The image of elites laughing at the masses they manipulate is comforting in its own way, because it gives us a defined villain. A scapegoat is perhaps not quite the right term, because they are — of course — fully aligned with the agenda.
But the full truth, unfortunately, is far worse.
Most of the architects documented in ‘The Social Blood’ are believers. They see themselves as quasi-guardians of a planetary body, and they sleep well at night because they believe that by aligning the world with the supposed laws of the universe, they are serving the public interest. It’s just that they can’t be honest about it, because you wouldn’t understand.
They have, in effect, integrated the laws of physics with politics. This, they assure us, is of critical importance, as humanity is on a collision course with nature. The only way to resolve this, is by allowing nature ‘a voice’1. However, since nature can’t literally speak to us, they instead opted for an alternative — cover the world in a massive surveillance grid, run the surveillance data through a Digital Twin, and then pre-emptively position politics so that the collision course is avoided.
The pivotal step in this equation is the modelling aspect; the ‘black box’, so to speak. I typically refer to it as such on this substack, because there’s no legitimate way for us to credibly model the planet, and certainly not decades into the future. What the 'black box' does create, however, is a signal, which humans2 can then deliver to our politicians as though it were fact, and not just a modelled guess.
The ‘black box’ is thus a pivotal place for the self-proclaimed navigator of Spaceship Earth3 to intervene, subtly steering humanity away from its supposed collision course with nature. Because by adjusting Digital Twin coefficients marginally and running the Monte Carlo simulations again, you can make it confess to just about anything — even the potential for zoonotic diseases to arise due to alleged ‘biodiversity breakdown’ in a way described in the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference proceedings, Recommendation 3.2 and 3.34, which eventually delivered us One Health5.
I use these examples frequently, because that outcome is expressly enabled by the Pandemic Treaty through its One Health inclusion. These simulations, predicting certain catastrophe, can then be routed through the future UN Emergency Platform and used to lock down the world again — with complete impunity — all because a 'black box' with manipulated coefficients said so.
The clincher to this trajectory transpired in Venice in 19866. But let's head up the chain rather than down. While the symptoms are less abstract and easier to grasp, they don't get to the underlying cause.
To understand how this was all achieved, we need to trace the philosophical substrate that makes governance feel like nature, and how this was implemented in practice.
The God Who Is Everything
The foundation was laid in 1677, when Baruch Spinoza published Ethics7, eliminating the barrier between God and World through Deus sive Natura8 — ‘God or Nature’. There is only one substance, one infinite system, and everything within it — people, stars, thoughts — are merely ‘modes’, temporary patterns in an eternal whole.
Political implications follow. If there is only one substance, there is no outside from which to judge the system. You cannot appeal to some higher authority beyond it because you are a component of the very thing you might want to resist. Spinoza was also a hard determinist who argued that free will is an illusion — we think we’re free because we’re conscious, yet ignorant of the causes that produced our desires.
What matters most is how Spinoza redefined freedom itself. True freedom, he argued, is understanding the laws of the system and aligning yourself. Spinoza also gave us conatus, the principle that everything strives to persist — so stability becomes a moral category, and deviation reads as pathology9.
To the modern technocrat, the global economy functions as Spinoza’s one substance: a closed loop with no outside, where acting against the health of the whole is irrational.
The Ancient Parallel
Spinoza was excommunicated by his synagogue10, but his metaphysics rhymes with Kabbalah in a way that’s hard to ignore. You’ve got Ein Sof — the infinite source11 — and the idea that everything is an expression of that one substance. Then you get the rupture-and-repair story: the light doesn’t ‘fit’, the vessels break12, and the job of life becomes tikkun13 — gathering, correcting, bringing things back into coherence.
Structurally, it’s similar to Spinoza’s argument. His one substance reads like an analogue of Ein Sof, and his conatus — the drive to persist and stabilise — has the same ‘repair impulse’ feel as tikkun.
In both frameworks, the individual ego is the problem, integration into the whole is the solution, and ‘purpose’ isn’t a private life plan — it’s a process of integration, correction, and becoming part of something larger.
The Lineage
‘The Social Blood’ traced how Moses Hess identified money as the medium of social integration and provided the ethical grammar: egoism as disease, balance as health. Health would thus come about through balance, where money functioned as the crucial substrate to achieve this end. It should be obvious that Marx took this concept and developed it further.
Hermann Cohen gave this structure institutional form through the Infinite Task14. The gap between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’ can never be closed, which means correction is never finished and the authorities who administer it can never retire.
But how do you operationalise endless correction at planetary scale without police on every corner?
