by Paul Cudenec, who reads the article here

My first objection to the modern world in which I found myself was, I would say, cultural. My parents later told me that even as a very young child I was offended by the adverts that interrupted the TV shows we were watching, and I think I became increasingly aware of the deep dishonesty they represented.

Beneath the veneer of faked enthusiasm, calculated humour or subliminal sexuality lurked the near-criminal desire to dupe people into buying something they would otherwise not have thought of buying.

The same anti-ethos, accompanied by a gross lack of taste, could be heard more and more in the commercial “pop” and “disco” music of the 1970s and seen in the fashions which, for reasons I could not grasp, most people were gullible and sheep-like enough to want to follow.

At the same time, the human-scale local shops like the one down the road to which I was regularly dispatched before I started school, armed with a couple of coins and a shopping list I could not read, were replaced by ever-bigger supermarkets with ever-more-garish colour schemes.

The Britain I grew up in seemed to be constantly in crisis – there were power cuts and endless strikes and talk was of mass immigration, muggings and riots. The consensus seemed to be that the country was in terminal decline.

While this atmosphere may have partly been manufactured to pave the way for Thatcherism, the next decade was no better in my mind. I had already established my own core values by then and the “greed is good” outlook of the 1980s “Yuppies” was certainly not one of them. Meanwhile, the music pumped out at us by the media got even worse and the aesthetics of the culture also strayed yet further from those which I largely shared with my own family.

As a young man, I regarded all of this as being the “Americanisation” of my country – however, now I see that it was a “modernisation” process that had initially been rolled out across the Atlantic but had its origins in the City of London, not even 20 miles from my own suburban home.

There was also an environmental element to my youthful dissatisfaction, even though I lived in an already-urbanised area. I saw how the open air car park on the other side of the road to my grandparents’ home, which had once been allotments, turned into a daylight-blocking multi-storey car park, complete with street level “retail units” – so important to boost economic growth and the well-being of the Business Community.

As I mentioned in ‘A developing evil: the malignant historical force behind the Great Reset‘, a field near to where I lived, in which my friends and I had once played, became part of a new housing estate, while green-belt Surrey “beauty spots”, to which my family made regular Sunday afternoon pilgrimages, were suddenly desecrated by the construction of the M25 London orbital motorway.

When I chose to work and live further from the capital, in West Sussex, things only got worse because the threat of “development” was constant. I read about it happening, and being resisted, everywhere and felt as if I was in a state of permanent vigilance.

I was involved in successful (so far!) direct action campaigns to save ancient woodland from being destroyed by a new Arundel bypass and, particularly, in the fight to stop a road cutting through Titnore Woods near Worthing – the adjacent fields were, however, eventually covered by a massive housing estate (that’s me on the left holding the banner!).

In my last few years in England I loudly condemned the destruction of the Sussex countryside I had been enjoying for decades, became active in a county-wide grassroots anti-development campaign and promised myself that if ever they went ahead with the plan to build a Worthing bypass across the beautiful downland behind Cissbury Ring, I would risk everything, even my life, in trying to stop them.

I recall that one councillor who supported this scheme argued that it would not in the least ruin the countryside, but rather “open it up” to the admiring view of motorists using the new road.

How can one co-exist with people so lacking in soul?

Just before coming to France I also flung myself briefly into the anti-fracking struggle, an existential fight for what was left of rural England, and later had to make a journey back from my new home for an ensuing court case (we were triumphantly not guilty!).

The police violence dealt out against those defending our countryside from the corporate greedsters (as well as against those opposing globalist summits, globalist fake-pandemics, globalist warmongering and UK factories making weapons for the murderous globalist state of Israel) has also greatly informed my understanding of the world in which we live. I can still picture the face of one pig-ugly London cop, contorted by hate and literally frothing at the mouth as he weighed in with his baton against our group of unarmed protesters.

But this was only one side of the repression faced by anyone in Britain (and elsewhere, no doubt) who decides to follow their inner moral compass and make a stand against the full-spectrum war on our lives and our freedom constantly being waged by the criminocracy.

I have had direct experience of dissident groups and events being infiltrated by agents of the system, and know that what I have personally seen is just the tip of the iceberg. Two fellow campaigners in Worthing told me, at different times, how Sussex Police had put pressure on them via their jobs. The first received a visit at his home, during which the cops made it clear that they knew where he worked (a government agency, in fact) and implied that his job would be at risk if he did not provide them with “information” on our activities. The second told me how police had actually turned up at his workplace, having identified him as being involved in our campaign.

Venues where we held meetings were threatened by the police with losing their licenses – one friendly bar owner openly told me about this – and a certain prominent town centre pub cancelled our booking at the last minute because of unspecified “threats” (it was about Palestine, so I think we know…)

At the same time, both through my paid work as a local journalist and through my spare-time investigating, I became aware of the stinking rot of corruption, even at the local level. Councillors, council officers, property developers, Freemasons and Rotarians were all part of a grubby and arrogant Business Community that ran the show for its own benefit.

