Brave New World – The Future of Citizen Data Systems
6 September 2025
That’s not the song from the 1992 version of Aladdin, it’s the title of a book (PDF) written in 1931 and published in 1932 by Aldous Huxley. Wikipedia describes it as…
a dystopian social science fiction novel
Still times change and what was considered a dystopian fictional future for humans is now becoming yesterday’s news. What were called conspiracy theories, and often still are, are also fairly mainstream. At least they are amongst terminally Statist types and their Technocrat Overlords.
The story of Brave New World is about a future human society where everything is managed via “science”. When I say everything I mean literally everything, from the creation of new humans in artificial wombs to every aspect of the lives those humans live and every thought they have. It is a society based on humans created for specific roles and social status. The roles are defined by Greek letters… Alpha (being the best), Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon.
Conditioning is the means by which everyone in this Brave New World achieves happiness. People are engineered through gestation, conditioned through repetition of recorded “lessons” through infancy, educated via psychological reinforcement, propaganda and a quasi-religious ritual and catechism based curriculum to not just accept their status and role in society, but to love it unquestioningly. If that happens to slip for a moment, a drug called Soma is readily available to restore their happiness and contentment.
Much gets said about Huxley’s arguably most well known book and comparisons are often made between it and Orwell’s 1984. Both describe a grim future, but approach it very differently. Huxley actually wrote to Orwell in 1949 with some observations which included:
Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.
…
Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Aldous Huxley in October 1949 – https://lettersofnote.com/2012/03/06/1984-v-brave-new-world/
Huxley had some considerable pedigree to draw upon. Wikipedia notes that “Huxley’s family included a number of prominent biologists including Thomas Huxley, half-brother and Nobel Laureate Andrew Huxley, and his brother Julian Huxley who was a biologist and involved in the eugenics movement.” which is interesting to say the least. The father of the justification for eugenics, Thomas Malthus is namechecked in Brave New World as the contraceptive belt worn by the women that were not deliberately sterilised (called “Freemartins” in the book) is called the “Malthusian belt”. While Malthus is claimed to have advocated for abstinence over contraception, the connection between the obvious main goal of population control as evangelised by Malthus and every globalist since, and the selective and controlled breeding plus conditioning is hard to ignore.
While it is hardly worth obsessing over which dystopian book and it’s author had the best idea for the ultimate control, that of all human minds, it is interesting to note the simple observation made by Neil Postman. an American author and educator who wrote the following in his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
Neil Postman – 1985
What we are seeing is an amalgam of the two. Unsurprisingly the would-be Inner Party or World Controllers have spent many years and billions of dollarpounds of our money analysing, experimenting, documenting and planning what they believe will work and what won’t. What we are seeing is the 1984-esque banning of information and discussion on certain topics, the rewriting of history, the memory-holing and a 2 plus 2 equals 5 mentality, combined with the destruction of attention spans via instantly gratifying snippets of pseudo-information from social media, on-demand everything, and a preoccupation with whatever celebrity gossip or faux-outrage fomented by Government controlled media and their public/private partners decree. Now we also have the relentless push of “AI” into everything. From classrooms to Government departments, every gadget and service now has “Artificial Intelligence” crammed into it, making everything worse.
This hasn’t come about by chance, or just happened in the last two years. This has been a long time in the making, where families and organisations that sit just outside the deliberately theatrical political stage exert their influence.
This document on the Government website (mirror) from September 2020 titled “Evidence and scenarios for global data systems: The Future of Citizen Data Systems” is a perfect example of technocratic delusionary dreams of citizen control. You’d perhaps think, if you believed the news back in 2020, that the Government might have had other priorities than producing 127 page reports about “global data citizens”. You might have thought that people like Patrick Vallance, one third of Boris Johnson’s Holy Trinity of COVID Preachers had more pressing matters than arguing for more globally consistent and integrated citizen data systems. As we know, the entire thing was a gigantic fraud and apart from his regular spot on TV from his pulpit and managing his pharma shares portfolio, he had all the time in the world for his globalist nonsense.
