The SNP does not Understand Sovereignty
In the eight years since the Scottish independence referendum, just what have the SNP achieved to further the goal of Scottish self-determination?
Absolutely nothing.
Their ceaseless pestering and pleading for another referendum ultimately falls on deaf ears: Westminster has zero incentive to permit another referendum and will therefore unilaterally refuse all requests for the next decade.
Like the Catalonians, the SNP thinks that sovereignty is a mere box-ticking exercise, i.e. if people tick a ballot to say that we are free, then we are, and that's that. Apart from those governments on the brink of collapse or those that are utterly jaded with their own existence, this is a complete fantasy. Our politicians have forgotten that we do not live in a fairytale: despite trying and failing this way already, they are domesticated to the degree where they see no other way forward except trying again; they have forgotten that power determines sovereignty. An aspiring ruler must follow an alternate course: the quiet acquisition of authority and power to sufficiently contest the incumbent.
If a region desires independence, it must slowly and subliminally siphon power from its ruler, usurping control of each and every institution within its domain: education to infrastructure to taxation to military. If a regional power is capable of each step, only then does de jure independence become a formality as all real power is already within the hands of the regional authority.
Any self-respecting government will prevent succession by using any loyal institutions still under its belt as a weapon to help reclaim the region: welfare payments are blocked; electrical grids switched-off; trade impeded. A formal invasion is not required: the severing of services is destructive enough to damage livelihoods and morale to the point of capitulation. The incumbent knows this and will do everything in their power to delegitimise your authority and sow disorder.
***
Scotland is a net-producer of energy unlike the rest of the UK. A Machiavellian Scottish government would therefore create an infrastructure that allows Scots to buy their own energy at a more favourable rate before it is delivered to the rest of the national grid. The SNP has never considered this because “Westminster has not ceded control over this activity.” And? So what? Make it your business; gain leverage. What can Westminster do in any meaningful timeframe against this manoeuvre? Even if they shut down such a scheme, the Scottish government would seem like heroes to the Scots: “we get cheaper energy to keep us going in these trying times as it is generated on our land with our turbines and our pipelines. An independent Scotland means cheaper energy prices.” Any attempt by Westminster to shut down such a scheme would be deeply unpopular with the Scots and would likely reinvigorate support for independence. Better yet, the SNP would have clear, concrete evidence that Westminster policy is to blame for high energy costs. Like every blunder before it, the SNP has failed to capitalise on the current energy crisis. Despite this, they still have the gall to insist that they would've done a better job if only given the opportunity.
As we head into winter, radical thinking is essential for weathering this once-in-a-lifetime panic. Do not expect this kind of leadership from the SNP: they will instead sit on the sidelines, doing absolutely nothing at all, only jeering and undermining whatever paltry initiatives the UK government attempts to cobble together.
In these dire circumstances, a competent Machiavellian ruler would be open to everything: nothing can be off-the-table. Annexing Norway's North Sea oil and gas fields may be viable, as ridiculous as it sounds: our relationship with Norway would be eviscerated but there would be little retaliation as the Royal Navy vastly overpowers Norway's naval fleet. The international community would be quelled by leveraging the UK's special relationship with America while simultaneously selling excess energy to Europe at a discounted price: they will be in equally dire straits and therefore have no choice but to accept the cheaper energy.
This method of thinking is heretical in the eyes of the current democratic paradigm yet it is absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of order in times of extreme crisis. Most modern politicians lack the grit to stake everything on singular objectives such as these. Putin is an exception; Truss may be another, but she comes from a place of pure madness rather than raw pragmatism.
Sturgeon is the polar opposite of these figures: she believes that following rules grants legitimacy, failing to even consider who wrote those rules in the first place. The Scottish National Party is a senseless sheep, blindly following the whistles of the “International Community”, thinking it too can be shepherd.
You are no a leader if you simply follow procedure.
If through some sheer miracle they are blessed with another independence referendum, they will likely succeed; Edinburgh will become London in miniature (more so than it is now) but with even greater centralisation. They will not see the irony in this. These politicians will step onto the world stage under the impression that global politics is civil, that everyone “plays ball”. They forget that international relations is the realm of predators. The current calibre of the SNP will leave us weak and vulnerable, only capable of being devoured by wolves.
