Technocracy Ascending
Part 1
Why it’s Crucial to Understand the End Game
November 25, 2024
Major shake-ups are occurring across the global stage.
History is replete with examples of breaks with the past from major political, economic, technological, and social upheaval.
Throughout the ages, many self-serving individuals and groups have positioned themselves as rulers, financiers, benefactors, and thought leaders to steer change toward preferred outcomes.
From the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt to the Jacobin and Napoleon-led French Revolution in the late 18th century, societal transformation has been constant as one form of government replaces another.
We have now arrived at yet another historical inflection point.
The desire for political and economic reconstruction is being demanded globally as the gap between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else continues to accelerate.
In recent years, populism has taken flight by inspiring the masses to reject the rule of “the elite” and chart a new course.
However, without scrutiny, this movement and its key figures could be just as dangerous as the establishment they are attempting to usurp.
In fact, what we are witnessing is not populism in its truest sense but techno-populism or technocracy, as it has been called since its inception in 1920.
“Technocracy originated in the winter of 1918-19 when Howard Scott formed a group of scientists, engineers, and economists that became known in 1920 as the Technical Alliance – a research organization.
In 1933 it was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York as a nonprofit, non-political, non-sectarian membership organization.”
What is Technocracy?
Historically, technocracy has not been well received.
In fact, many who accurately comprehended its goals viewed it as a threat to democracy and the debt-based economic order run by the central banking establishment that has dominated the last century.
Technocrats railed against this “Price System,” arguing it alone was to blame for the inequalities and inefficiencies of society.
There is definitely some truth to their claims.
“Under the Price System at its best there is not a single field of endeavor where the best technical standards are allowed to prevail.
In other words,
poverty, waste, crime, poor public health, bad living conditions, enforced scarcity, and low load-factors, are every one the direct and necessary consequences of the Price System…
What we have tried to make clear is that it is the Price System itself, and not the individual human being, which is at fault.”
Technocracy Inc. 1933, p.176
Technocracy can be defined simply as an impersonal and scientific method of managing all aspects of a society.
Its primary concerns deal with how energy is produced and used. But it goes much deeper than this.
One of the best explanations can be found in an issue of The Technocrat magazine from September 1937, where it states:
“Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population of this continent.
For the first time in human history it will be done as a scientific, technical, engineering problem.
There will be no place for Politics or Politicians, Finance or Financeers, Rackets or Racketeers.”
The technocratic dream is revolutionary in scope, envisioning a total reorganization of industry, government, and law and order.
They readily admit their intent is to socially engineer all of society, seize control of the production and distribution of all goods and services, and rid the world of rule by politicians and (traditional) financial controllers.
The U.S. Constitution is also viewed as a relic, completely unfit to serve as a basis of governance and human rights.
“Another job which has been neglected far too long is the rebuilding of our governmental machinery, from the village level right up to Congress.
It cannot be avoided much longer, simply because the country has outgrown the constitutional clothes which the Founding Fathers tailored for it nearly two centuries ago.
They have become as anachronistic, and as impractical, as a Pilgrim’s costume on an astronaut.”
Edith Chamberlain, The Technocrat, Dec. 1964
Technocrats make no pretense about maintaining a representative form of government be it a republic (as the USA was founded as) or democracy (what the USA has become).
Its goal is to establish a scientific dictatorship to initiate and control all societal functions…!
Technocrats distanced themselves and were highly critical of fascists, communists, socialists, and other political movements but don’t have a problem with their own totalitarian style of rule termed a Technate.
“Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate.”
Technocracy Study Course, Technocracy Inc. 1933
Figure 22.1 from the Technocracy Study Course
illustrates the point above revealing that
technocracy is simply another form of top-down rule
with a Continental Director having total authority
of all societal functions.
A December 1964, issue of The Technocrat magazine further explained that:
“Technocracy holds that all decisions pertaining to the functional operation of the society – the production and distribution of goods and services, research, and governance – should be made by technical men and women.
