Via SchiffGold.com,

The 10-year treasury yield rocketed up to near 5%, and analysts say it’s because the economy is strong despite higher inflation.

But if the economy is so strong, why are Americans so indebted, cash-poor, and desperate?

10-Year Treasury Yields

Source

The recent spike in 10-year yields has been explained away by many as the result of a strong economy, but they fail to mention that high inflation makes the 10-year yield harder to contain. High 10-year yields support higher rates for things like car loans and mortgages, and with the world still under the inflationary spell of COVID-era QE and free money “stimulus,” the only answer may be—you guessed it—more free money QE to “stimulate” an economy that’s already stuck in an infinite loop of inflation. As Peter Schiff said recently:

“I think that they’ve already lost control of the long end of the bond market…the Fed is going to be pressured to try to lower long-term rates, and the only way it would be able to do that is by buying the long term bonds, and the only way to get the money to do that is to print it.”

But not even the Fed has a clue for how it would deal with a stagnation scenario.

“It was almost humorous and even it got a laugh out of Powell. A reporter asked him at the last press conference, ‘What’s your plan for stagflation?’ And he laughed and says, ‘Our plan for stagflation is that we’re not going to have it.’”

But we already do. For now. markets are also still trying to figure out how to react to Trump’s win, and uncertainty breeds volatility. So, high inflation coupled with uncertainty and “strong” economic data are the three factors being attributed to the spike in yields. The inflation part is partially right; the only problem is that it doesn’t go far enough, because inflation is actually much worse than what’s being reported. The other problem is that the “strong jobs data” being partially blamed for the rise in yields is never really as strong as what gets reported, as the jobs reports and other economic data are unreliable and designed to paint as rosy a picture as possible.

As Treasury yields keep rising, mortgage rates keep going up, and basic needs keep getting more expensive, 2025 is already shaping up to be a marvel of stagflationary chaos. As predicted, the bond market and broader economy are getting spooky, and Central Banks will keep buying gold to protect themselves from the same problems that government and central bank interventions create.

JUST IN 🚨: 30-Year Treasury Yield hits 5% for the first time since Halloween 2023 👻🎃 pic.twitter.com/2xs0htXcMU

— Barchart (@Barchart) January 10, 2025

The question is, how many Americans will protect themselves? The answer is very few, as the average American has hardly any money saved and is living paycheck-to-paycheck while becoming increasingly over-indebted. After all, when economies are extremely weak or extremely strong, they will always be what decides elections even if the root causes go far deeper than any one president, which they always do. 

But when Americans are struggling, seeing drastic price increases, and watching with enraged awe as their government continues donating taxpayer money to proxy wars in Ukraine and Israel as American cities flood, burn, and lose their critical infrastructure, they’re going to vote for the other candidate. So, while Trump signed the inflationary COVID stimulus checks, he was able to convince voters even after losing in 2020 that he should be given another chance after the economic deterioration of the last four years..

Whether or not Trumponomics itself ends up being inflationary, central bank monetary policy will always revert back to the only real tool in its toolbox, which is printing money. Whether or not DOGE, tariffs, and other promises materialize, the result of statist intervention to bring down prices is almost always, ironically enough, higher prices. Even if the intervention causes costs to go down in one place, they generally go up somewhere else. 

That’s because there are no free lunches in economics, no matter what central bankers may say.

Inflation may have come down from its post-pandemic highs, but Americans are still feeling the effects of the rapid price rise in the last three years.

And some places in the country are simply more expensive than others due to larger populations, more economic opportunities, desirable communities, and high taxes.

This chart ranks the 25 least affordable of America’s 50 largest cities by average monthly household spending on 10 common bills.

Data is sourced from payment platform Doxo’s annual report tracking household expenditure.

America’s Most Expensive Large City: San Jose

America’s least affordable large cities are clustered along the coasts.

California alone has five of them, led by San Jose, where households spend nearly $3,700 dollars a month.

Seattle ($3,049/month) and Portland ($2,758/month) also make the top 10, further representing the West Coast.

A brief glance at the map shows the other expensive cities are found along the Eastern Seaboard and—more surprisingly—down in the South. Southern states are generally known for lower costs of living.

The middle of the country is conspicuously unmarked except for Denver ($2,743/month) and Colorado Springs ($2,393/month).

But just dollars spent isn’t everything.

By looking at the share of monthly income put towards these bills, some cities on the coasts are more affordable than, say, Baltimore ($2,287/month) and Orlando ($2,251/month). Households there spend fewer dollars, but more as a proportion of their earned income.

So which cities spend the least on bills? Check out: America’s Most Affordable Cities Going Into 2025 for a breakdown.

Authored by Drieu Godefridi via The Gatestone Institute,

• What is important is the solidarity being forged between the major US social media platforms and the incoming US administration in support of real freedom of expression.

• The new US administration will not tolerate levying fines of tens of billions of dollars on major US technology companies by an EU that is drifting towards authoritarianism and is at the same time more dependent than ever on American power.

• It would be in Europe’s lasting interest to prepare for the return of free and unfettered expression.

Anyone wishing to gauge the extent of the European Union’s regulatory drift will need to read Articles 34 and 35 of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Given their length it is impossible to quote them in full here, so here is an extract:

DSA Article 34, “Risk assessment”:

“1. Providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines shall diligently identify, analyse and assess any systemic risks in the Union stemming from the design or functioning of their service and its related systems, including algorithmic systems (…) and shall include the following systemic risks (…) (a) the dissemination of illegal content through their services (which includes ‘hate speech’); (b) any actual or foreseeable negative effects for the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular the fundamental rights (…) to non-discrimination; (c) any actual or foreseeable negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, and public security; (d) any actual or foreseeable negative effects in relation to (…) public health (…) and serious negative consequences to the person’s physical and mental well-being (…).”

Article 35, “Mitigation of risks,” obliges these platforms to take a whole arsenal of preventive and repressive measures, basically to prevent the sharing of information that displeases the European Commission.

