Whenever we come across dystopian films and books, they can be viewed as masterful storytelling to be heeded as a warning to those who do not wish such endpoint versions of events for society. Alternatively, such creations may be used as instruction manuals by the governing technocrats, autocrats, and sociopaths -is there still a difference between these labels? Predictive programming falls somewhere in between and cannot be ignored either.

The world-building of simulacra and simulation for The Assessment takes place within a giant atmospheric dome, occupied by a couple played by the actress Elizbeth Olsen as ‘Mia’ and the actor Himesh Patel as ‘Aaryan’, respectively. Throughout the film, the viewer is fed slithers of insight into the backdrop of what is going on in this world. Let us cease to speculate on whether each subliminal message is propagandised predictive programming, or stark warning - the reader may deduce this on their own. Instead, we shall focus on real-world parallels creeping in at their infancy…

Here are (mini) spoilers regarding the throwaway lines which hint at the ravaged world portrayed in the film, though the final twists and turns shall not be detailed here.

First off, we learn that natural sexual reproduction between humans is forbidden by the state - later hinted at as either owing to disease or due to overpopulation concerns. This segues into the main storyline surrounding Mia and Aaryan undergoing ‘assessment’ by an employee of the state - played by Alicia Vikander, whose character is named ‘Virginia’, and referred to as the ‘assessor’.

This plot makes for some uncomfortable scenes, as Virginia’s task is purportedly as follows:

“Over the next seven days you'll undergo close observation and formal testing to ascertain suitability for parenting. In the event of a pass, your material will be passed on for ex-utero gestation.

All other methods of reproduction still remain forbidden. In the event of a fail, candidates will be notified immediately. Candidates have the right to withdraw from Assessment at any point up to and including the in-person questionnaire. After which they waive any and all right to future applications. Assessor's decision is final.

Clear?”

The forms in which this assessment takes attain increasingly extreme levels of personal invasiveness and soul piercing obliteration, driving a wedge between Mia and Aaryan, as they endeavour to present a unified front with superficial politeness, courtesy, and forced brave faces.

The term in the aforementioned introduction by Virginia: “your material will be passed on for ex-utero gestation” tells us that babies are grown, not conceived. Faceless statists determine who gets to be parents. This is not that far fetched from our current trajectory, in the vein of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, whereby babies are not only grown in pods, but their very physicality, intelligence quotient, and even their future social strata and place of employment within society, are all predetermined (pre-programmed genetically). Ergo, full-on eugenics.

We do not need to cite specific deranged anti-human articles or comments from anonymous posters throughout news forums and anti-social media, for the benefit of the reader to acknowledge that such cold, heartless futures have already been seeded in the public consciousness; with media-manufactured approval and manufactured desire for such an eventuality.

This is all predicated upon the myth of overpopulation, when the other school of thought is that there is plentiful abundance of resources on our planet to support an increasing global population - to which your author subscribes.

We have birth certificates and death certificates, so we are only one step removed from a tyrannical state of the most dangerous kind - that whose leadership believes their actions are altruistic and for the greater good - introducing mandatory certification for humans to actually become parents.

If natural pro-creation was banned and criminalised, then the concept of a technocracy fused with eugenics, would see the hellish flourishing of an algorithmically governed society, based on net benefits for the state. Ergo, the term coined by James Corbett - an Algocracy.

The film softly hints at the eugenics ideology behind the opaque assessment criteria, when Virginia tells Mia and Aaryan they are in the “top 0.01 percentile of citizens”. Eugenics at the genetically edited level is not discussed. In terms of raising children, a child of another couple is said to “self-educate” as there are “no schools in our district”.

We see other narratives in our real-world mirrored onto the silver screen in their logical final destination…Doubtless, many contrarian substack authors here are not so naïve as to underestimate the creeping possibility, or even potential inevitability, of yet-to-be-fully-unveiled, reinvented Gulags to come for us all.

Another passage from the film:

Aaryan: “Enough! Mia's mother was sent to the Old World.”

Evie: “Oh, I know. I know exactly what happened to her. She was exiled for spreading lies and misinformation. She deserved exactly what she had coming...”

Here we learn that dissidents have been exiled to an “Old world”, reminiscent of the ‘savages’ who live away from the cities in Huxley’s Brave New World.

In our reality, the war on free speech and the acceleration of the censorship industrial complex is brewing into vociferous territory - pitting those who wish to curtail freedoms against those who shall readily defend them. The not-fit-for-purpose regulatory body OfCom in the United Kingdom, with their stool pigeons cracking down on streaming sites not kowtowing to censorship demands is a good case in point.

Further world building takes place in the same aforementioned film scene as a dinner guest named ‘Evie’ describes past events:

Evie: “You're all too young to remember the border, aren't you?”

Amelia: “You were alive before the border?”

Ambika: “How old are you?”

Evie: “I'm 153.”

Amelia: “What was it like?”