This does not mean that the technical people should leave their technical positions and go into politics, law, business promotion, public relations, and moral philosophy.
Rather, it means that the scientists, technologists, engineers, and technicians shall continue to operate as such and that the decision-making of the society be moved into their functional realms.”
Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. form the Seat of Modern Technocracy
Largest American technology companies
displayed on smartphone.
Big Tech GAFAM from Silicon Valley
like Apple Amazon
Image: Adobe Stock
Regardless of one’s comprehension of technocratic plans, a monumental reshaping of governments, economies, and societies is occurring, but not by elected representatives, constitutions, creeds, or the will of the people.
Power is now concentrated in the hands of an exclusive class of scientists, technologists, engineers, and technicians – many of whom also happen to head multi-billion-dollar corporations.
“We are also finding that technology has made people more isolated and infringes upon privacy with consequences yet to be realized.
When we see the relationship between tech companies and government flourish, we are ultimately watching the implementation of a full-fledged technocracy.”
Pendleton, JosephCalifornication: The Rise of the American Technocracy (p. 20).
The Conservatarian Press.
Silicon Valley is the seat of modern technocracy. Big Tech is the euphemism for which it’s currently known. The World Economic Forum defines this dynamic as public-private partnerships (PPP).
Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreeson are some of today’s most prominent techno-populists.
Many believe they are modern day Justice League type heroes leading the world to newfound freedom (or at least in the United States).
All were major contributors to Donald Trump‘s reelection campaign in 2024.
Vice President-Elect J.D. Vance has deep connections to Peter Thiel, indicating how close technocrats truly are to running the country…
| https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1857294835956220270&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bibliotecapleyades.net%2Fsociopolitica3%2Ftechnocracy74a.htm&sessionId=30df841e81c4d22ae7a9d03c5246d0129104157d&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px |
Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, and Sam Altman are also among the many tech gurus aligning themselves with the newly elected Trump administration.
These endorsements indicate that for now, technocrats are content with using politicians and the political system to quietly transform the government into a full-fledged Technate from the inside out and vice versa.
“It is the man who has command of the technical information who makes the real decisions in the functional phases of modern life.
He is the only one who understands what needs to be done and how to do it.
The politicians and financial manipulators who pretend that the right of decision is theirs are helpless without the technical men.”
The Technocrat, Dec. 1964
Something else technocrats correctly understood was the sham of voting and elections.
Perhaps this is another reason why they stayed hidden in times past, realizing the populace was not ready to accept this truth.
“In the United States, it is generally assumed that the people vote for the kind of government they want, but that is not exactly true.
Technically, they do not even vote directly for their president; they vote for electors who, in turn, are tacitly committed to vote for indicated candidates, the exact rules varying with the different states.
Moreover, the public has little voice in choosing the candidates; it usually ends up with their having a choice between two men chosen by the respective political party ‘machines.’
And they have less choice concerning the policies of the president.
Once elected, the president is under no real obligation to heed the desires of the people and often acts contrary to his campaign promises.”
The Technocrat, Dec. 1964
Would Donald Trump have been “reelected” without the help of the aforementioned technocrats?
Now that he will resume the Presidency, will he be more beholden to the people or his big moneyed investors from Silicon Valley?
Why is Technocracy Ascending Now?
Technocracy has long been resisted by traditional powers and was originally conceived only for the North American Continent.
Today, technocracy is rising from the ashes like the Phoenix legend to become a global force to be reckoned with.
I believe this is largely because of the pending economic meltdown…!
The debt-based, fiat currency system is at the end of its life cycle and the central bank establishment is looking for new ways to maintain control of the monetary system.
They have joined ranks with the technocrats who were correct in predicting that the system would crash (though it has yet to take place due to manipulation tactics keeping it at bay).
“If the human race on this Continent is to survive the crash of the Price System, Technocracy will have to be put into practice.”