Evolution Through Crisis
In 1893, TH Huxley delivered his Romanes Lecture, ‘Evolution and Ethics’15, posing a question the next century couldn't shake: nature runs on competition and survival — it doesn't care about fairness. But ethics asks us to fight that. So how does a species built for competition learn to cooperate?
That same year, Paul Carus helped launch what became the interfaith movement at the World’s Parliament of Religions16 in Chicago. His pitch: science is the revelation. God isn’t a person handing down commandments — God is the structure itself, the architecture that makes ethical behaviour work.
If science reveals the rational structure of nature, and that structure is normative, then whoever controls the scientific apparatus becomes the priesthood of the new order. Carus’s interfaith movement developed over the years, and it eventually led to Hans Küng’s ‘global ethic’17, presented at the centennial event: the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions18. The Earth Charter took this vision and developed it into a 'planetary ethic' in 2000, calling for planetary stewardship — a position the IUCN had advocated for decades.
Teilhard de Chardin had a different answer to Huxley’s problem. Evolution isn’t blind, he said — it has a direction. It’s moving toward what he called the Omega Point: consciousness converging into unity. Julian Huxley, TH’s grandson, founded UNESCO and framed the whole project as humanity taking conscious control of its own evolution.
He then left to found the IUCN — an institution originally proposed by the Marxist JD Bernal at the 1941 Science and World Order conference as the International Resources Office.
The 1941 event — dismissed by many at the time as a promotional event for scientific socialism — was followed in 1942 by Science and Ethics, which reframed ethics as an output of scientific imperative. So now you’ve got the drive toward Teilhard’s Omega Point, channeled through science-as-ethics, and the Earth Charter reframing the whole thing as a matter of planetary survival.
Erich Jantsch synthesised these threads with general systems theory — first in his 1970 paper for the OECD, ‘Inter- and Transdisciplinary University’19, which laid out a four-layer cascade (purposive → normative → pragmatic → empirical) as the architecture for institutional design, then in his fuller treatment a decade later.
In his 1980 book The Self-Organizing Universe20, Jantsch argued that evolution is autopoietic — systems creating and maintaining themselves — and that any living system has to stay in balance to survive. But he didn’t stop at equilibrium. Drawing on Prigogine’s work on dissipative structures21, he said systems actually evolve through instability.
A system has to hit a crisis point before it can break through to a higher level of order.
The implications for contemporary governance are hard to overstate. The pandemic, the financial collapse, the climate emergency aren’t disasters to be avoided. They’re the necessary shocks that let the system reorganise.
Jantsch turned this into a cosmic principle: the universe wants to self-organise, and evolution is heading toward greater integration. God, thus, is the evolutionary process itself. Which means if you’re the planner managing that process, you become the hands of the divine. You’re not imposing your will — you’re just executing what the cosmos demands. Sin becomes imbalance, virtue becomes coherence, and the planner becomes the immune system of the social body — whatever threatens coherence is a pathogen to be neutralised.
Then came the cybernetic formalisation. Alexander Bogdanov’s Tektology22 laid the groundwork. Western systems theorists including Ludwig von Bertalanffy23 and Kenneth Boulding24 developed it into General Systems Theory (GST). Ross Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety25 added that the controller of the GST model needs at least as much complexity as whatever it’s trying to control. Which means if you want to manage ‘Spaceship Earth’26, you need computational power no human bureaucracy could ever provide.
Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model27 gave it architecture: the same five-function control structure, repeated at every level — firm, nation, globe — each one nested inside the next. The maths guaranteed that any such system would have to be total in scope and self-similar all the way down.
The Guarantor of Destiny
So we now have science turned into ethical imperative for alleged planetary salvation, and Bogdanov’s Tektology developed into systems theory. What is needed is fusing the ethic into systems science.
C. West Churchman provided the structure that would administer the new religion. In The Systems Approach28 (1968) and The Systems Approach and Its Enemies29 (1979), Churchman laid out what amounts to an engineering theology.
He outlined the ‘Environmental Fallacy’30: the mistake of trying to fix a problem without controlling the environment that produces it. You can’t fix crime by policing crime — you have to manage education, economy, family, information, values. You can’t fix carbon by taxing carbon — you have to restructure finance, production, consumption, consciousness itself. To solve any problem, the planner needs jurisdiction over everything that feeds into it — which, in a connected system, means everything — ‘holism’.
Every system plan further needs what he called a Guarantor31 — something that ensures the plan actually produces ‘the good’. In religious ages, that was God. But the systems age killed the old Guarantor, so the system itself has to take on that function. The planner has to build providence into the infrastructure.