Democracy was a sham and the structures of local government were shaped to ensure this continued. Once, as a young reporter, I could tell the public about disagreements voiced in council committee meetings, but then a new top-down “Cabinet” system was introduced, real decisions were made behind the scenes and ultimately new-style “journalists” simply copied and pasted council press releases into the pages of their corporate-owned rags.

I informed myself of all the corruption on national and international levels too, and the way in which politicians and movements of all kinds were manipulated by hidden puppet-masters. I read alternative publications like Lobster and Notes from the Borderland and books about the deep state, false flag terrorism and corporate imperialism.

The softly-softly advance of the surveillance state was already evident to me in the 1990s, when I started campaigning against CCTV and wrote a punk song about “the cameras that steal our liberty”.

I knew full well that the System existed and also that it was waging a war against insights and ideas that it perceived as a threat to its domination, through the media, academia and infiltration of political movements.

Political positions that it was “possible” to adopt were tightly policed from all sides and carefully separated from each other to avoid overlap and, thus, fluidity. Ideological territories beyond these fixed political worlds were essentially forbidden zones.

As an example, a group of us from Worthing once went up to London to attend a talk by the American green anarchist John Zerzan, who was a great inspiration for me at the time. But the evening was ruined by a group of smug London “anarchists” who did nothing but sneer at Zerzan’s anti-industrial philosophy.

Much later, here in France, I encountered the same phenomenon with two authors invited to speak at a small anarchist library with which I was then involved.

The first of these was Alexis Escudero, who was presenting his 2014 book condemning the artificial reproduction industry, La reproduction artificielle de l’humain.

Here he condemned a certain “cyber-liberal left” for “confusing political equality with the biological uniformisation of individuals” and his stance led to him duly being attacked by such elements, who accused him of lesbophobia, homophobia and transphobia and of being part of an “environmentalist drift towards essentialism, in the name of the ‘defence of the living’”. A leaflet attacking him declared: “No to essentialism and naturalism!”

A group of people turned up at our event with this very message and instead of engaging in a discussion with the young author simply insulted him and accused him of the usual “woke” thought crimes.

A couple of years later we invited the philosopher Renaud Garcia (pictured), who warned in his book Le Désert de la critique that certain postmodernist strands of thinking were diverting left-wingers into a dead-end of disempowerment and irrelevancy.

Much the same group turned up again and much the same thing happened – he was accused of being on some kind of “slippery slope” towards fascism for having strayed into a forbidden zone outside contemporary leftist orthodoxy.

I have had the pleasure of meeting Renaud several times since then, including at the launch in December 2022 of a “controversial” issue of the review Ecologie & Politique.

It was “controversial”, yet again, because it was in the “defence of the living” and against the techno-accelerationism of Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution that the System’s thought police have determined must be firmly welded to any “left-wing” critique of the status quo – ensuring that it is not a real critique at all.

Its focus was on the threat posed to humankind today by biotechnology, eugenics and transhumanism, with a particular focus on artificial reproduction.

This is not allowed and the publication was accordingly denounced for heresy in an article on a pseudo-green website. I wrote at the time: “As I read their nasty smear piece, I was overcome by a strange feeling of recognition. I knew this tone, this technique – I was listening to the familiar Voice of the System”.

I went on in that report to expose the authors of the hit piece as all being connected to the French state, the EU and the “public-private” tech and management world, and I suspect that this may be why I was myself targeted a year later.

This came in an anonymous booklet entitled Le naufrage réactionnaire du mouvement anti-industriel (‘The reactionary shipwreck of the anti-industrial movement’), which described me as an “anarchist” merely in inverted commas and called me nasty names like “transphobic” and “antisemitic”. The “evidence” they provided for that latter claim was that in December 2022 I had published Enemies of the People: The Rothschilds and their Corrupt Global Empire.

Now, the funny thing is that I only ever started looking into the Rothschilds in an attempt to find out who or what was ultimately lurking behind the WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution, the Covid-pretexted Great Reset, the associated “sustainable development” agenda and globalist imperialism as a whole.

So the argument advanced by the shadowy authors of this smear piece was essentially that, by discovering that the principal dynasty behind the global industrial machine was Jewish, I was revealing myself to be “anti-semitic” and thus tainting and discrediting the whole anti-industrial movement with which I was associated.

The snake-eating-its-tail “logic” here is breath-taking in its absurdity!

Attacks like this on critics of industrial modernity (and there have been many others) merely confirm to me the connections I have already identified and they make me look back on everything I have lived and discovered in the past with fresh insight.

For instance, I found out in 2002, when my friends and I were defending Titnore Woods, that one of the main property developers we were up against was convicted crook Gerald Ronson (pictured), part of the notorious 1990 Guinness insider share dealing scandal.

I had no idea then of his involvement in judeo-supremacism, but I now know that he heads the sinister Community Security Trust (CST), which claims to be fighting “antisemitism” and “protecting our Jewish community”.

In searching for the above information, I came across an article in The Jewish Chronicle from March 24 2026 revealing that the CST had just announced its first-ever patron.

This turns out to be none other than “King” Charles III (pictured at the top of this article), the man who officially launched the Great Reset in 2020 “through HRH’s Sustainable Markets Initiative and the World Economic Forum” and whose dodgy global network I explored in April 2022.