As Patrick mentions in his preface…
The COVID-19 pandemic already looks set to have profound impacts on the use and sharing of citizen data with public authorities and others, and public attitudes towards this.
Evidence and scenarios for global data systems: The Future of Citizen Data Systems – September 2020
Funny that. It’s almost like the COVID-19 “pandemic” was designed to do exactly that, i.e. have a profound impact, especially when you consider that 1) it was fake, and 2) literally every single policy and action the Government took was universally bad for people. In every possible way the State can affect people, it did, and did so negatively, ranging from trauma, stress, loss of jobs and income, reduction or removal of care, psychologically damaging lockdown, persecution of anyone who dissented, dividing friends and families, isolation, and all that was if you were lucky and didn’t just end up dead on the end of a morphine and midazolam loaded syringe driver.
Vallance continues:
This report sets out four future scenarios for 2030, illustrating how global norms, business models and government approaches to citizen data could develop.
They do love their scenarios don’t they? All sounds very Rockefeller Foundation doesn’t it? Remember their “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” (link) (mirror) report from 2010? The then president of the Rockefeller Foundation, Judith Rodin informed us that…
The Rockefeller Foundation supports work that expands opportunity and strengthens resilience to social, economic, health, and environmental challenges—affirming its pioneering philanthropic mission, since 1913, to “promote the well-being” of humanity.
Nice unironic use of quotes there. They do always tell you. We have looked previously at the Rockefeller obsession with population control and eugenics, so we know very well what is meant by the phrase “to promote the well-being of humanity” in this context. The results of over 100 years of their “well-being” promotion are enough for even the casual observer to arrive at the conclusion that humanity does not need the Rockefeller dynasty and all its hangers-on with its “pioneering philanthropic mission”. No-one actually asked them, or gave them permission to promote its elitist death cult, which is the literal translation of the NewSpeak phrase “well-being”. No-one asked for them to socially engineer our collective future, but that is what they’re doing, and they don’t really even try to hide it.
That report (the “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” one) is where they introduce the idea of Lock Step, the scenario where a “pandemic” has created a “world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership”. Naturally, when a decade later a fake “pandemic” created a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, noticing that and drawing any comparisons with this Rockefeller produced “scenario” just got you labelled a Conspiracy Theorist[tm] because of course it did.
And then, at that point in 2020, when the public was triple masked inside their own homes, scared to get their shopping delivered because plastic carrier bags were teeming with deadly viruses, just waiting to pounce and maybe do absolutely nothing, or maybe kill you, the UK Government was busy working on a new set of scenarios, set in 2030. Where have we heard that date before?
Oh yes, all roads lead to the United Nations don’t they. As it happens, the land the headquarters of the United Nations occupies was donated to the UN by none other than Nelson A. Rockefeller in 1946, at a cost of $8.5 million, which is almost $150 million in 2025. Those super-generous Rockefellers just can’t stop giving their money way can they? Luckily that act of sheer selflessness allowed the UN to become the literal uniting of all nations, where war is simply a thing of the past, apart from all the wars. Now, you might think an organisation called the United Nations that has failed to unite nations for 80 years is a stupid idea and a gigantic waste of public money and is just a vanity project for the would-be rulers of the world…
You’d be wrong of course. It is those things, yes, but it is also an attempt at a One World Government, a means of top-down control and a wealth transfer system that just sucks the life out of all the member nations.
Four Scenarios
Let us return to the 2020 report on “Citizen Data Systems”. Like the 2010 Rockefeller report we mentioned, it features four future scenarios…
- Divergent data nationalism. A world with low citizen engagement on data privacy and trust issues, a rise in nationalistic data policies, little technological innovation, and disruption of existing business models by regional government interventions.
- Multipolarity. A world with moderate but mainly government-led citizen engagement on data privacy and trust issues, hardening of the three main regional data systems, varied uptake of emerging data-driven technologies, and consolidation of market power for incumbent dominant players.
- Deregulation. A world with moderate but mainly individualistic and business-led citizen engagement on data privacy and trust issues, a relaxed global regulatory environment, high technological innovation, and consumer-led emergence of new business models.