In short, the idea is to force these platforms to pay hordes of patrol officers to relentlessly hunt down opinions that do not please the European Lord. The preventive nature of these measures means that they can be described as censorship in the strict sense. What’s more, general censorship, because the terms used by the European legislator – hate, non-discrimination, civic discourse, electoral process, public security, public health, well-being – are so vague that censors with (digital) scissors do cut wherever they please, at the whim of the European Prince.

Meanwhile, in the USA

Elon Musk has never made a secret of his adherence to the American concept of freedom of expression, which is that expression is free regardless of what the law says.

By contrast, according to the European Convention on Human Rights, expression is free with legal exceptions. For a long time, these exceptions were rare, with the result that expression remained almost as free in Europe as in the United States. Over the past 30 years, however these European exceptions to free expression have multiplied — hate, discrimination, racism, Islamophobia, transphobia, and so on — to the extent that European citizens – including those in the UK – are now being arrested, tried and imprisoned for expressing inappropriate ideas on Facebook, X/Twitter and other social media platforms.

But then, you might ask, why can’t the two concepts of expression — free in the USA, censored in Europe — coexist, each in its own way, on our respective continents?

The problem is that the European Union has an imperialist conception of its regulation. The EU does not regulate Europe; it seems to think it regulates the world. True to the rich German and French legal traditions, the EU sees itself as a kind of legislative model for the planet. Not only is the EU taking the initiative to regulate sectors that were not regulated before, it also seems to expect the rest of the world to follow suit.

Better — or worse, depending on your point of view — the EU is backing up its global regulations with sanctions no less global. Apple was recently hit with a landmark $2 billion EU antitrust fine. Breaches of the Digital Services Act (DSA) are punishable by penalties calculated as a percentage of revenues — not profits — received by the company concerned not just in Europe, but all over the world. In the case of companies such as Meta (Facebook) or X, we are talking about EU fines running into billions of dollars. Since they seem not to be able to innovate — anyhow, they haven’t — they tax Americans, who have.

All the “major platforms” that the European Union is regulating with imperial superciliousness are in fact American. Therefore, none of these platforms is subject to the august EU. As technology expert Jason Oxman remarks, “the EU [has] become as sterile in innovation as it is fertile in regulation.”

This puts the EU and its DSA on a collision course with the incoming Trump administration. With touching naivety, the German media on January 8, 2025, greedily called for DSA sanctions to be applied to X and to Meta (Facebook).

The major news on January 7 was the about-face, at least for now, of Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, and his Facebook and Instagram, to the Muskian concept of free speech, pretty much as enshrined in the US Constitution. Whether or not this endorsement is self-serving is irrelevant. What is important is the solidarity being forged between the major US social media platforms and the incoming US administration in support of real freedom of expression.

Consequently, either American free speech will impose itself on Europe, or, less likely — unless the Europeans show a sudden desire for tyranny — Europe will impose its conception on American platforms. There can be no coexistence of the two concepts. If the EU had been legislating only for Europe and providing for local sanctions, the two concepts might have coexisted. The hubris of the EU’s grandiose vision of global sanctions makes this coexistence unlikely.

The European king has no clothes

A prediction: American free speech will win the day. Europe is weak, and the EU as a bureaucracy is increasingly hated by Europeans, not without reason. Without NATO, Europe would not exist militarily. With no American security guarantees, Europe can prepare for the return of Russian troops to Berlin. Above all, Europe exports more to the US than it imports. In 2022, trade in goods and services between the United States and the European Union totaled an estimated $1.3 trillion. US exports amounted to $592 billion and imports to $723.3 billion, as Trump reminds us of it at every one of his press conferences.

The new US administration will not tolerate levying fines of tens of billions of dollars on major US technology companies by an EU that is drifting towards authoritarianism and is at the same time more dependent than ever on American power. To imagine otherwise, you would have to be as naive as a German bureaucrat.

It would be in Europe’s lasting interest to prepare for the return of free and unfettered expression.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer was in Keiv on Thursday where he announced a “historic” 100-year partnership with Ukraine, committing the United Kingdom to supporting the country “beyond this terrible war” and into a future so that it can be “free and thriving again”.

He said while meeting with President Zelensky that “right now Putin shows no signs of wanting to stop” his “unrelenting aggression” and that the unprecedented agreement reflects the “huge affection between our two nations.”

Interestingly, an inbound Russian drone attack triggered anti-aircraft fire while Starmer and Zelensky were in the middle of talks, but no casualties or damage resulted.

The hugely symbolic 100-year agreement, which clearly sends a message to the Kremlin, commits a whopping £3 billion of British support each year, to be continued indefinitely, according to The Guardian. 

According to more of what’s been outlined as part of the long-term agreement:

Under the agreement, London and Kyiv pledged to “deepen defence cooperation” and boost Ukraine’s defence industry, recognizing it as a “future NATO ally”.

Starmer said his government would also deliver a “mobile air defence system” and bolster maritime cooperation through new security frameworks in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Sea of Azov.

Various treaties that are part of the 100-year agreement are expected to be introduced to the United Kingdom Parliament in the coming weeks.

Further, Starmer described that the British military will increase training for Ukrainian soldiers as well as send 150 artillery barrels made by Sheffield Forgemasters, part of rejuvenating the historic company’s national defense production.

Already there has long been a UK training program from Ukrainian troops on British soil, and London has from the start of the war been among the most hawkish European capitals supporting Kiev and leading anti-Russian measures.

Starmer further said that the 100-year partnership agreement will take relations to the next level. “The power of our long-term friendships cannot be underestimated,” he said.

War with Russia forever? the signing of an astounding century-long pact…

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have signed a historic ‘100 Year Partnership’ agreement in Kyiv. pic.twitter.com/4k6qxjhHcE

— Anonymous (@YourAnonCentral) January 16, 2025

“Supporting Ukraine to defend itself from Russia’s barbaric invasion and rebuild a prosperous, sovereign future is vital to this government’s foundation of security and our plan for change,” the prime minister added.

This appears to be a continuation of some European leaders’ policy of ‘Trump-proofing’ future support to Ukraine, amid fears that the US president-elect could press Kiev into a ‘bad deal’. But it will also serve to provoke antagonism between Russia and the West for a long time to come.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A council in South London has instructed staff to stop using the term ‘Christian name’ and instead use ‘forename’, reasoning that it could offend some people.