Technocracy Inc. 1939
By adopting technocracy, the banking elite not only can retain control over the monetary system, but they will also cement their rule over all industries, natural resources, governments, institutions, and people…
Technocracy Wouldn’t Exist Without Advances in Technology
Big Tech products are ubiquitous and thought to be indispensable in our ultramodern, future-oriented world.
AI, robotics, and the Internet of Things (IoT) are touted as catalysts that can lead to a future of ease and prosperity for all.
These technologies and more are considered part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution aka Industry 4.0, where the shift to digital technologies will supersede past ways of conducting business, communicating, and governing with one major caveat:
the potential to overtake humanity itself and render humans as “hackable animals” and “useless people.”
Consider the following statements from some of the world’s most prominent thought leaders.
“Technologies that are emerging today will soon be shaping the world tomorrow and well into the future – with impacts to economies and to society at large.
Now that we are well into the Fourth Industrial Revolution, it’s critical that we discuss and ensure that humanity is served by these new innovations so that we can continue to prosper.”
– Mariette DiChristina,(former) Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American, and chair of the Emerging Technologies Steering Committee
“We must develop a comprehensive and globally shared view of how technology is affecting our lives and reshaping our economic, social, cultural, and human environments.There has never been a time of greater promise, or greater peril.”
– Klaus Schwab,Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum
“Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population…Most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing which is useful, these technologies increasingly will make redundant and will make it possible to replace the people.”
– Yuval Noah Harrari,Author, Historian, and Philosopher
“Probably none of us will have a job.”
– Elon Musk(referring to the rise of Artificial Intelligence)
| https://www.youtube.com/embed/e6HPdNBicM8 |
Paradoxically, technocracy claims to enable widespread prosperity while also rendering the lot of humanity replaceable, useless, and without meaning.
How can this be?
To technocrats of yesteryear,
there was not much difference between human beings, dogs, pigs, and cars…
The belief that humans are the capstone of all creation and made in the image of God was routinely mocked and discredited.
In a chapter entitled, The Human Animal, the Technocracy Study Course further elaborates on its base view of humanity, stating:
“The developments in the fields of physiology, biochemistry and biophysics, chiefly since 1900, are at last bringing us down to earth.
Attention has already been called to the fact that the human body is composed chemically of the ordinary substances of which rocks are made.
So are dogs, horses and pigs. In an earlier lesson, while discussing the ‘human engine,’ we pointed out that the human body obeys identically the same laws of energy transformation as a steam engine.
This also is true of dogs, horses and pigs.
These facts might lead one to suspect that human beings are very far removed from the semi-supernatural creatures they have heretofore supposed themselves to be…
When we observe a human being we merely perceive an object which makes a certain variety of motions and noises. The same is true, however, when we observe a dog or a Ford car.”
Modern technocrats also view the human as mere biological material that can be manipulated as needed, as evidenced by World Economic Forum Founder and Chairman Klaus Schwab:
“This Fourth Industrial Revolution is, however, fundamentally different.
It is characterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital, and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human.”
Contemporary technocracy has now merged with transhumanism forming a dangerous combination, as noted by author Patrick Wood, who wrote:
“Technocrats see science and technology as the answer to improve and control society; transhumanists see the same science and technology as the answer to improve and control the human condition.”
– The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism (p. 19).
Why You Should Care About the Rise of Technocracy
Hopefully all the dots are starting to connect, enabling you to see where all of this is heading.
Technocracy’s ascendance is a threat to all of humanity. Technocrats promise a utopian existence where abundance is the norm and work is optional, if not completely unnecessary.
The self-appointed leaders believe they know best how to manage the world’s resources and its people. To accomplish these lofty goals, the social structure will have to undergo drastic changes which include redefining work and wages.
The following excerpt from the Technocracy Study Course provides a detailed overview of what this entails.
“If the production is to be non-oscillatory and maintained at a high level so as to provide a high standard of living, it follows that consumption must be kept equal to production, and that a system of distribution must be designed which will allow this.
