Weirdly, some of the organizations and theories he's attacking are also his own (he was the lead author on the [weak] Positive Money paper which proposed making the Bank of England directly control the money supply he's now insinuating is some central banker astroturfing campaign, and the unconventional recommendation central banks broaden their remit to tackle Japanese economic stagnation by taking on some of the asset purchase and lending roles of the commercial banking sector which he now appears to consider to be a road to "Orwellian totalitarianism" is literally how he made his name)
Extraordinary claims require slightly better evidence than someone darkly hinting that one of the organizations whose policy objectives he helped shape "appears well funded in the country of its founding (the UK), and it seems suggestive that its members have appeared at national and international events and conferences together – and apparently singing from the same hymn sheet – with the Bank of England and the George Soros (Gyorgy Schwartz)-funded INET (‘Institute for New Economic Thinking’)" whilst failing to acknowledge he was its most reputable contributor and disavowing the policies he's advocated in various capacities for quarter of a century before that only implicitly (whilst continuing to cite other parts of the papers anyway).
Feels like the whole argument is going on inside his own head, and whilst I've heard economists conclude policies they used to advocate wouldn't work before, I've never seen them handwave their earlier beliefs away as "totalitarian" without even acknowledging they actually used to hold them.
