ‘no farmers no food’ and ‘welfare not warfare’ as right-wing tropes. To anyone who cares to ask, we state our cause as ‘freedom’. Who could be against that? (actually, as the Covid-19 debacle showed, many people!)

Having seen through the Left versus Right paradigm as a theatrical device to divide and rule, I realise that freedom is a nebulous concept. For conservatives, it has become a rallying call against the tightening ratchet on expression of traditional or patriotic views.

For progressives, it means open borders and relief from ‘hate’. On the other hand, conservatives tended to support a hierarchical establishment (until the Cultural Marxists’ ‘long march through the institutions’), while progressives have become increasingly puritanical against anyone standing in their way.

However, amidst the Green and Woke dual onslaught on humanity, I am sure that conserving is a worthy and necessary pursuit, while blindly accepting change is reckless. For those who identify themselves as progressive, the question must be: what is the destination? Scratch the surface of the typical middle-class virtue-signaller, and you’ll find an unqualified welcome for any usurping of tradition, with (as George Orwell observed) a snobbish distaste for the lower orders.

As revealed by cultist following of the contrived climate and coronavirus crises, progressives are really conformists – in the same way that conservatives were in the past. Uncritically accepting social, economic and technological change as inherently good and inevitable developments, they lack the critical thinking necessary to understand the driving forces. Progressives are against capitalist expropriation, often using the ‘follow the money’ dictum. Yes, the grabbing hands grab all they can, to borrow from Depeche Mode. But like conservatives who fear the creep of communism, they cannot see an emerging new world order that is neither ideological nor materialist in motive.

The goal is a top-down, transhumanist technocracy, and the impetus is the hardly known philosophy of accelerationism.

With the rapid development of computers, the dreams of the original technocracy movement of the 1930s became a realistic prospect. However, technological transformation of society would confront basic human proclivities. In 1970, Columbia scholar Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era envisaged a society ‘that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics’. As he explained: –

Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.

In a 1974 article in the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs, Richard Gardner described a ‘hard road to world order’, a process of quiet stealth with episodes of acute disorder, the latter to exploit a ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ (think 9/11 or Covid-19).

Brzezinski was aware of the prophecy of Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock (1970). Although Toffler did not use the term, his writing was seminal to accelerationism, a strategy later propounded by the likes of Nick Land at Warwick University.

As described in a 2017 Guardian essay by Andy Beckett, the belief is that technology must be sped up, rather than introduced incrementally, thereby attaining an unstoppable momentum. Instead of ameliorating the social consequences of rapid and relentless change, the more disruption the better.

Accelerationists are quite happy for the public, politicians and pundits to see the world through Left and Right lenses, because it keeps them stuck in futile debate on whether the lurking ogre is communism or fascism. Politics, according to Land, is ‘the last great sentimental indulgence of mankind’.

For this heresy, Land was despised by Marxist peers in academe. He predicted not only the collapse of Western civilisation but ‘disintegration of the human species’. Merging of the human and the digital (now known as the ‘internet of bodies’) would eventually lead to dilution of the former to a trace element.

Globalist technocrats are using accelerationism to smash stability, slashing and burning to enable creation of a totally engineered two-tier society. The most blatant proponent of recent years is the World Economic Forum, whose leader Klaus Schwab described the mission as the ‘Great Reset’. Schwab showed his accelerationism in the pandemic lockdown of 2020, his rapidly published book Covid-19: The Great Reset emphasising a ‘narrow window of opportunity’ to impose a ‘new normal’.

Schwab was not merely guiding an economic recovery from the ravages of Covid-19, as so-called ‘fact-checkers’ assert. His scientific advisor Yuval Noah Hariri boasts that human brains can be hacked and that the notion of the soul is dead. The relationship between human beings and technology is being reset.

Beckett’s long article omitted mention of Technocracy Inc and the goal clearly stated almost a hundred years ago of an expert-advised elite wielding total control of population and resources. He (or perhaps his editor) would only criticise accelerationism from a liberal aspect, avoiding the bigger questions of who, what and why. Perhaps the likes of the Guardian eschew such conspiracism as somehow anti-Semitic, but this reluctance has lessened since Donald Trump returned to the White House.

Acceleration is now coming from the American Right, and Trump’s many detractors in mainstream media don’t like it. The progressive Left scoffs at ‘conspiracy theories’ about Klaus Schwab and the ‘Great Reset’, but is very concerned about Elon Musk. Meanwhile MAGA followers are trusting the plan, taking their titbits against Woke and Green radicalism from their hero, ignoring his pursuit of a digital regime just as they excuse him for declaring himself ‘Father of the Vaccine’.