Sutton council issued a 13 page ‘inclusive language guide’, which suggests staff ask people for “first name, forename or given name” rather than someone’s “Christian name”.

The guide also instructs staff that they should only refer to religion if it is “relevant to the information being communicated”.

Council staff branded ‘woke’ after being banned from asking people for their ‘Christian name’ https://t.co/Lsw8Nv5Gpb

— GB News (@GBNEWS) January 13, 2025

The guide states that use of “incorrect” or “outdated” language can “perpetuate, contribute to, or cause bias, prejudice and discrimination” in addition to “hurt and offence when discussing other personal attributes”.

It asks that gendered language be avoided, for example “workforce” should be used rather than “manpower” and “chair” should be used instead of “chairman”.

It also encourages workers to “actively avoid ageist terms such as ‘elderly’, ‘OAPs’, ‘pensioners’ or ‘youngsters’” and to steer clear of age-specific terms such as “mature workforce” or “young and vibrant team”.

Sutton council denied that it has banned the word ‘Christian’, issuing a statement saying “Our inclusive language guide has been created in collaboration with our staff to help them support our balanced and diverse community.”

Toby Young, the Free Speech Union founder, commented “This is woke hyper-sensitivity taken to ridiculous lengths.”

“I’ve never met a Jew, a ­Muslim or an atheist offended by the words ‘Christian name’,” Young added.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

— George Orwell, 1984 pic.twitter.com/c36H7AJlaA

— Samantha Rose Hill (@Samantharhill) January 21, 2023

We’ve seen this kind of Orwellian erasure of language everywhere, from Universities and schools, to hospitals, workplaces, government bureaucracies, and even charities and churches.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Joshua Stylman via substack,

“Humanity will attempt to overcome its limitations and arrive at fuller fruition,” declared Julian Huxley in 1957, coining the term “transhumanism.” 

By 2022, Yuval Noah Harari would announce its dark fulfillment:

“Humans are now hackable animals. The whole idea of free will… that’s over. Today we have the technology to hack human beings on a massive scale. Everything is being digitized, everything is being monitored. In this time of crisis, you have to follow science. It’s often said you should never allow a good crisis to go to waste, because a crisis is an opportunity to also do ‘good’ reforms that in normal times people would never agree to. But in a crisis, you have no chance, so you better do what we – the people who understand – tell you to do.”

Like Truman Burbank in ‘The Truman Show,’ we inhabit a world where reality itself is increasingly engineered. And like Truman, most remain unaware of the extent of this engineering until shown the patterns. But unlike Truman’s physical dome with its obvious cameras and artificial sets, our manufactured environment operates through sophisticated technological systems and invisible digital constraints. The mechanics of this reality engineering – from media manipulation to social programming – were explored in detail in our previous analysis. Now we turn to the driving force behind this manufactured world: technocracy, the system of control that makes such reality engineering possible on a global scale.

The technocratic architecture wasn’t merely passed down through institutions – it flowed through bloodlines. At the heart of this dynastic web sits Thomas Henry Huxley, known as “Darwin’s Bulldog,” who helped establish scientific materialism as the new religion while serving on the influential Rhodes Round Table. His son Leonard carried this torch forward, while grandsons Aldous and Julian became key architects of the modern world order. These weren’t random connections but rather the careful cultivation of multi-generational power networks.

The connections deepen through marriage and association. Charles Galton Darwin, grandson of Charles Darwin, wrote “The Next Million Years” in 1952, outlining population control through technological means. His son would later marry into the Huxley line, creating a powerful nexus of influence spanning science, culture, and governance.

This intergenerational project has evolved with technological capability. Where Rockefeller once declared “we need a nation of workers, not thinkers” while building his educational information factory today’s technocrats face a different equation. As artificial intelligence eliminates the need for human labor, the focus shifts from creating compliant workers to managing population reduction – not through overt force, but through sophisticated social engineering.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink recently made this shift explicit, explaining how AI and automation will reshape population dynamics: “In developed countries with shrinking populations… these countries will rapidly develop robotics and AI technology… the social problems that one will have in substituting humans for machines will be far easier in those countries that have declining populations.” His candid assessment reveals how technological capability drives elite agendas – as human labor becomes less necessary, population reduction becomes more desirable.

Climate change messaging, declining birth rates, and the normalization of euthanasia aren’t random developments but logical extensions of this evolving agenda.

From World Brain to Digital Hive Mind

In 1937, a British science fiction writer imagined a future where all human knowledge would be instantly accessible to everyone. Today, we call it the Internet. But H.G. Wells saw more than just technology. “The world has a World Brain to which, ultimately, all knowledge is to be addressed,” he wrote, “and it has a nervous system of road, railway, and air communication which is already beginning to bind mankind into a whole.” His vision went beyond mere information sharing. Through “The Open Conspiracy,” he called for “a movement of all that is intelligent in the world,” explicitly advocating for technocratic governance by a scientific elite who would gradually assume control of society. “The Open Conspiracy must be, from its very inception, a world movement, and not merely an English movement or a Western movement. It must be a movement of all that is intelligent in the world.” Wells here laid out his schema for a class of educated, rational individuals who would lead this global transformation. Even his fictional work “Shape of Things to Come” reads like a blueprint, particularly in its description of how a pandemic might facilitate global governance.

This plan found its institutional expression through Julian Huxley at UNESCO. ‘The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background,’ he declared as its first Director-General. Through works like “Religion Without Revelation” (1927), Huxley didn’t merely suggest replacing traditional faith – he outlined a new religious orthodoxy with Science as its deity and experts as its priesthood. This quasi-religious devotion to scientific authority would become the framework for today’s unquestioning acceptance of expert proclamations on everything from vaccine mandates to climate policies. Most civilians lack the specialized knowledge to evaluate these complex technical issues, yet are expected to embrace them with religious fervor – “trust the science” becoming the modern equivalent of “trust in faith.” This blind deference to scientific authority, precisely as Huxley envisioned, has transformed science from a method of inquiry into a system of belief.