- Multilateralism. A world with high collective citizen engagement on data privacy and trust issues, increased international collaboration on data policies, resistance to some emerging data-driven technologies, and disruption to existing business models by international interventions and a change in the value of large datasets
It is clear from the report that the goal here is not to outline the future they want, but to figure out what might prevent or at least hinder their progress towards it. With that in mind, we can understand that none of those four scenarios directly map onto the future our benevolent shepherds have in mind for us.
On page 79 of the PDF we get a “case study”. Unsurprisingly they have selected “COVID-19” as the focus of the case study, because why not? What’s the point in engineering a fake pandemic if you’re not going to use it as justification for everything you want to do?
We get this sentence:
COVID-19 may be an event that causes a radical shift in global citizen data systems.
Now, bear in mind this was published in September 2020, and the whole “pandemic” only really started in earnest in March 2020. This means they planned, organised and got this 127 page report together, involving the UK Government’s Chief Scientist Patrick Vallance, and however many other State lackeys it took to sit around devising these complex scenarios, complete with advise based on the scenario outcomes, in less than 6 months.
It’s amazing what you can get done when you’re not actually having to deal with a real pandemic and don’t have to obey any of the ludicrous lockdown rules because you know it’s all garbage.
There is an analysis of the ostensibly differing approaches to “citizen data” between China, the US and Europe. When describing the China approach the report says:
The Chinese response is an example of strong state control of citizen data to monitor compliance and encourage desirable behaviour. Utilising a highly centralised design, movement in public places has been authorised by colour coded QR codes created by Alipay and WeChat with local and national governments. Algorithms assign restriction levels based on information such as location, travel history and body temperature that the users input. Those without a code can be denied entry to public places, offices, malls, and transport facilities. In some provinces, officials are reportedly looking to continue, adapt and expand the app after the pandemic to promote healthy behaviours. Chinese authorities have also used facial-recognition software and location tracking to monitor quarantine violators.
To “promote healthy behaviours”. Sounds a bit like to “promote the well-being” doesn’t it? You just know that high-level Government people around the world get excited at the thought of running their countries like China do. As Neil Ferguson admitted in an interview, they didn’t think they could get away with lockdowns like China did, but then Italy did it, and they realised they could get away with it.
There is a lengthy and laughable review of the contract tracing systems used in various parts of the world, where it seems that the “individual privacy” respecting methods that Apple and Google implemented on their devices, where only Governments could access the data were the way to go. Uhuh, sure. There’s no way Apple or Google did anything with that data. No way, because they respect privacy. No really, they absolutely do. I saw a thing on their website that says so, it must be true.
The four scenarios are almost not the point at all of this. The report explains…
To construct our scenarios, we anonymously surveyed around 40 international experts for their perceptions of the current and potential future states of global citizen data systems. These experts were drawn from across industry, academia and the voluntary sector. We took the results of this work, alongside our own research, to a workshop of around 35 policy experts from within government and the wider public sector. They were asked to identify the key future trends that are both uncertain and likely to affect the policy issues raised in this report. Key trends that are assumed to be true in all futures, such as increasing volume of data and data linkage, were also identified.
Here we actually get to the point. The last sentence in that paragraph tells you everything you need to know. “Key trends that are assumed to be true in all futures, such as increasing volume of data and data linkage, were also identified.”
The increase of the volume of data, and data linkage, is present in all four scenarios because that is what this is all about. Everything else is about finding excuses, justifications and workarounds for possible lines of resistance. They want all your data, all linked up to everything else and available at a centrally controlled point.
Yes, the UK Government is still obsessed with digital ID
Everything is used at some point to justify digital ID. We’ve seen “digital inclusion” using the financial system as a reason. We’ve seen “you won’t be able to access Government services” as a reason. We’ve seen so-called “public health” as a reason, and we’ve seen more recently “immigration” used as a reason. We previously looked at a “Public Consultation” the UK Government pretended to conduct back in 2023 where they presented 0.00002% of the population supporting the idea as “the UK public’s strong desire” for digital ID.