Musk, whose grandfather was a leading figure of Technocacy Inc, has taken on the baton with his quest for microchipping and building a satellite matrix (Starlink). Trump’s administration is dominated by associates of Peter Thiel of the technocratic Bilderberg Group and founder of surveillance company Palantir, which has close links with the CIA.

The presidential inauguration ceremony was a ‘Who’s Who’ of big tech magnates, including Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. Thiel financed the ascent of biotech venture capitalist JD Vance to vice-president. Trump’s pick for commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, is pushing AI hard and fast.

Trump’s technocrats, such as Larry Ellison, Kurtis Yarvin and Jacob Helberg, have in common an uncompromising Zionism. This may be a genuinely partisan stance on conflict in the Middle East, but is also a convenient instrument for supressing dissent. Anti-Semitism is a charge that Trump has already used in defiance of constitutional rights to free speech.

On a march against the Covid-19 regime I saw somebody wearing a top with the slogan ‘make Nineteen Eighty-Four fiction again’. Trump’s digital ‘warp speed’ is making Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World fact.

If accelerationism is the philosophical pitch of the transhumanists, we need a philosophy for humanity. And I’m pleased to report that Covid-19 sceptic David Fleming, in a recent Substack article, has come up with the goods. He names it ‘continuism’, and in my view it has intellectual rigour and practical utility.

Continuism is a belief system with a primary concern neither for truth nor freedom but for preserving all that is human. It is not conservative in a political sense.

Potentially it would certainly attract not only traditionalists but also socialists, anarchists and free-market capitalists: anyone who believes in human answers to human problems. It is not irreligious, but an assertion of free will (whether or not you believe that is God-given). Continuism isn’t for preserving a golden age in aspic, but embraces the human dynamic of constancy and change.

Fleming conveys the principles of this philosophy in a charter for human continuity. This is a moral declaration with ten principles, quoted verbatim below: –

1. Humanity is not a flaw to fix
2. We claim the right to endure and remember
3. Technology must empower, not erase, humanity
4. We care for the Earth without surrendering to control
5. The body Is the root of being human
6. Local communities are the heart of life
7. We seek truth through attention and inquiry
8. We build cooperation amid diversity
9. We protect what deserves to endure
10. We do not answer to economic or technocratic systems

On the last of these, Fleming states: –

We reject the idea that unelected elites, algorithms, or global planners can define the course of human life. These systems do not empower us—they reduce us to data, automate our choices, and impoverish us while pretending to help us thrive.

Fleming doesn’t seek signatories, as this can lead to the unwanted distraction of competing egos. He would like government, local authorities and commercial organisations, as well as individuals, to follow it. Realistically, politicians are unlikely to drop their servile allegiance to Net Zero, DEI and other doctrines that manipulate health and safety to control the populace.

Citizens may ask local politicians and council officers if they would agree to the charter. As Fleming states, ’if they say yes—humanity just gained an ally’, and if they refuse, that would imply betrayal of their role and representation. Fleming is thus setting an ‘empty chair’ test.

Continuism will have practical value as a protected belief under the Equality Act, particularly in employment cases. Many workers were disciplined for conscious objection to Covid-19 policies, and ‘cancel culture’ has also led to punishments for expressing politically incorrect ideas. Such employment practice is of dubious legality, and would be more provably unlawful if the worker can be shown to be expressing a legitimate philosophical belief.

We must stop naively believing that our existential problems will come out in the wash. As Fleming observes, ‘the technocratic class now possesses every tool it needs for total behavioural control: the internet for infrastructure, 5G and Wi-Fi for coverage, smartphones for tracking, and AI for simulation and enforcement.’ The control grid is already in place, and idealism about the human spirit will not save us.

Accordingly, Fleming asserts: –

We must now make a step change. Continuism marks the break. The reset of human strategy. From reaction to continuity. From blind trust to intelligent resistance. From politics to principles. From movements to a mandate—one that declares: humanity will continue.

Continuism is a Geneva Convention for our survival.

Niall McCrae is a social commentator and an officer iof the Workers of England trade union. He was previously a senior lecturer in mental health at King’s College London. His books include The Moon and Madness (2012), Echoes from the Corridors (with Peter Nolan, 2016), Moralitis: a Cultural Virus (with Robert Oulds, 2020) and Green in Tooth and Claw: the Misanthropic Mission of Climate Alarm (2024).  He writes regularly for The Light newspaper.

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.