The Huxley family provided the intellectual architecture for this transformation. Julian Huxley’s “scientific world humanism” at UNESCO established the institutional framework, while his brother Aldous revealed the psychological methodology. In his 1958 interview with Mike Wallace, Aldous Huxley explained how rapid technological change could overwhelm populations, making them “lose their capacity for critical analysis.” His description of “control through overwhelm” perfectly describes our current state of constant technological disruption, where people are too disoriented by rapid change to effectively resist new control systems.

Most crucially, Huxley emphasized the importance of “gradual” implementation – suggesting that by carefully pacing technological and social changes, resistance could be managed and new control systems normalized over time. This strategy of gradualism, mirroring the Fabian Society’s approach, can be seen in everything from the slow erosion of privacy rights to the incremental implementation of digital surveillance systems. His warning about psychological conditioning through media foreshadowed today’s social media algorithms and digital behavior modification.

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Between Two Ages” expanded this framework, describing a coming “technetronic era” marked by surveillance of citizens, control through technology, manipulation of behavior, and global information networks. He was remarkably explicit about this blueprint: “The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values… Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” Today, many might recognize his daughter Mika Brzezinski as co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe – while her father shaped geopolitical theory, she would go on to influence public opinion through media, demonstrating how establishment influence adapts across generations

Wells’ framework of a “World Brain” – an interconnected global information network – has become a reality through the rise of artificial intelligence and the Internet. This centralization of knowledge and data mirrors the technocratic ambition for an AI-powered global society, as exemplified by initiatives like the AI World Society (AIWS).

George Orwell’s predictions have become our daily reality: telescreens tracking our movements have become smart devices with always-on cameras and microphones. Newspeak limiting acceptable speech emerged as content moderation and political correctness. The memory hole erasing inconvenient facts operates through digital censorship and “fact-checking.” Thought crime punishing wrong opinions appears as social credit systems and digital reputation scores. Perpetual war maintaining control continues through endless conflicts and the “war on terror.”

Consider how major publications systematically preview coming technological transformations: mainstream media’s promotion of the “never offline” mentality preceded widespread adoption of wearable surveillance devices that now converge human biology and digital technology – what’s now called the “Internet of Bodies.”

These aren’t random predictions – they represent coordinated efforts to acclimate the public to increasingly invasive technologies that blur the boundaries between the physical and digital realms. This pattern of previewing control systems through mainstream media serves a dual purpose: it normalizes surveillance while positioning resistance as futile or backward-looking. By the time these systems are fully implemented, the public has already been conditioned to accept them as inevitable progress.

If Orwell showed us the stick, Huxley revealed the carrot. While Orwell warned of control through pain, Huxley predicted control through pleasure. His dystopia of genetic castes, widespread mood-altering drugs, and endless entertainment parallels our world of CRISPR technology, psychiatric medication, and digital addiction.

While the theoretical foundations were established through visionaries like Wells and Huxley, implementing their ideas required institutional frameworks. The transformation from abstract concepts to global control systems would emerge through carefully crafted networks of influence.

From Round Tables to Global Governance

When Cecil Rhodes died in 1902, he left more than just a diamond fortune. His will outlined a roadmap for a new kind of empire – one built not through military conquest, but through the careful cultivation of future leaders who would think and act as one. Carroll Quigley, in his influential work “Tragedy and Hope,” provided insider insights into the power structures he observed, noting how “the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

This would manifest through a network based on human connection and institutional influence. Rhodes envisioned creating an elite network that would extend British influence globally while fostering Anglo-American cooperation. His doctrine wasn’t just about political power – it was about shaping the very mechanisms through which future leaders would think and operate.

The machinery of global control has undergone a profound transformation since Rhodes’ time. The 1.0 model of globalism operated through nation-states, colonialism, and the explicit structures of the British Empire. Today’s Globalism 2.0 operates through corporate and financial institutions, steering power toward centralized global governance without the need for formal empire. Organizations like the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Tavistock Institute have spent 50 to 100 years guiding global programs and policies, gradually centralizing power, influence, and resources among an increasingly concentrated elite. The Bilderberg Group, in particular, has facilitated private discussions among influential political and business leaders, shaping high-level decision-making behind closed doors.

The Rhodes Scholarships served as more than an educational program – they created a pipeline for identifying and cultivating future leaders who would advance this technocratic agenda. The Round Table Movement that emerged from Rhodes’ blueprint would establish influential groups in key countries, creating informal networks that would shape global policy for generations.

From these Round Tables emerged key institutions of global governance: the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in London and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. These organizations wouldn’t merely discuss policy – they would create the intellectual framework through which policy could be imagined. Their members would go on to establish the League of Nations, the United Nations, and the Bretton Woods system.

Alice Bailey’s vision, articulated through Lucis Trust (founded in 1922 as Lucifer Publishing Company before being renamed in 1925), foreshadowed and helped shape aspects of today’s global institutions. While not directly establishing the UN, Lucis Trust’s influence can be seen in the organization’s spiritual and philosophical foundations, including the Meditation Room at UN headquarters. In “The Externalization of the Hierarchy”, written over several decades and published in 1957, Bailey outlined a vision for global transformation that parallels many current UN initiatives. Her writings described changes we now see manifesting: reformed education systems promoting global citizenship, environmental programs restructuring society, spiritual institutions merging into universal beliefs, and economic systems becoming increasingly integrated. Most notably, she specified 2025 as the target date for this “externalization of the hierarchy” – a timeline that aligns with many current global initiatives, including the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Today, this gameplan manifests through the World Economic Forum, where Klaus Schwab, mentored by Henry Kissinger, implements these historical technocratic guides. As Kissinger stated in 1992, “A New World Order will emerge. The only question is whether it will arise out of intellectual and moral insight, and by design, or whether it will be forced on mankind by a series of catastrophes.” Klaus Schwab’s WEF actively shapes this order, “penetrating cabinets” through its Young Global Leaders program. As Schwab himself boasted, “What we are very proud of is that we penetrate the global cabinets of countries” – a claim evidenced by the fact that multiple cabinet members in countries like Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand, as well as U.S. politicians such as Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, and Huma Abedin had gone through the WEF’s leadership initiatives.