This system of distribution must do the following things:
- Register on a continuous 24-hour time period basis the total net conversion of energy, which would determine (a) the availability of energy for Continental plant construction and maintenance, (b) the amount of physical wealth available in the form of consumable goods and services for consumption by the total population during the balanced load period.
- By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.
- Provide a continuous 24-hour inventory of all production and consumption.
- Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced, and where used.
- Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.
- Allow the citizen the widest latitude of choice in consuming his individual share of Continental physical wealth.
- Distribute goods and services to every member of the population.
In short,
the goal of technocracy is to micromanage everything you do, produce, and consume through nonstop surveillance…!
This was not technically possible with the crude paper methods proposed by early technocrats.
However, it is becoming achievable with the advent of digital technologies such as,
biometrics, Big Data, geospatial intelligence, digital currency, AI, and 5G…
In a Technate, there will be no free-market economy where the average person could obtain wealth by starting a business or embarking upon a lucrative career path.
Instead, technocrats promise each person a share of the overall wealth produced through the issue of Energy Certificates.
Under a technological administration of abundance, there is only one efficient method – that employing a system of Energy Certificates…
These certificates are merely pieces of paper containing certain printed matter.
They are issued individually to every adult of the entire population. The certificates issued to an individual may be thought of as possessing some of the properties both of bank cheque and of a traveler’s cheque.
They would resemble a bank cheque in that they carry no face denomination. They receive their denomination only when being spent.
They resemble a traveler’s cheque in that they possess some means of ready identification, such as counter-signature, photograph, or some similar device, so as to establish easy identification by the person to whom issued, and at the same time remain absolutely useless in the hands of anyone else.”
Technocracy Study Course, p.230
Today, Energy Certificates could take the form of Universal Basic/High Income payments issued in the form of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) or some other form of digital currency.
Corporate transactions could be conducted via carbon credits.
Regardless of the mechanism of financial transfer, the individual will be totally dependent on the Technate with everything one does requiring a digital ID.
mmm
Technate of North America ID Card
Source: Technocracy Technate Picture Archive
The American dream of upward mobility, already heading toward extinction, will receive the knockout blow in a technocratic regime. Instead, compliance and energy usage will determine your level of prosperity.
Property rights will also go out the window as the plan is to revolutionize housing into energy-efficient units with little variety and few manufacturers.
This could occur today through the combination of an economic crisis wiping out individual wealth and mass printing of 3D houses fit for the technocratic era.
As envisioned, technocracy is no better than communism, fascism, or socialism.
It’s just another power grab by individuals who believe they are smarter than the rest of us, with a promised utopia that will never materialize.
These prognostications may seem far-fetched now, but the rest of this series will spell out in detail how close the technocratic fantasy is becoming a reality.
It is important for people everywhere to understand the implications of what is taking place and not be fooled by wolves in sheep’s clothing proclaiming a new golden age of humanity is imminent.
The question is,
A golden age for who?
Cui bono?
Technocracy Ascending
Trust Me, I’m a Technocrat
December 17, 2024
Part 1 of this series detailed a brief history of the movement started by Technocracy Inc. in the 1930s to completely transform North America into a scientific dictatorship.
Their vision of a technocratic regime required all industry, resources, and governance be managed by scientists, engineers, and technicians.
Today, many aspects of their original plans are being executed through intentional collaboration between,
- Big Tech
- government
- NGOs,
…with power continually shifting toward present-day tech titans.
The questions this installment seeks to answer are:
- who authorized today’s technocrats to act in humanity’s interest?
- what is their overarching world view?
- what are they hoping to accomplish?
Public Domain,
Though they would argue, technocratic governments trend toward elitist rule.
How could they not since technocracy’s core tenet posits that only the best and brightest (and often wealthiest) in STEM-related fields are fit to run society?
Technocrats are averse to all political systems, believing they alone possess the knowledge and skill required to achieve the “common good” in all societies.
Nevertheless, they often work behind the scenes within all forms of government to achieve their means.