Web 3.0 is the end of Individuality, not its Resurrection
This scribble was inspired by this video. Watching will provide some context.
Those within the tech-space, particularly those within the grimy-yet-bright-eyed world of crypto, are pining for “Web 3.0”, a new and evolved form of internet that will wholly upend how we interact with each other. Naturally the majority of these tech-evangelists preach as a form of professional panhandling. Even with money as their main driver, many sincerely believe that this force is a great good: decentralising the web, empowering users, and providing “financial freedom”.
Distressingly, this utopian vision largely overlaps with the agenda of the World Economic Forum, an international cabal of economists and world leaders. Despite inhabiting ideologically-opposed poles, both groups find themselves working towards the same goal: a new global social-framework predicated upon digital currency.
Digital currency– blockchain ledger, CDBC, or otherwise– will centralise power even further, resulting in the near-complete annihilation of privacy and freedom. Our current paradigm, Web 2.0, has consolidated power around a cartel of information brokers. Digital currencies will concentrate power even further, into a single entity: whomever controls the currency. With CDBCs, this authority is the central bank. In traditional crypto-currencies the agent is less defined but just as present*.
There will only be one major digital currency: network effects will create a winner-takes-all environment and prevent legitimate competition between currencies. Each person will only be permitted a single wallet on this dominant ledger. While it may be trivial to create additional wallets, they will be blocked automatically by most services under the guise of “anti-money laundering” policies. As such, each individual's wallet effectively functions as a form of digital identification.
Escape from this system is impossible. Increasingly, businesses will push for its usage as it streamlines bookkeeping while also eliminating traditional electronic cash issues like merchant fees. The government may even necessitate digital currency for tax collection. Physical cash will be disincentivised by government, once again under the guise of money laundering prevention.
***
Making online payments so cheap and convenient will inevitably create new markets (i.e. new forms of harassment). The most obvious use is in the direct monetisation of engagement; it becomes trivial to design a system where people are paid to watch or post branded advertisements/acceptable opinions/propaganda. In this world, retweets will reward you financially. It is a marketer's wet dream.
Web 2.0 ushered in the commodification of social interaction via likes and followers. Web 3.0 will transform these interactions into currency-based transactions. Digital Skinner conditioning will now provide tangible compensation.
Naturally this corruption of social interactions will produce terrifying consequences: follower counts become a direct measure of cash flow. Corporate- and government-mandated opinions on issues will flood networks due to immense financial incentives. Dangerous opinions no longer spread (and therefore no longer need to be censored) as they suffocate in a sea of authority-approved messaging. Worse still, anonymity is impossible if social media accounts are tied directly to your digital wallet: your local supermarket will ban you from shopping if you insult their branding online or insist that there are only two genders.
It will be hard to avoid this performative element of social media; even without the explicit financial incentives our behaviour has already been warped by Web 2.0 attention-seeking.
Consequences only get worse as individuals adjust to this new internet. If people get used to the idea of supplementing their income by pimping themselves online, what happens when it becomes expected? Will wages remain depressed as employers now expect people to make up the difference by performing like monkeys online in their spare time? What becomes of dissent when sustaining yourself as a member of the working class is only possible when you digest and regurgitate incumbent ideas?
Web 3.0 allows China's authoritarian social credit scheme to slip into the West under the guise of democratisation and empowerment.
The internet was always meant to be decentralised; each new wave of the internet has built itself on the idea that it can fulfill these promises and at last build utopia. Instead, it has only ever enslaved us even further. It is the process of leftism in digital form.
Each new development of the internet has granted a brief golden period where things appear to be moving towards this promised land. These halcyon days are transient; the newfound powers granted by these developments slowly but surely surrender to Capital.
Technology never decentralises power.
* In the case of Proof-of-Work coins, this agent will be the conglomerate that produces the majority of the hash power. In the case of Proof-of-Stake coins, this will be the trust or team that created the coin (or whoever controls them).