Programming the Future: Selling the Cage

Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, developed the psychological framework that would become modern marketing and social media manipulation. This family connection was no coincidence – Freud’s psychological insights about human nature would be weaponized by his nephew into tools for mass manipulation. This pattern of family influence continues today – the co-founder of Netflix, Marc Bernays Randolph, is Edward Bernays’ great-nephew, demonstrating how these bloodlines continue shaping our cultural consumption. The techniques of “engineering consent” and managing public opinion that Edward Bernays pioneered now operate through digital platforms at unprecedented scale, setting the stage for the phenomenon of predictive programming.

Predictive programming operates by presenting future control systems as entertainment, normalizing them before implementation. When reality mirrors fiction, the public has been pre-conditioned to accept it. This isn’t mere coincidence – these narratives systematically prepare populations for planned transformations.

As theorist Alan Watt explains, “predictive programming works to create a psychological conditioning in our minds through a Pavlovian-like process. By repeatedly exposing people to future events or control systems through entertainment media, the responses become familiar and those events are then accepted as natural occurrences when they manifest in reality.”

Hollywood serves as the primary vehicle for normalizing technocratic ideas. Movies and TV shows consistently present future scenarios that later become reality:

• Minority Report” (2002) predicted personalized advertising and gesture-controlled interfaces → Now we have targeted ads and touchless controls

• Iron Man” (2008) normalized brain-computer interfaces for everyday use → Now we see Neuralink and other neural implant initiatives gaining public acceptance

• Black Mirror” (2011-) episodes about social credit scores → China implemented similar systems

• Contagion” (2011) eerily predicted pandemic responses → Many of its scenes played out in real life

• The Social Network” (2010) portrayed tech disruption as inevitable and leaders as brilliant outsiders → Leading to widespread technocrat worship

• Person of Interest” (2011) depicted mass surveillance through AI → Now we have widespread facial recognition and predictive policing

• “Her” (2013) depicted an intimate relationship between a human and an AI assistant, presaging the erosion of traditional human bonds

• “Elysium” (2013) depicted technological class division → Now we see increasing discussion of transhuman enhancement limited to elites

• “Transcendence” (2014) explored human consciousness merging with AI → Now we see Neuralink and other brain-computer interface initiatives advancing rapidly

• “Ready Player One” (2018) normalized full digital immersion and virtual economy → Now we see metaverse initiatives and digital asset markets

Even children’s entertainment plays a role. Movies like WALL-E predict environmental collapse, while children’s films like Disney/Pixar’s Big Hero 6 show technology “saving” humanity. The message remains consistent: technology will solve our problems, but at the cost of traditional human relationships and freedoms. This systematic conditioning through media would require an equally systematic institutional framework to implement at scale.

While Bernays and his successors developed the psychological framework for mass influence, implementing these ideas at scale required a robust institutional architecture. The translation of these manipulation techniques from theory to practice would emerge through carefully constructed networks of influence, each building upon the other’s work. These networks wouldn’t just share ideas – they would actively shape the mechanisms through which future generations would understand and interact with the world.

The Institutional Network

The technocratic map required specific institutions for its implementation. The Fabian Society, whose coat of arms tellingly featured a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a tortoise logo representing their motto of “when I strike, I strike hard” and “slow and steady change”, established mechanisms for gradual social transformation. This gradualist approach would become a template for how institutional change could be implemented without triggering resistance.

The translation of technocratic theory into global policy required institutional muscle. Organizations like the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations didn’t merely support these initiatives – they systematically restructured society through strategic funding and policy implementation. The Rockefeller Foundation’s influence over medicine mirrored Ford’s reshaping of education, creating interconnected mechanisms of control over health and knowledge. These foundations operated as more than philanthropic organizations – they served as incubators for technocratic governance, carefully cultivating networks of influence through grants, fellowships, and institutional support. Their work demonstrated how apparent charity could mask profound social engineering, a pattern that continues with today’s tech philanthropists.

Bill Gates exemplifies this evolution – his foundation wields unprecedented influence over global health policy while simultaneously investing in digital ID systems, synthetic foods, and surveillance technologies. His acquisition of vast agricultural holdings, becoming America’s largest private farmland owner, parallels his control over global seed preservation and distribution systems. Like Rockefeller before him, Gates uses philanthropic giving to shape multiple domains – from public health and education to agriculture and digital identity. His transhumanist vision extends to patenting human-computer interfaces, positioning himself to influence not just our food and health systems, but potentially human biology itself through technological integration. Through strategic media investments and carefully managed public relations, these activities are typically portrayed as charitable initiatives rather than exercises in control. His work demonstrates how modern philanthropists have perfected their predecessors’ methods of using charitable giving to engineer social transformation.

The transformation of medicine offers a stark example of how control systems evolved. Jonas Salk, celebrated as a humanitarian for his vaccine work, revealed darker motivations in books like “The Survival of the Wisest” and “World Population and Human Values: A New Reality,” which explicitly advocated eugenics and depopulation agendas. This pattern of apparent philanthropy masking population control repeats throughout the century, forcing us to reconsider many of our assumed heroes of progress.

The weaponization of social division emerged through careful academic study. Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson’s work in Papua New Guinea, particularly their concept of schismogenesis (the creation of social rifts), provided the theoretical framework for modern social engineering. While presented as neutral anthropological research, their studies effectively created a manual for societal manipulation through the exploitation of internal strife. Bateson’s “Steps to an Ecology of Mind” revealed how communication patterns and feedback loops could shape both individual and collective behavior. The concept of schismogenesis described how initial separations could be amplified into self-reinforcing cycles of opposition – a process we now see deliberately deployed through social media algorithms and mainstream news programming.