While promising equality, their rule can be more accurately described as a technical oligarchy, hence the need for extreme caution.
Such an organization has no precedence in any of the political forms.
It is neither a democracy, an aristocracy, a plutocracy, a dictatorship, nor any of the other familiar political forms, all of which are completely inadequate and incompetent to handle the job.
It is, instead, a Technocracy, being built along the technological lines of the job in hand.”
– Technocracy Study Course, 1934. p.234
Early technocrats recognized that the world was trending toward greater levels of technological advancement.
As a result, most would become dependent on these innovations for essential needs.
In the present, as contrasted with the past, the great majority of the population is in a position of absolute dependence upon the uninterrupted operation of a technological mechanism.”
– Technocracy Study Course, 1934. p. 211
Technocrats thought the best way to provide goods and services was to commandeer the equipment needed to produce basic necessities.
They created a system where equal distribution of goods and services would be fostered by substituting money for energy costs.
To fully institute this radical transformation, technocrats needed ownership and oversight of the railways, power plants, telecommunications systems, factories, farms, etc.
This system was described fully in the Technocracy Study Course published in 1934.
The end products to be attained were:
- a high physical standard of living
- a high standard of public health
- a minimum of unnecessary labor
- a minimum of wastage of non-replaceable resources
- an educational system to train the entire younger generation indiscriminately as regards all considerations other than inherent ability – a Continental system of human conditioning…
As touched on previously, technocrats believed the “price-based” economic system would crash and burn, leaving a trail of disaster in its wake.
They viewed the Great Depression as proof of capitalism’s imminent demise.
With full confidence in their plans to reengineer the (North American) continent, they boasted that:
“Technocracy will not perish.
After the inevitable collapse of our stupendous financial and political structure, after the many palliatives have been tried and have failed, it will still remain.
Technocracy is the one workable answer to the frightening dilemma in which we find ourselves.”
– Technocracy in Plain Terms, p. 6
Some of the initial plans of Technocracy Inc. in the 1930s have been adopted well beyond North American borders and gone through several iterations before arriving at what we are today.
Many of their boasts have been proven accurate and threaten to plunge the world into a neo-feudal state worse than anything that has preceded.
Why is Trust Shifting Towards Technocrats?
“Technocracy becomes a form of salvation after societies realize that democracy doesn’t guarantee national success.
Democracy eventually gets sick of itself and votes for technocracy.”
– Parag Khanna,Technocracy in America: The Rise of the Info State, 2017, p. 21
Technocracy (the system) and technology (the tools) are the hand and glove of the new order being established across the planet.
Throughout the world, politicians and leaders are summoning the help of technocrats to help fix broken economies and governments.
Technocracy has previously taken root in or is currently being advocated for in countries such as,
the United Kingdom, Canada, China, Italy, India, Singapore, Lebanon, France, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico, Sudan, Tunisia, Ghana, and Nigeria,
…among several others.
Hamas and Fatah have agreed to install a technocratic government to manage the Gaza Strip after warfare has ceased.
Technocrats in the Caribbean nation of Saint Lucia are collaborating with German officials to secure funding for damages resulting from the so-called climate change ‘crisis’…
Technocrats in Iran have advocated for the end of hostilities with the United States, believing they can collaborate with the incoming Trump administration, who has also surrounded himself with technocrats for his second term.
Illustration appearing in a 1933 edition
of The Technocrat magazine titled
“Technocracy A Bloodless Revolution”
Pew Research conducted two recent surveys indicating that satisfaction with democratic governments is declining among wealthy nations with more people critical of their effectiveness.
In addition, Pew has also confirmed public attitudes are becoming increasingly favorable to technocratic regimes citing that,
“Majorities in two-thirds of the (twenty four) countries surveyed say this would be a good way to govern.”
Pew added that,
“Since 2017, the number of technocracy supporters has gone up in most of the countries surveyed.”