Walter: “You don't want to know. You really do not want to know.”

[…]

Evie: “In the beginning, all anyone could talk about was how nice it was to finally have decent summers. And then the summers never stopped. Unbearable heat, endless storms...No crops, no shelter. Nothing habitable. Famine. Disease. Countless species extinct.

Did you know we tore each other apart over scraps? We'd finally done it. Destroyed ourselves. All for greed and indifference. And then one day, those of us who were left, we found a solution.

A new world. We had to be smarter than we were before, because there wasn't room for everyone. Choices had to be made. It wasn't kind or nice, but it was necessary for survival.”

Here we have multiple intersecting globalist narratives which dominate our own legacy media breathlessly, vying for the gray matter between our ears.

In this scene, we learn that a drug referenced earlier on - ‘Senoxidine’ - taken daily by all inhabitants of the new world, prevents ageing (and also disease) whilst sterilising everyone. The split between the old world and new world depiction widens, as the viewer understands the transhumanist implications via the characters’ ageless state, aka the pursuit of immortality. We can also note the inference that climate change™ appears to have ravaged the world, leading to food scarcity, chaos, and violence for survival.

All of these themes are relentlessly pushed by our state controlled media apparatus, with food shortages blatantly attempted to be engineered, along with energy crises over both affordability and grid stability due to the net zero fanaticism amongst western government misleaders.

Disease is always a constant vector in any dystopian film, as is the era of pandemics in our real world, which is built on fearmongering, lies, iatrogenocide, and statistical manipulation.

The final narrative within the film worth discussing is the animals are dirty and dangerous mind vector…

Aaryan: “The pet cull hadn't happened long before and some people thought I was somehow responsible, so...some activists decided to intervene.”

Mia: “Which is insane because Aaryan developed virtual pets as a solution to the cull, he wasn't responsible for it.”

Aaryan: “The pet cull was part of the disease prevention and resource conservation program. The problem was the State underestimated the psychological importance of companionship when they exterminated all the pets. Especially during a time of upheaval, so...I was tasked with creating an alternative. I did. Just, not everybody saw it that way.”

This scene was particularly striking for your writer above all else, for several reasons. Firstly, farm animals have been culled en masse recently under the pretext of disease outbreaks - 1.84 million of chickens culled in the US in 2024, as well as livestock recently (mRNA?) vaccinated in Thailand after an alleged anthrax outbreak. These culls push up food prices, artificially (at first) creating scarcity through fear, then actual scarcity via the culling.

Secondly, the war on pets is very real. Take deranged authors like this one here penning an article entitled “Comparing the carbon footprint of private jets to owning pets is a waste of time”, sub-heading “Does your dog’s carbon pawprint exceed the environmental impact of a private jet? It depends”.

Then there is the latest diktat by the Bangkok Metropolitan Agency, mandating that all pet owners must microchip their animals starting from January 2026 - a precursor to pet extermination down the line under the false pretenses of disease prevention?

Within that passage quoted from the film, your writer found this part the most maniacally laughable:

“The problem was the State underestimated the psychological importance of companionship when they exterminated all the pets.”

Why is this laughable when compared to the malevolence masquerading as benevolence in our real world society? Ask yourself, in the world we live in, after what we have recently lived through, would a mass culling of pets under any pretext not be done with the express intention of our misleaders to demoralise us, so that we can be more easily ruled over? We have already seen the lengths that our misleaders went to in isolating us from one another during the scamdemic, knowing the psychological importance of companionship.

Lastly, the concept of ‘virtual pets’ as referenced in the film is an utterly depressing idea. They steal from you the real, and sell back to you the fake. The film showcases a frightening hypothetical, hyper-realised virtual reality format, in which a person can interact with a virtual animal…It’s just that giving the animal’s fur the right static-based texture to the sense of the human touch, appears to be just out of reach…

Overall, this film raises some intriguing existential questions about where we are as a species and where we are headed.

What are your human values?

How and when and why will society split between the transhumanists and the ‘old-world’ organic humans?

How close are we to our would-be-overlords ushering in a post-animal, post-human world?

The hour is later than we might think.

Your writer is content with a human lifespan, seeks out both human and animal companionship, and believes that children should be conceived naturally out of love, with zero state interference.

What do you seek for the future, dear reader?

Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok based writer. If you donate a virtual coffee or crypto, it would help to keep the lights on.

Email: nicholas.creed@protonmail.com with information and newsworthy stories for open source intelligence gathering to support this Substack, thank you.

Share

Bitcoin address:

bc1p0eujhumczzeh06t40fn9lz6n6z72c5zrcy0are25dhwk7kew8hwq2tmyqj

Monero address:

86nUmkrzChrCS4v5j6g3dtWy6RZAAazfCPsC8QLt7cEndNhMpouzabBXFvhTVFH3u3UsA1yTCkDvwRyGQNnK74Q2AoJs6