Matt Taibbi’s “Hate Inc.” provides a powerful contemporary analysis of how these principles operate in our digital age. What Bateson observed in tribal cultures, Taibbi documents in today’s media ecosystem – the systematic exploitation of division through algorithmic content delivery and engagement metrics, creating an industrialized form of schismogenesis that drives social control through manufactured conflict, even as the establishment “uniparty” converges on key issues like foreign policy.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs and Council on Foreign Relations shaped international policy frameworks, while the Tavistock Institute developed and refined psychological operations techniques. The Frankfurt School reshaped cultural criticism, and the Trilateral Commission guided economic integration. Each of these organizations serves multiple roles: incubating technocratic ideas, training future leaders, networking key influencers, developing policy frameworks, and engineering social change.

Bertrand Russell’s “The Impact of Science on Society” provided the blueprint for modern educational control. “The subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology,” he wrote. “Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’.” His frank explorations of population control and scientific governance find expression in contemporary discussions about expert rule and “following the science.” These ideas now manifest in standardized digital education systems and AI-driven learning platforms.

The Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” deserves special attention for establishing the intellectual framework behind current environmental and population control initiatives. Their stark declaration that “the common enemy of humanity is man” revealed their true agenda. As they explicitly stated in”’The First Global Revolution” (1991): ‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill… All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.’ Their predictions of resource scarcity weren’t just about environmental concerns – they provided the foundation for today’s climate change messaging and population control initiatives, enabling control through both resource allocation and demographic engineering.

These institutional structures didn’t remain static – they evolved with technological capability. What began as physical systems of control would find their ultimate expression in digital infrastructure, achieving a level of surveillance and behavioral modification that earlier technocrats could only imagine.

Modern Implementation: The Convergence of Control Systems

Modern surveillance architecture pervades every aspect of daily life. Smart devices monitor millions of people’s sleep patterns and vital signs while AI assistants guide our daily routines under the guise of convenience. Just as Truman’s world was controlled through hidden cameras and staged interactions, our digital environment monitors and shapes our behavior through devices we willingly embrace. News and information flow through carefully curated algorithmic filters that shape our worldview, while workplace surveillance and automation increasingly define our professional environments. Our entertainment arrives through recommendation systems, our social interactions are mediated through digital platforms, and our purchases are tracked and influenced through targeted advertising. Where Truman’s world was controlled by a single producer and production team, our engineered reality operates through integrated frameworks of technological control. The infrastructure of technocracy – from digital surveillance to behavioral modification algorithms – provides the practical means for implementing this control at scale, far beyond anything depicted in Truman’s artificial world.

Like Truman’s carefully controlled environment, our digital world creates an illusion of choice while every interaction is monitored and shaped. But unlike Truman’s physical cameras, our surveillance system is invisible – embedded in the devices and platforms we voluntarily embrace. Even our health decisions are increasingly guided by “expert” algorithms, our children’s education becomes standardized through digital platforms, and our travel is continuously monitored through digital tickets and GPS. Most insidiously, our money itself is transforming into trackable digital currency, completing the surveillance circuit. Just as Truman’s every purchase and movement was carefully tracked within his artificial world, our financial transactions and physical movements are increasingly monitored and controlled through digital systems – but with far greater precision and scope than anything possible in Truman’s manufactured reality.

Historical agendas have manifested with remarkable precision in our current systems. Wells’ World Brain has become our Internet, while Huxley’s soma takes the form of widespread SSRIs. Bailey’s dreams of global governance emerge through the UN and WEF, as Brzezinski’s technetronic era arrives as surveillance capitalism. Russell’s educational outline manifests in digital learning platforms, Bernays’ manipulation techniques power social media, and the Club of Rome’s environmental concerns drive climate change policy. Each historical blueprint finds its modern implementation, creating converging networks of control.

The next phase of control systems is already emerging. Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) are creating what amounts to a digital gulag, where every transaction requires approval and can be monitored or prevented. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores extend this control to corporate behavior, while AI governance increasingly automates decision-making processes. This new paradigm effectively codifies “cancel culture”, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives into the monetary system, creating a comprehensive system of financial control

Initiatives like the Internet of Bodies and the development of smart cities overseen by governing bodies like the C40 network further demonstrate how the technocratic vision is being implemented in the present day. These efforts to meld human biology with digital technology, and to centralize urban infrastructure under technocratic control, represent the logical extension of the historical blueprint outlined throughout this essay.

Understanding to Resist

The technocratic future isn’t coming – it’s here. Every day, we live out the predictions these thinkers made decades ago. But understanding their vision gives us power.

Just as Truman Burbank finally sailed toward the boundaries of his artificial world, recognizing the illusion that had constrained him, we too must muster the courage to push against the edges of our own digitally-enforced reality. But unlike Truman’s physical dome, our constraints are increasingly biological and psychological, woven into the very fabric of modern life through technocratic systems of control. The question isn’t whether we’re living in a Truman-like system – we demonstrably are. The question is whether we’ll recognize our digital dome before it becomes biological, and whether we’ll have the courage to sail toward its boundaries like Truman did.

Individual Actions:

• Implement strong privacy practices: encryption, data minimization, secure communications

• Develop critical media literacy skills

• Maintain analog alternatives to digital systems

• Practice technological sabbaticals

Family & Community Building:

• Create local support networks independent of digital platforms

• Teach children critical thinking and pattern recognition

• Establish community-based economic alternatives

• Build face-to-face relationships and regular gatherings

Systemic Approaches:

• Support and develop decentralized technologies

• Create parallel systems for education and information sharing

• Build alternative economic structures

• Develop local food and energy independence

Our daily resistance must occur through conscious engagement: using technology without being used by it, consuming entertainment while understanding its programming, and participating in digital platforms while maintaining privacy. We must learn to accept convenience without surrendering autonomy, follow experts while maintaining critical thinking, and embrace progress while preserving human values. Each choice becomes an act of conscious resistance.

Even this analysis follows the blueprint it describes. Each system of control emerged through a consistent pattern: first a roadmap articulated by key thinkers, then a framework developed through institutions, finally an implementation that appears inevitable once completed. Just as Wells envisioned the World Brain before the Internet, and Rhodes designed the scholarship systems before global governance, the blueprint becomes visible only after understanding its components.

The Choice Ahead

Like Truman’s gradual awakening to the artificiality of his world, our recognition of these control systems develops through pattern recognition. And just as Truman had to overcome his programmed fears to sail toward the boundaries of his known world, we too must push against our comfortable technological constraints to maintain our humanity.

