New for @_whitneywebb Unlimited Hangout The Praxians employ State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), they benefit from practically every SCAD. It's time to come to terms with the hybrid war we’re all now fighting, whether we know it or not. unlimitedhangout.com/2026/05…

“Accelerated during COVID” I guess that’s one way of putting it. It’s amazing how quickly things can accelerate when you’re allowed to skip long term trials, are handed perpetual legal immunity, and your product doesn’t have to even do anything.

credit @_InThisTogether Aka Iain Davis, who's work also shines @ unlimitedhangout.com/ With pieces such as, unlimitedhangout.com/2026/04…

A certain percentage of people will believe literally anything, however stupid, provided the government or authorities or 'science' tell them it's true. Another percentage of people will believe literally anything, however stupid, provided it's presented to them as something the government or authorities or 'science' is trying to hide. Only a small minority will decline to believe either - unless it makes sense and is backed by hard evidence. This is the root of the problem.

Whilst we were distracted, the groundwork for our AI control grid has slowly been growing. The map below shows Data Centers in Britain. Each one of these data centres use up to 5 million gallons of water per day and enough energy to supply 50,000 homes.

I have no reason to doubt the reporting of the trial. What I doubt is the whole trial of two rent boys and a "male model."

The UK Column Conundrum off-guardian.org/2026/06/03/…

My thanks to Iain Davis @_InThisTogether for providing a simple illustration of what the G3P is and how it works. The accompanying detailed article is even better, of course. The image is appreciated simply for enabling the sharing of a quick overview iaindavis.com/what-is-the-gl…

This is why I follow Iain Davis @_InThisTogether A very balanced summary of what’s going on. I have so little time at the moment and whilst I was aware of the spat regarding @ukcolumn and former team members/contributors, I didn’t have time for it. Iain’s analysis seems typically unbiased and is appreciated. FWIW I’m still an avid UKC supporter (lifetime member) and still deem their output extremely valuable and some of the best around. But it’s even more important to support superb, intelligent, unbiased and completely independent reporting like Iain’s. 👏👏

Thank you for publishing this Iain and I take onboard any critique directed at me. For the avoidance of doubt: neither I nor @DebiEvansMatron or @sandiadams2030 had any intention to hurt @ukcolumn and we are NOT working on behalf of ANY intelligence service of ANY nation.

Every obedience experiment in history had the same overlooked finding. Not everyone complied. In Milgram’s lab, 35% refused to deliver the final shock. In Asch’s line experiments, 25% never conformed, not once, across any trial. In Zimbardo’s prison, at least one guard refused to dehumanize. One prisoner demanded a lawyer instead of a doctor and broke the psychological frame entirely. We spent decades studying the ones who obeyed. We barely asked what made the others different. That question matters more now than it ever has. The resisters in the COVID era were not difficult to find. Physicians who filed exemptions and lost their licenses. Nurses who walked away from careers rather than mandate patients into decisions they hadn’t genuinely chosen. Scientists who published contrary data knowing what it would cost them. Parents who stood alone at school board meetings. Ordinary people who simply said, quietly, without drama , no. What made them different? Research consistently identifies a cluster of factors. Not personality traits you either have or don’t. Situational and cognitive patterns that can be cultivated. First: prior reflection on authority. The resisters had usually thought, before the crisis, about the limits of institutional trust. They weren’t cynics. They were people who had already asked the question “under what conditions would I refuse?” before anyone was asking them to comply. Second: a concrete reference point outside the consensus. A value, a principle, an oath, a relationship that existed independently of the institutional structure demanding compliance. Something the system couldn’t reach. Third: at least one other person. Milgram found that a single dissenting confederate reduced compliance dramatically. The resisters rarely stood entirely alone. They found each other. Sustained each other. Gave each other permission. Fourth: the willingness to tolerate social pain. Not immunity to it. Tolerance of it. They felt the pressure. They felt the exclusion. They chose the discomfort of integrity over the comfort of belonging. None of this is innate. All of it is learnable. The most important thing Milgram, Asch, and Zimbardo taught us is not how fragile conscience is. It’s that conscience can hold, if you’ve trained it, named its limits, and found even one other person willing to hold theirs beside you. Build that now. Because the experiment is always running. Until then stay humble.

Check out The Technocratic Dark State. thetechnocraticdarkstate.com

Full source video: rumble.com/v79yzq4-you-will-…