“Technocracy starts out with the facts at hand which indicate what the next most probable state of society will be, and whether that state will be desirable from the standpoint of people’s opinions or not, has nothing to do with the question.However, and fortunately, it all seems to be highly desirable, even to the most skeptical.”
– Technocracy in Plain Terms, p. 9
If surveys are reliable indicators, public trust has seemingly shifted from democratic governments to trust in CEOs, tech wizards, and scientific scholars.
But is the nature of this shift an organic occurrence or something that’s been carefully manufactured?
Manufacturing Trust in Technocratic Saviors
One of the main purposes for this series is to show that technocracy is not a new concept and didn’t just arrive on the scene with familiar names such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel.
Despite the seemingly ‘noble’ intentions of early technocrats, humans lusting for money and power have a way of pouncing on fresh ideas that can expedite their plans.
Theorizing that the world was in a transition to a New Fourth Era, the late Zbigniew Brzezinski anticipated in 1970 that:
Another threat… confronts liberal democracy.
More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society.
Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how.
Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control“.
– Brzezinski, Zbigniew.Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technetronic Era
Viking Press, 1970, pp. 252-253.
In a prior article written for Encounter, a British literary magazine secretly funded by the CIA to promote American foreign policy agendas, Brzezinski wrote:
“In the technetronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason”.-
(p. 19)
“At the same time, the capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase”.(p.21)
“Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control the information and can correlate it most rapidly.Our existing post-crisis management institutions will probably be increasingly supplanted by pre-crisis management institutions, the task of which will be to identify in advance likely social crises and to develop programs to cope with them.
This could encourage tendencies during the next several decades towards a technocratic dictatorship, leaving less and less room for political procedures as we now know them”.
(p.21)
Brzezinski wasn’t just some prescient academic, but an active member of a secret cabal working to bring his prophecies to fruition.
If you simply substitute the term “technetronic” for technocracy, it all becomes clear.
Consider the similarities between Brzezinski’s statements and those of Technocracy Inc.
“Technocracy is the science of social engineering…”
The Technocrat, 1937, p. 3
“Technocracy does not concern itself with human emotions or antagonisms, or political dogmas or beliefs… Technocracy stands for reconstruction and a new form of control…”
Technocracy in Plain Terms, p. 14
“If the people of North America – the rich as well as the poor, as none are immune – are to escape the stark horror of famine and barbarism which may follow this crash, Technocracy will have to save them.Only Technocracy can do it – Technocracy, the scientific control of all social functions.”
Technocracy in Plain Terms, p. 6
“All scientific indicators point to the probability that the next social state shall be a Technocracy.”
Wilton Ivie,The Technocrat, December 1964, p. 5
The world Brzezinski described has almost fully arrived, but increasingly positive attitudes toward technocracy do not reflect a grass-roots phenomenon.
Mindsets are being deliberately engineered to produce a new form of social control, as both Brzezinski and early Technocrats explained.
Emotions are being manipulated and reason is being controlled to crush traditional values and beliefs under the boot of an elite agenda stealthily taking hold of governments and industries.
The (purposely arranged) chaos plaguing the world has opened the door for technocrats offering solutions to achieve fiscal stability, social cohesion, and comfort and ease in a high-tech utopia.
Many are taking the bait…
If asked who authorized them to enact such broad and revolutionary changes, most technocrats would answer that you and I did.
Though you may vehemently oppose their agenda, your consent is implicit through the gaggle of government and NGO representatives acting on your behalf.
The world view of technocrats puts them at the top of society, functioning as owners and operators while paying lip service to ideas like democracy, equality, and justice.
The game has been rigged and many have been seduced into cheering for the “fixers,” ignorant of the real plans to create a more controlled and surveilled society, just as Brzezinski foresaw in Between Two Ages:
“…it will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen, in addition to more customary data.
These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities”.
How Technocrats Pulled Off a Silent Coup
Own work, CC0, Link
Technocracy’s end game was already revealed in Part 1.