Tony Blair is regularly exhumed from his sarcophagus and wheeled in front of a camera to tell the British public that whatever the current State engineered problem is, digital IDs are the answer.
There was also another document that is currently on the UK Government website titled “Written evidence submitted by ID2020” (mirror). The document introduces us to ID2020 as follows…
Since 2016, ID2020 has led the development of digital systems that provide individuals with trusted, verifiable, and portable ways to prove their identities. In the midst of the most devastating public health crisis of the last century, we are working to ensure that individual privacy and civil liberties are protected as technology solutions to support workplace and social re-entry are considered.
What a stroke of luck. Started just four years earlier in 2016, and coincidentally named ID2020, the year we are treated to the fake “pandemic”, right on cue we have this development of digital identity systems. The references to “individual privacy” and “civil liberties” is a nice touch… a nod to precisely the things that were stripped away as the single worst domestic Government abuses of their respective populations in history occurred. You really couldn’t make it up.
As always, the links back to the usual suspects are not hard to find. Looking at the ID2020 website we can see a link to the Digital Impact Alliance website, which is the main organisation behind ID2020. There we can see a list of the most prominent “partners”:
Wouldn’t you know it, the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation are there. The website is naturally crammed full of waffle about the transformative powers of unlocking digital data to empower and tackle completely fictional problems, or to pretend to tackle real problems by inventing new things that will only further centralise power and money.
It’s Happening Anyway
Really though, all of this propaganda and justification is redundant. The efforts to persuade the public are merely to soften the blow when they realise that Governments are already going ahead with this, because of course they are. That thing you never wanted… yeah you’re getting it. That idea you thought was either a Conspiracy Theory[tm] or just a pointless waste of money… yeah you’re getting it. Nobody asked you? No-one voted for it? Pffft, it’s happening anyway because Democracy[tm] isn’t about what you or I want, or want to pay for.
You can see here on the UK Government’s Enabling Digital Identity website that this is already happening. As it says… “The Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (OfDIA) is making it possible to use digital identity services across the UK economy”.
For anyone who still thinks digital ID is a Conspiracy Theory[tm] or a “far-right talking point” or an “extremist dog whistle” or any of the other pejoratives that get tossed around in an effort to avoid reality, the Government literally has a department and a programme that is actively constructing and implementing the infrastructure for digital ID in the UK.
Did you notice anything else? It’s not just identity this is about. That other word… attributes, is part of this digital system. What attributes could they be do you think? Remember in the “The Future of Citizen Data Systems” document they described other things that the Chinese system was storing and using. There was also this quote:
“In the end, the choice you have to make is a balance between individual, group and national privacy, and the public health authorities having the minimum information necessary to manage the spread of the virus.” – Ian Levy, National Cyber Security Centre, 4th May 2020
And this statement:
In the UK, it is already legally specified that an infected person’s privacy may be trumped by the risk they pose to other peoples’ lives, with medical workers having a statutory duty to report incidences of certain diseases such as Cholera, Mumps and Rabies, as well as COVID-19.
So what attributes do you think might be included in this “Digital Identity and Attributes Service”? It is very clear that “risks” to so-called “Public Health” legally trump privacy. That isn’t even a debatable point. They, the Government, have decreed it, and they have told us so.
“Ah yes”, say the Stockholm Syndrome afflicted Tyranny fans, otherwise known as voters, “but that’s just for drastic Public Health issues, like pandemics”.
Except it isn’t. The next paragraph in that document says:
It is possible that some changes, technologies, or systems will become embedded, and used in future development and delivery of public services. This could support the response to potential future health emergencies, and spill-over effects may increase the prominence and acceptability of behavioural and social measures in public health interventions. In the future, similar approaches could be adapted outside viral pandemics, which hypothetically could include managing antimicrobial resistance prior to novel drug development. Conversely, these could be repurposed for national security by nations where not already in use, with the technology used to monitor citizens with or without their knowledge for various domestic aims.
The Future of Citizen Data Systems – Page 82
They are telling us. They always do. It is up to us to pay attention and reject it.