2012 Video Predicts Social Scoring and EU Surveillance

The 2012 video that already described the 2024 world

A video published twelve years ago described with uncomfortable precision the digital hyper-surveillance, social scoring, and mass social engineering that today form part of the everyday landscape. What was then presented as a futuristic dystopia now functions, according to those who review it, as an instruction manual for the global agenda. The material is circulating again in a context where facial recognition, cameras, and the normalization of control under the guise of security or public health are no longer science fiction.

The conversation it has generated goes beyond astonishment. Some claim the video predicted the NATO-Russia war years before it erupted, while others recall that the page hosting it has been warning about what was to come for two decades. But consensus breaks down when it comes to identifying the responsible party.

What the video got right according to its defenders

The most repeated summary points to three successes. First, digital hyper-surveillance: cameras, facial recognition, and social scoring. Second, the normalization of control under the guise of security or public health. Third, mass social engineering: the redefinition of the family, child sensual, the promotion of transhumanism, and cultural degradation as tools for uprooting and control.

You don't have to look far, they point out, to find examples of each. The pandemic served as a dress rehearsal for the measures the video anticipated. The war in Ukraine, announced on the same channel years earlier, confirmed that the script was being executed.

Some go further and argue that the video's creator might be part of the very network he denounces, warning about what they are going to do. This is a hypothesis that cannot be ruled out, they admit, adding a layer of unease to the matter.

The State as a tool, not as a victim

The most intense discussion is not about the video, but about who holds power. One current holds that the real problem is not an elite outside the States, but the state power itself. The mechanism is the same as always: the power of force is the first and last power, and all others depend on it. Political, economic, and religious power depend on the existence of a monopoly of violence to which the population tends to obey.

Within economic power, the greatest economic power of all is also the State, they argue. Big capital delegates physical and legal defense to the State because managing it directly would not be viable. The State funds these expenses with taxes collected from the population, guaranteeing itself the monopoly of violence and justice. Everyone wins except ordinary people, who are subjected and plundered.

The objection comes from another flank: how does that fit with the fact that, of the top 100 economies in the world, 51 are private companies? A company has no country or jurisdiction to adhere to and plays by jumping imaginary lines. They meet in secret clubs, buy politicians who sell out the country in exchange for a job and a retirement in a tropical paradise. The State can expropriate, but only within its borders.

The response is that all of this has already been refuted. When those powers that stand above the State exist without a State and with the same or greater degree of power, then it can be discussed. Meanwhile, the State remains the tool, not the victim.

The middle class as a problem

One of the most uncomfortable derivatives of the debate is the role of the middle class. One position holds that only the middle class is human, and that the lumpen should be actively eliminated. The response does not take long: the middle class is the most infra-humanized. Power is always watchful and using its brain to maintain and increase its power. The lower classes at least reproduce. The middle class is one hundred percent welfare-oriented, has no children, wants neither to reach power nor combat it. Mere welfare zombies, rightsholders, therefore infra-human, and thus no longer useful to power.

The discussion shifts to freedom. Some claim that it is freedom that has led to the current point, that those who always ask for more freedom are those accustomed to breaking the law, and that normal people want law and order, not freedom. The response from the other side is that the middle class does not exist and that one might as well exterminate those who claim otherwise.

The video as a conspiracy business

Not everyone buys the narrative. A skeptical current argues that the video has not gotten one thing right, and that it is one of the hundreds of conspiracy videos that invite spreading conspiracy and nothing else. The real problem, they insist, is real power, which is that of the State, which these videos never mention, and when they do, it is to portray it as a victim of the elite. These are videos that de facto invite inaction, because there is no way to mobilize against the elite. The only thing ordinary people can and should do is get rid of the statocapitalist paradigm.

The definition of conspiracy is also debated. If those supranational bodies were truly above all States, including the United States, it would not be conspiracy, because the one at the top does not conspire in secret against the one at the bottom.

The unexpected closing

The video continues to circulate. Some saw it years ago and didn't even remember it. Others repost it from time to time. A coworker dismissed it as crackpot stuff: there have always been pandemics, there was almost another in 2014. That is how the matter stands.

The question hovering over the entire issue is not whether the video was accurate. It is whether the video's creator is part of the network he denounces. And this doubt, admitted even by those who defend it, has no answer.