At the event celebrating Charles’ patronage of CST, Lord Finkelstein (of The Jewish Chronicle and The Times) told representatives of the Jewish community: “We can see our enemies very clearly, but let’s not forget how many friends we have… we have the greatest ally in our king”.

Charles seems to have been as close to paedocriminal Jimmy Savile as his brother Andrew was to paedocriminal Jeffrey Epstein and his proximity to the finger-jabbingly powerful Rothschilds – described by Epstein as his employers – is a matter of public record. What exactly accounts for his collaboration with the WEF, whose thoroughly Zionist nature I exposed in ‘The truth about Davos‘ in January 2025?

Turning back to the greedy property developers who were my sworn enemies for so many decades in England, I gained a further insight in 2024 when investigating the trustees of Chatham House, another thoroughly corrupt Zionist entity whose patron is, like the judeo-supremacist CST, our dear monarch.

One of these trustees, Irene Dorner, was on the board of Taylor Wimpey, the property development giant that, as I noted, “has been concreting over the English countryside for decades” and which had recently been investigated by UK authorities over a dubious business practice described by campaigners as “fleecehold”.

I found that she was the proud owner of an “American Banker’s Lifetime Achievement Award”, was chair of Control Risks, a “global risk and strategic consulting firm specializing in political, security and integrity risk” (whose staff list over the years reads like a Who’s Who of the Secret State) and was a non-executive director of Rolls-Royce, which was involved in the production of the F-35 stealth combat aircraft used by Israel in its murderous land-grabbing assault on Gaza.

She was further listed as general manager at Premier Wealth Management Ltd (United Kingdom), chairman at Virgin Money Holdings UK Plc and in-house counsel at Citigroup Global Markets (Algeria) and used to be president, CEO and managing director of HSBC North America Holdings Inc.

HSBC is close to Charles, being the “Global Founding Corporate Partner of The King’s Trust Group”, and these global bankers have a long history of vast tax avoidance schemes and criminal activity such as money laundering, even being dubbed “gangster bankers” involved in “stupefying abuses” and “hooked up with drug traffickers and terrorists”.

I could go on for ever – which some readers would perhaps say I already have! – because the threads at which I am pulling all lead to one vast tangled knot of criminality, usury, corruption, blackmail, lying, gaslighting and murderous violence that constitutes our “modern” System.

The reason why the police have always behaved like private security thugs acting on behalf of financiers and property developers, rather than the public they supposedly serve, is that they, and the state that employs them, have been captured by the industrial globalist mafia.

The reason why fake “left” and “green” groups aggressively turn on anyone who opposes the industrialist agenda is because they are owned and controlled by that same industrialist mafia.

The reason why surveillance is constantly being notched up, opinions censored and freedoms eroded is because that mafia is desperate to maintain and tighten its grip on us, forcing us to submit to a globalist agenda that is obviously not in our best interests and which we would never agree to, given the chance.

Instead of democracy, we have a tight web of financial and legal administration based on assumptions that we are not allowed to challenge – for much more detail on that see the Escapekey blog.

As regular readers will know, I have gradually realised over the last few years that the global gang dominating our world is judeo-supremacist and I have taken to calling it ZIM, the zio-satanic imperialist mafia.

But something that has only recently become clear to me is the sheer contempt that the Jewish supremacists in the global mafia – which, of course, does not mean all Jewish people – have for the 99.8% of the human species that does not belong to the people that narcissistically regards itself as “chosen”.

This was made particularly plain in Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century (one-time winner of the National Jewish Book Award), on which I have based a couple of recent articles.

To these deeply racist supremacists, we are all “goyim“, less than fully human, and they believe they have a mission to destroy us, our countries and our cultures and attain the glorious Messianic dream of total Jewish domination of the world.

Now I understand better why the criminocracy cares nothing for the English countryside, for our old people, young people or children, for our traditions, for our freedoms, for our values, for our tastes, for our health or for our desires. They have absolutely no respect for us and regard us as “thick-skulled peasants” belonging to Amalek, their historical enemy.

By the way, in case anybody is thinking of telling me in the comments that my opposition to Jewish supremacism is “anti-semitic”, I would remind them that any such suggestion is intrinsically judeo-supremacist (whether they are Jewish or not), assuming as it does that the only form of racism that we do not have the right – indeed, the duty! – to identify and condemn is Jewish racism against non-Jews.

Furthermore, given that the vast majority of our populations (outside Israel) are non-Jewish, any defence of judeo-supremacism, including the denial of its existence or significance, amounts to a negation of the principle of democracy and thus hardly occupies the moral high ground to which it disingenuously lays claim.

Judeo-supremacists have been considered beyond criticism for so long now that they imagined they would remain so for ever, but their hubris will soon become their nemesis. As more and more of us tug at the threads of truth, their knot of lies and gaslighting is rapidly coming undone.

Gentleman that I am, I will leave the final word to my long-term adversary Gerald Ronson, who in March 2025 said at a CST event: “We may look back and say that this was a golden age for Jews, but it is now finished”.