The convergence of these control systems – from physical to psychological, from local to global, from mechanical to digital – represents the culmination of a century-long project of social engineering. What began with Edison’s hardware monopolies and Wells’ World Brain has evolved into an all-encompassing system of technological control, creating a digital Truman Show on a global scale.

Yet knowledge of these systems provides the first step toward resistance. By understanding their development and recognizing their implementation, we can make conscious choices about our engagement with them. While we cannot completely escape the technocratic grid, we can maintain our humanity within it through conscious action and local connection.

The future remains unwritten. Through understanding and deliberate action, we can help shape a world that preserves human agency within the technological web that increasingly defines our reality.

This metaphorical staircase, reaching ever higher towards a seemingly divine ascent, reflects the technocratic vision of mankind’s transcendence through technological means. Yet true liberation lies not in climbing this constructed hierarchy, but in discovering the freedom that exists beyond its borders – the freedom to shape our own destiny, rather than have it dictated by an unseen hand. The choice before us is clear: will we remain Truman, accepting the limits of our fabricated world? Or will we take that final step, sailing toward an uncertain but ultimately self-determined future?

*  *  *

Thanks for reading Joshua Stylman! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support his work.

Authored by Matt Lamb via Headline USA,

A top official in Portland said the Oregon city may need to cut “equity” roles due to a pending budget deficit.

The city is forecasting a $27 million budget shortfall starting in the new fiscal year, according to its official website.

This has led city administrator Michael Jordan to warn of cuts to “equity” jobs. That spells trouble for three new officer positions focused on “equity, communications, and engagement,” according to the Willamette Week.

“As we proceed through the assessment process, it is possible that there will be cuts,” Jordan told the local news outlet. Other cuts include communications and engagement budgets.

The city has regularly hired for DEI roles with nice salaries. For example, the Parks and Recreation Department advertised an “equity and inclusion coordinator” job that topped out at a $104,000-per-year salary. The job would research “racial equity and inclusion best practices” and provide advice to the bureau on “racial equity assessment tools.”

This job should not be confused with a 2023 posting for an “equity and engagement planner” job in the bureau of planning and sustainability.

That analyst position, with pay reaching nearly $150,000 annually, required a “subject matter expert on equity, diversity, and inclusion” who could implement “equity frameworks.”

The hire would also conduct “racial equity” studies on “land use, climate justice, waste systems and community technology.”

The Office of Equity and Human Rights is overseen by the city administrator.

The city leans heavily into LGBT issues as well. The equity office publishes an “LGBTQIA2S+ Policy,” noting that 11% of city workers identified as being on the sexually divergent spectrum, and 15% did not select male or female when asked for their sex.

The policy program “approaches LGBTQIA2S+ equity work with an intersectional lens, centering the most marginalized demographics within the community.”

Portland is now led by Mayor Keith Wilson. For years, Ted Wheeler ran the city, largely letting homelessness run rampant and overseeing violent crime from domestic terror group Antifa.

He also used pepper spray on his own citizen, whom he accused of harassing him in 2021 for not wearing a mask while inside.

“I clearly informed him that he needed to back off,” Wheeler told police.

“He did not do so … I pulled out my pepper spray and I sprayed him in the eyes,” Wheeler continued. “He seemed surprised, and backed off. He made a comment like, ‘I can’t believe you just pepper-sprayed me.’”

However, Wheeler previously prohibited police from using tear gas during the city’s riots in 2020.

In a new study, Emisil researched the most expensive countries in the world for dating. They looked at the cost of dating across the globe, ranking countries based on the average annual expenses for singles.

Switzerland tops the list for costly dating, with an annual average expense exceeding $6,643. This high figure is driven by premium prices for meals, cinema tickets, and taxi fares. Although Swiss singles go on fewer dates annually—around 50—their overall spending is unmatched. With an average monthly net salary of $6,500, these high costs are more manageable for Swiss residents.

Denmark ranks second, with singles spending $3,592 annually. Dining plays a prominent role in its dating culture, as a two-course meal averages $98, the second-highest among the countries analyzed. Danish singles go on 48 dates yearly, closely matching the frequency seen in other high-ranking nations.

Norway comes in third, with annual dating expenses of $3,279. While its three-course dinners average $88, one of the highest meal costs, Norway compensates with low taxi fares starting at $1.50. Singles in Norway date 47 times a year, slightly less frequently than in Denmark.

Belgium is fourth, with annual dating costs exceeding $2,000. Meal prices are slightly lower than in Norway, but taxi fares start higher at $2.60. Belgian singles also average 48 dates yearly, aligning with Denmark but at a more economical total cost.

The Netherlands ranks fifth, with an annual dating expenditure of $1,000 and a single date costing $90. Dutch singles enjoy a high frequency of 60 dates annually, supported by moderate meal and entertainment prices. With over 1,000 cinema screens, there’s no shortage of options for outings.

Finland takes sixth place, with singles spending $2,838 annually and $90 per date. Finnish singles date 48 times a year, benefiting from relatively low meal costs averaging $57.

Ireland ranks seventh, with annual dating costs of $3,091 and single-date expenses of $87. Despite similar per-date costs to the U.S. and UK, Irish singles date only 36 times a year, reflecting cultural or financial differences.

The United States ranks eighth, with singles spending $4,507 annually on 84 dates—the highest frequency among all countries. With an average date costing $87.20, dating is relatively affordable. The U.S. also boasts over 40,000 cinema screens, offering abundant entertainment options.

The United Kingdom ranks ninth, with annual dating costs of $3,153. At $86 per date, costs are slightly lower than in the U.S., but with average monthly salaries of $3,069, affordability is a greater challenge. Like Americans, British singles average 84 dates yearly, the highest frequency on the list.

Australia rounds out the top ten, with one of the lowest annual dating costs among high-income nations at $3,570. A single date averages $82, with affordable three-course dinners costing $75. Australian singles date 48 times a year, balancing affordability and social activity.

An Emisil’s spokesperson said: “Our research on dating costs worldwide shows some pretty interesting trends. Swiss singles spend the most – about $6,600 a year on dating – but it’s Americans and Brits who are out there dating the most, averaging around 84 dates yearly.”