Churchman abbreviated this function as G.O.D. — the Guarantor of Destiny32. The Unified Ledger that the Bank for International Settlements is building33 is Churchman’s Guarantor made operational: a machine that ensures outcomes by making deviation impossible. You don’t need to pass a law against sin when you can set the constraint to zero.
He finally addressed the obstacles. He identified four enemies of the systems approach: Politics, Morality, Religion, and Aesthetics. These resist being turned into data — they’re irrational, and irreducibly human. The systems approach digests them.
Politics becomes ‘stakeholder management’
Morality becomes ‘sustainability metrics’
Religion becomes ‘shared values’
Aesthetics becomes ‘user experience’.
Each enemy becomes a variable the model can process. ESG, DEI, carbon accounting — that’s just the systems approach finishing the job.
What can’t be computed gets absorbed or excluded.
The Contemporary Synthesis
Michael Laitman, founder of Bnei Baruch34, holds an MSc in bio-cybernetics and a PhD in Philosophy and Kabbalah — credentials that represent the explicit synthesis of everything traced above. In Kabbalah, Science and the Meaning of Life, he writes that ‘the best state in which we can get along with the world is that of equilibrium’, which ‘science refers to as ‘homeostasis’’.
Then he offers an image: ‘It can only be compared to being a fetus in my mother’s womb: everything exists only to care for me; there is no need to erect any defenses’.
The ideal state is total dependency within complete enclosure. The womb provides everything; the fetus cannot leave. Laitman has presented this framework directly to UNESCO and the United Nations, and the alignment with Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship Education is structural rather than coincidental.
The Automaton of Reason
Spinoza gave us the one substance — freedom as obedience to necessity. The Zohar gave us fragmentation and repair. Hess identified money as the medium and balance as the ethic. Cohen gave us the Infinite Task of permanent correction. Jantsch gave us the self-organising universe, evolution through crisis, and planning as religious duty. Churchman gave us total jurisdiction, programmed compliance, and a method for digesting every human domain that might resist. Laitman pulled it all together and presented it to the UN.
The result is automated virtue — or, as its architects prefer, Inclusive Capitalism35. ‘Inclusive’ sounds like welcome, but it works like a conditional gate36. You’re included if you align. You’re free to do anything you want, as long as what you want fits the parameters of the whole.
This is why the politicians sleep at night. They think they’re merely doing what’s necessary. Immune systems protecting the planetary body. Priests performing the rite of re-binding. Engineers building the machine that guarantees providence now that God has left the building. Governance is homeostasis. Compliance is health. Crisis is evolution.
And whoever resists is, by definition, a pathogen.
The Architecture
The metaphysics are in place, the engineering principles are set, and the synthesis is complete. What’s left is documenting what’s actually being built — the architecture of control showing up across every domain of global governance. It’s not that independent institutions are necessarily coordinating in secret. They’re all swimming in the same ocean and discovering the same hydrodynamics.
‘Spaceship Earth’ treats the planet as a closed system, systems theory says closed systems can be managed through feedback, the planetary ethic says they must be managed because science demands it, and the circular economy37 says nothing leaves — everything must be tracked, looped back, accounted for.
But the framing requires two inversions. First, treating an open system as closed to justify management. Second, treating dynamic processes as stable units to make them legible to the ledger. Carbon, for instance, doesn’t stay as CO2, it cycles through air, sea, soil, and tissue, constantly changing form. The accounting framework requires both fictions to function.
The shape of control follows from the logic of homeostasis at planetary scale. And everywhere you look — finance, identity, health, climate, AI — the same three-part structure keeps appearing:
A standard that defines what counts as compliant
A gatekeeper that verifies whether you meet it
Conditional access that lets you participate only if you pass.
Practitioners aren’t necessarily villains, they might not even be aware of wrongdoing. They’re believers operating within a coherent worldview where planetary homeostasis is the ethical imperative and deviation is pathology. This makes the system more durable, not less — you can’t appeal to their conscience because their conscience is aligned with the project, and the project is religious of nature38.
And the crises that accelerate its construction — be they driven by health, finance, or climate — aren’t bugs in the plan.
They are the plan.
Find me on Telegram: https://t.me/escapekey
Find me on Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/escapekey
Bitcoin 33ZTTSBND1Pv3YCFUk2NpkCEQmNFopxj5C
Ethereum 0x1fe599E8b580bab6DDD9Fa502CcE3330d033c63c
I hardly doubt there is a greater Substack in existence than yours. Thank you
For those who find it all a bit dense, as I do, here is Ned Beatty's 5 minute Network monologue from 50 years ago, summing it up:
https://youtu.be/yuBe93FMiJc?si=xtjMFiXO2qRP0tF8