A brief history of the technocracy

Artificial intelligence, a cashless society and digital passports for everyday activities are being introduced with little resistance, as people are duped into accepting encroachments on privacy and freedom for convenience and safety



In 1919, the Technical Alliance of North America was formed in New York, with a reputable multidisciplinary membership from science, education, architecture, mathematics and medicine. The group drew on the principles of scientific management of FW Taylor (initiator of the production line at Ford Motor Company).


In 1932, its leader Howard Scott met, and soon after joined M King Hubbert at Columbia University, New York. Under the new name of Technocracy Incorporated, Scott and Hubbert presented a blueprint for a North American Technate, a highly regulated society with control of energy, based on constant monitoring of citizens. The main objectives were organisation of all industry into a few centrally-planned corporations, equal state income for all (now known as universal basic income), with bureaucracy and scientific experts replacing political government.


Bankrolled by the Rockefeller Foundation, Technocracy Inc. had a large membership in North America in the 1930s. Members distinguished themselves by their coats and suits of a particular shade of grey; they also bought cars in that colour, with orange hub caps. However, the heyday was brief, partly because the radical plan was a bridge too far for technology of the time, and also due to the overshadowing New Deal interventionism of Franklin D Roosevelt.

Technocracy Inc. was riven with opposing factions, some supporting the government, but others frustrated by its slow progress and missed opportunities. As war broke out in Europe, leading members urged Roosevelt to declare himself as dictator.


Three decades later, David Rockefeller wanted the best brains on his pet project to solve global problems of the present and future, including relations between capitalist and communist countries and the impact of population growth in the developing world. Like Technocracy Inc., many of these minds were from Columbia University (also the seat of cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse).

On 23 and 24 July 1972, seventeen chosen experts in finance, international relations and political science met at the Rockefeller estate in Pocantico Hills, upstate New York, to create the Trilateral Commission. At a final planning meeting in Tokyo in January 1973, chairmen were appointed for the three regions of trilateralism: Western Europe, Japan and North America, with Zbigniew Brzezinski as director. Headquarters were sited in Manhattan.


In October 1973 the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission warned that while the threat of nuclear war had diminished, ‘new problems have emerged to heighten the vulnerability of the planet’, and that ‘humanity is faced with serious risks to the global environment’. Following in the footsteps of Technocracy Inc, the Trilateral Commission espoused supranational control of resources and population. Energy would be the currency. Cash, private ownership, elections, free speech and protests would be abolished, enabling a coterie of experts to reign unhindered by individual rights or elections.


In a 1974 article in Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, economist and Trilateral Commission member, Richard Gardner, described the ‘hard road to world order’. The strategy would ensue not by sudden shock but by stealth; a frog would immediately jump out of hot water, but would not react to slowly boiling water until too late. A gradual globalist coup would thrive on episodes of disorder, exploiting a ‘booming, buzzing confusion’.


An important objective was control of the media. Heads of national television networks and prestigious newspapers such as the Washington Post and New York Times were invited to join the Trilateral Commission, on condition that proceedings remain private. This ethically dubious practice has corrupted the mainstream media; journalists know on which side their bread is buttered. Approaching the 1976 presidential election, the Trilateral Commission exerted its considerable media influence in its determination to get the right man in the White House.


Public awareness of this shadowy but highly influential organisation was minimal but for the investigative work of Anthony Sutton and Patrick M. Wood, who produced the twin- volume Trilaterals over Washington (1979, 1981). However, the Trilateral Commission has successfully staye out of the limelight. To most ordinary people, its role in American politics is an untold story; neither the organisation nor Brzezinski are mentioned in standard texts on modern US history, despite their seminal role.


In the UK, the Trilateral Commission worked behind the scenes on foreign policy, hastening the transition of Rhodesia to independent Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. Prime Minister Jim Callaghan was a member, as became his foreign secretary David Owen, and so too was his counterpart in Margaret Thatcher’s government, Lord Carrington. Several Tory ministers have contributed to the Trilateral Commission’s pursuit of an ‘international rules-based order’. Of particular interest is Sir Keir Starmer, a Trilateral Commission member for many years, who became Labour Party leader after only one term as a member of parliament. Since legacy leftist Jeremy Corbyn was ousted, Starmer has resumed the centrist progressive policies of arch-globalist Tony Blair.