They continued: “Here’s what’s caught my eye: because dating is expensive in a country, it doesn’t mean people date less. It’s more about how their salaries match local dating costs and what’s normal in their culture. This tells us much about how different societies view and value dating today.”

The study “analyzed data from 87 countries, examining factors such as the frequency of dating (surveyed among 500–2,000 participants per country), average post-tax monthly income, meal costs (three-course dinners at mid-range restaurants and inexpensive solo meals), movie ticket prices for two, and taxi starting fares.”

“Countries were ranked by total annual dating costs, offering insights into global dating affordability and cultural spending patterns,” Emilsil wrote. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In following the defamation trial against CNN by veteran Zachary Young, we have previously (here, here, and here) marveled at how bad things were going for the network. 

It appears that they are getting even worse.

This has been a brutal week as CNN figures, including host Jake Tapper, took the stand.

If “this is CNN,” the judge (and possibly the jury) are not liking what they are seeing.The report at the heart of the case aired on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” on Nov. 11, 2021, and was shared on social media and (a different version on) CNN’s website.

In the segment, Tapper told his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered that “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”

Marquardt piled on in the segment, claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country. He then named Young and his company as an example of that startling claim.The evidence included messages from Marquardt that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mf**ker” and thought the story would be Young’s “funeral.”

After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!”

Likewise, CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan described Young as “a shit.”

As is often done by media, CNN allegedly gave Young only two hours to respond before the story ran. It is a typical ploy of the press to claim that they waited for a response while giving the target the smallest possible window.

In this case, Young was able to respond in the short time and Marquardt messaged a colleague, “f**king Young just texted.”

In the last week, Tapper was seen on video by the jury and was mocked for claiming under oath that he “doesn’t pay attention to ratings,” a claim that would make him unique as a network host. Critics hammered Tapper by showing repeated clips where he discussed ratings.

However, the most damaging testimony may have come from top producers who told the jurors that they opposed the modest apology given to Young on air. Since Young seemed to do well before the jury, the testimony of senior editor Fuzz Hogan, CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt, CNN producer Michael Conte, CNN’s executive vice president of editorial Virginia Moseley, and CNN supervising producer Michael Callahan undermined any effort to portray the network as seeking to amend a wrong or reduce damage to Young.

Arguably, the worst moment came with an argument by CNN’s lead attorney, David Axelrod.

Axelrod introduced a document that he claimed was a smoking gun and showed that Young was a liar. Pointing dramatically at Young and waiving the document in the air, Axelrod declared that he had the proof:

“Plaintiff’s entire case, sitting right there, is that after the publications, he couldn’t get any work…Mr. Young knew, when he filed this lawsuit that he had entered into a new consulting agreement with a government contractor one month after CNN’s publication. This entire lawsuit was a fraud on this court. It was a fraud on CNN. This man knew it. I don’t know what they know. But when his came up in discovery, CNN’s counsel asked Mr. Young about the Helios connection, and he completely lied in his deposition. Over and over again, he made up some incredible ruse that Helios just had his security clearance because it was a company that held security clearances. It makes no sense. He knew at that time that he had a consulting agreement with Helios Global and he didn’t disclose it. It was an outright lie.”

However, it turned out that the document merely was Young’s application to maintain his security clearance.

Young’s attorney, Vel Freedman, later laid waste to CNN. He told the court that Young had lost his security clearance back in 2022 and that he hadn’t been aware of that until he double-checked after his testimony in the case. Freedman asked for the right to present a witness who would testify on the issue and Axelrod objected. Judge Henry had had enough and blew up at CNN.

He read back Axelrod’s comments and said “You called him a liar multiple times there.”

He told Axelrod that he owed an apology to the plaintiff.

After telling CNN that “this isn’t Kindergarten,” he added “Right now, your credibility with me, Mr. Axelrod, is about none.”

That is never a good thing to hear from a judge.

Axelrod apologized but the damage is clearly considerable.

The most chilling aspect from a litigation perspective? Axelrod replaced the earlier lead counsel who also imploded in court over ill-considered arguments.

None of this bodes well for the network. Alienating the judge is obviously never good, but it also could have a material impact if there is an award that CNN wants reduced by a order of remittitur. In addition, having top producers expressing a lack of regret and even opposition to the on-air apology could push such damages higher for a jury. Both sides are arguing that “this is CNN,” but these moments are building a more negative view of what that is.

In case you needed any additional confirmation that the human race continues to devolve, here’s a new one for you.

New data shows that many in Gen Z struggle with basic DIY tasks like changing a lightbulb, according to a new report from the New York Post.

Andy Turbefield of Halfords, a UK-based motoring and cycling retailer, said: “The ability to do basic, practical tasks is being lost amongst younger generations.”

“They simply haven’t really had to [do things for themselves],” said Yamalis Diaz, an NYU Langone psychologist.

She continued: “So much of their (and all of our) lives are automated, convenient and outsourced, which today’s generation of young people have benefited from way more than past generations. So, it makes complete sense that Gen Z simply doesn’t know how to do as much with regard to non-tech or independent tasks.”

The Post report says that a Halfords survey of 2,000 adults found nearly 25% of Gen Zers don’t know how to change a ceiling lightbulb, often citing safety concerns like hot bulbs or ladder risks. Instead of attempting the task, many prefer to “GOTDIT” — Get Others To Do It.

This adds to the narrative of Gen Z’s reluctance for DIY, with some opting to pay professionals for minor tasks rather than tackling them themselves.

Halfords analysts found that Gen Z spends over $1,500 annually hiring professionals for basic household tasks, compared to $470 for Gen X and $300 for boomers.

Given their lack of DIY skills, it may be money well spent. Many Gen Zers also rely on parents for chores like car cleaning, with less than half knowing how to add air to a tire or replace a windshield wiper blade.

Finally, the Post wrote that nearly 30% of Gen Zers can’t identify a flathead screwdriver, and 21% don’t recognize a wrench. Shockingly, 1 in 10 would call a pro just to hang a picture.