How I learned to love the limits of my remit

A memoir of a war too big to know, and a purpose never too small to do

There is something I have been wanting to say for a long time, but it has never quite congealed into an essay. This is a “quiet sit down and think along with Martin” piece; there is no legal analysis, AI-generated content, or abstract idea to master. In a way I could have it 100% done in the first paragraph — we each have a limited remit, and that’s OK.

By “remit”, I mean the scope of legitimate authority or responsibility — what we are called to do, what we are competent to do, and what we are morally permitted to do. But that would be to undersell the significance of this statement. Part of being at war, even a covert war of perception most deny existing, is finding peace with oneself and our finite capacity to both process the world and act upon it.

In the years around 2017-2021ish I would get people reaching out to me as “targeted individuals”, with horrific stories of being gangstalked, electronically tortured, gaslit, surveilled, and isolated. I never met up with any in person, and was unable to verify their claims. Their tales resonated with what I read elsewhere, and I believed what they told me.

Somehow as I had a large social media following it was assumed I had an influence in the world that I did not, and would be able to do something to relieve their suffering. Life has taught me to be wary of adopting a rescuer role, and they would become angry at me for having boundaries of what I would take on. Often these encounters would end in acrimony, as I was denounced for my callous failure to step up and act.

There was always the possibility I was being set up by a hoaxer, or tested in some way by an intelligence agency (friendly or hostile). While I did not want to cast shade on the reported experience of someone in deep trouble, I also was careful not to tackle problems that I could do little about, and nothing to validate. Yet I lacked a language of remit, so my explanations may have come over as being cold or indifferent.

Now I am in a better place to understand where I fit in the world, and how it is not merely acceptable to stick to your own calling, but essential. Each of us has an intuition of what aligns to our purpose, and listening to that inner voice is important. For me to tackle the question of “targeted individuals” would require extensive technical research, forming new networks of associates, and willingness to risk becoming one myself. This is at the price of doing other things I am uniquely adept at — say mixing art photos with analysis as an information theorist.

A challenge of unrestricted fifth-generation warfare is that you will be exposed to a multitude of theatres of operation, and cannot even tell if all of them are real. Nanotech dust, malevolent runaway AI, economic subversion, “Internet of Bodies”, quantum computing, time travel, inter-dimensional entities, genetically engineered lifeforms, directed energy weapons, chemtrails, clones, synthetic biology, portals, breakaway civilisations, UFOs… the list goes on and on. I don’t write about most of it as I have nothing (new) to say, and time has taught me I am the world’s top expert in only one subject — “being Martin”. Nobody else can rival my own testimony! So sharing my witness is always “in remit”.

The header image of police in muzzles outside of Downing Street is only one of many examples of professionals acting outside of their remit. These men and women were enforcing a narrative, not the law. We also see doctors pushing poisons on babies, teachers indoctrinating children, and judges operating beyond their jurisdiction. What is powerful about the framing of remit is that it turn it from being a good or bad doctor, teacher, or judge into something quite different. When someone acts outside of their remit, they cease to occupy the role, even if they have the costume. This is subtle but critical — we are identifying that they are no longer “doctor”, “teacher”, or “judge” but something else entirely. The officers in the photo are engaged in “law enforcement cosplay”.

When someone is acting inside their remit, even if they are doing a poor job of it, then they deserve some respect. Doctors, teachers, and judges make mistakes, and there can be a harm as a result. Yet we do not want to punish them for every mistake, else there would be no volunteers to enter those professions. A surgeon who slips and kills his patient on the operating table is not a murderer, even if it was careless, as it is part of the remit of being a surgeon. Yet a medic who knowingly injects you with something toxic without consent is qualitatively different, as this is outside their remit. Even catastrophic errors “within remit” carry a different moral weight to those outside it.

The Latin phrases “intra vires” and “ultra vires”, typically used in a legal context, reference being within or outside our authority. This is somewhat narrower than remit, however, as it only references formal delegated authority in an institutional environment. In Biblical terms, governments have a sacred remit to secure the safety and liberty of the people — with authority derived from the ultra-macro divine, not the national-scale secular. A the other extreme of scale, we each have our own innate skills, capacity limits, and predilections. Our remit emerges from an understanding of self and place in the world, and is not conferred from family or workplace. I don’t campaign against neurological weapons, for instance, as it isn’t in my remit.

What is in our collective remit is our individual spiritual wellbeing, how we run our families, and our engagement with low-level social institutions like school boards. I know people who have driven themselves close to crazy researching the rescue of children from underground hellholes, yet that’s a military remit. Running around screaming for someone to save the snatched kids is largely futile, however understandable. Meanwhile, in our daily lives, which the military don’t run, we need to become models of the change we want to see. Cut out your addictions, refuse to participate in fallen rituals, and disassociate from idol worship. This brings peace in your life, even at a cost of disapproval and isolation from those who still partake.

As another example of the utility of remit type thinking, the Q drops have created two distinct schools of thought — one saying it is to activate a citizen militia in an information war, and another to inactivate the people who wait for a rescuer that never comes. Instead, we can see it as a matter of remits, each being a partial truth. Civilians are reassured that the military are on task in removing traitors, their core remit. No armed uprising of the people is needed. Meanwhile, the military signals that they need us to step up and roll back the encroachment of moral relativism and legal positivism in our personal lives, families, and social environment. The drops helped to define remits in the context of irregular warfare.

The initial foray down the “rabbit hole” of the occult can be overwhelming, as we realise our whole world is infused with inversions and deceptions. Many of us have “exploded” beyond our remit, wanting to research everything, tell everyone, and fix anything we can. It doesn’t work, and only years of failure and fracture teach us the nature of remit, and what our legitimate role might be in a reformulation of society as inversion is removed. I have come to a place of contentment that my remit has shrunk from “mass awakening against genocide” to pioneering the use of AI tools in lawfare battles. I don’t have to take on all the problems in the world, only those I am uniquely adapted for.

The use of remit thinking helps us to escape from a black/white splitting of people and roles into good and evil. Telling the doctor, teacher, or judge that they are pushing outside of their remit allows them to preserve dignity. You are not saying they are bad at their job, but that their job has limits. It takes away the adversarial nature of much campaigning for justice and liberty, as an accusation of misfeasance is turning into a question of remit.

The remit of a role can be discussed distinctly from its occupant, giving an external point of reference. The finite nature of our remit allows us to politely decline opportunities to engage without disrespecting the request for help. I wish I had this simple concept in my toolkit years ago, as it would have save me much pain. I wish I could remedy the tragedy of each targeted individual, but that clashes with my remit. That someone else may rant and rage at me for having a remit, and sticking to it, is not my burden to bear.

To sign off, I would suggest you have a think about three things. What is your own personal remit in this grander change in society, and where are you under/over versus its boundaries? What controversies are you grappling with in your life, and in what ways do they reflect the parties operating inside or outside their remit? And what is your vision of the remit of the state, the church, and the family in shaping the future you desire? Once we become explicit about remits, then they can be discussed and debated; as long as they are unconscious, then there is likely conflict, as the disputes become personalised.

For if there is one thing that is always in our remit, it is defining what our remit might be!

Giving people beauty as the final thought is part of my remit