The Trilateral Commission has had considerable influence on the United Nations by pushing the doctrine of sustainable development, which really means control of food, fuel and other resources. However, while members continue to occupy positions in the Washington ‘deep state’, the Trilateral Commission has been overshadowed by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Led by Klaus Schwab, a German financier of Rothschild lineage, the WEF is less shy of publicity, holding annual conferences at Davos in Switzerland attended by the media.


Like the Trilateral Commission, the WEF is tightly engaged with the United Nations, promoting Agenda 21/2030 and calling for urgent action against ‘anthropogenic climate change’. The World Health Organisation, a previously unremarkable UN agency, suddenly became powerful in response to the covid-19 pandemic, directing national governments in imposing unprecedented ‘lockdowns’ and mass vaccination with digital passes. Draconian restrictions on livelihood and liberty were fully supported by opposition parties; indeed, Keir Starmer regularly urged stricter measures, despite disproportionately affecting the socio-economically disadvantaged constituency that Labour is supposed to represent.


Exploiting the emergency, the WEF has called for a ‘great reset’, as described by Schwab and Thierry Malleret in a book of that title. The abrupt ‘new normal’ envisaged by the globalists consolidates gains for the ‘fourth industrial revolution’, a concept promoted for many years by Schwab with striking similarities to the tentative plans of Technocracy Inc. almost a hundred years ago. Indeed, technocracy - the replacement of elected government by social engineering - is being realised by stealth.

Artificial intelligence, a cashless society and digital passports for everyday activities are being introduced with little resistance, as people are duped into accepting encroachments on privacy and freedom for convenience and safety.


A command-and-control system, technocracy is easily confused with either communism or mega-capitalism. But it has no interest in political ideology or a free market. China, under its notionally communist regime, is at an advanced stage of technocracy. Klaus Schwab speaks positively of China despite the obvious human rights abuses of its social credit system.

In the West, the UN network of Smart Cities is redesigning urban life, restricting our freedom to gather socially, to speak freely or to protest, while obliterating privacy. Development of a central digital currency, proposed ‘online safety’ laws and the permanence of some covid-19 regulations demonstrate further progress.


At best, the technocrats are the town planners of the mid-twentieth century, on a grander scale. Concrete housing estates were meant to shape a new society, in defiance of individualist traditions (‘an Englishman’s home is his castle’ and ‘good fences make good neighbours’), but these schemes failed miserably.


There is nothing inherently wrong with collectivisation, but the social engineering of technocrats eschews the time-honoured identities of faith, flag and family. At worst, they are forging an almighty superstate that brings to life Brave New World, how Aldous Huxley imagined technocracy. In the 1940s, with the internet a distant dream, Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four presciently described a society controlled by video surveillance, while The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis warned:


“What we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as their instrument.”


Whatever the origins of the outbreak (some suspect it was planned), covid-19 has certainly been exploited by globalists.

Back in 2017, Klaus Schwab boasted of how the World Economic Forum was infiltrating governments around the world with its leadership programme. He specifically mentioned Canadian prime minster Justin Trudeau, adding that ‘we penetrate the cabinet’; indeed, ‘more than half of his cabinet are actually Young Global Leaders’.


Indeed, Trudeau imposed one of the strictest covid-19 regimes in the world, and when a truckers’ protest against vaccine mandates camped outside the parliament in Ottawa, he invoked a state of emergency. His deputy, Chrystia Freeland (whose grandfather was a prominent Nazi), declared the freezing of protestors’ bank accounts without trial.


After riot police and army were deployed to brutally quash the peaceful protest, member of parliament Colin Carrie asked whether the WEF had too much influence on Canada, the speaker of the House of Commons said that he couldn’t hear the question, before a minister stood up and accused the questioner of peddling conspiracy theory.

Both of these appointees are members of the World Economic Forum, for whom there is apparently a conspiracy of silence.

 

SEE ALSO - This important Video https://www.gaia.com/video/rise-technocracy-patrick-wood




10 views0 comments