Future installments will detail current plans designed to bring us to this stage. But before discussing the present situation, a continued analysis of the past is in order.
Brzezinski was a professor at Columbia University, a school with deep connections to the Rockefeller dynasty and a launching pad for their foray into pharmaceuticals and allopathic medicine.
In a curious connection, Technocracy Inc. was also established at Columbia University’s School of Engineering in 1931 by founders Howard Scott and Walter Rautenstrauch.
Technocracy may have begun on a college campus in New York City, but it began to spread rapidly even after its heyday in the 1930s-40s when it boasted half a million members.
As a Rockefeller protégé, Brzezinski helped David Rockefeller, CEO and chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase and branch of the Rothschild banking cartel), establish the Trilateral Commission in 1973.
The Trilaterals sought to create a “New International Economic Order” with greater collaboration between the U.S., Europe, and Asia.
This collaboration served to benefit the Rockefellers and their wealthy clique through the adoption of favorable policies and agreements.
It broadened global trade and created conditions allowing the techno-oligarchs to exploit the abundant natural resources of territories once inaccessible.
and Zbigniew Brzeziński
aboard Air Force One
The Trilateral Commission achieved a silent coup with the Carter administration of the late 1970s.
President Carter, Vice President Walter Mondale, and Brzezinski serving as National Security Advisor were all members, but the penetration went much deeper.
As of 25 December 1976, therefore, there were nineteen commissioners, including Carter and Mondale, holding tremendous political power.
These presidential appointees represented almost one-third of the Trilateral Commission members from the United States.”
– Sutton, Anthony and Wood, Patrick,1978, The August Corporation, p. 2
The Rockefellers were fierce advocates for world government and instrumental in founding the United Nations to achieve that purpose after their initial plan for a League of Nations failed.
In addition to their Standard Oil dynasty, the Rockefellers influenced public health through a long time partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO).
Through the Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors they have financed scores of NGOs, universities, and businesses extending their influence around the world.
They were also instrumental in the creation, funding, and/or leadership of elitist organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Group, and The Club of Rome pushing ideologies such as,
- eugenics and population control
- global religion
- global governance,
…while meeting in secret…
Credit: Digital Commons @ RU
Regarding his role in advocating for world government, David once stated:
“But [today] the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.”
– 1991 speech at Bilderberg meeting in Berlin
Confirming his complicity in attempting to form a world government, he wrote in his Memoirs:
“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are… conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.
If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Affirming the alignment with technocratic goals, Brzezinski wrote:
“Technological developments make it certain that modern society will require more and more planning.
Deliberate management of the American future will become widespread, with the planner eventually displacing the lawyer as the key social legislator and manipulator…
How to combine social planning with personal freedom is already emerging as the key dilemma of technetronic America…”.
– Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, p. 260
The Rockefellers and their minions were not alone in these pursuits as the wealthy titans of the late 19th and early 20th centuries joined them in creating other philanthropic institutions like the Ford and Carnegie Foundations.
However, their altruism was just a guise to obtain greater power and influence.
The major philanthropic foundations created by America’s ‘robber baron’ industrialists and bankers were established not to benefit mankind, as was their stated purpose, but to benefit the bankers and industrialist elites in order to engage in social engineering.
- Through banks, these powerful families controlled the global economy
- Through think tanks, they manage the political and foreign policy establishments
- Through foundations, they engineer society itself according to their own designs and interests.”
Even A.I. is hip to the globalist’s game.
At the 2023 Annual Trilateral Commission meeting in which an unnamed speaker declared 2023 to be “year one of this new global order,” attendees asked ChatGPT to create a poem about the organization.
The following is one of the entries:
“In secret meetings, you plan and conspire,
To create a new order, of which you aspire.
Your goals are unclear, but some see the end,
As a world government, with you as its friend.”
Technocracy Ascending – A Fait Accompli?
The Technocrat Magazine
Is technocratic governance a fait accompli too powerful to resist?
As previously established, technocracy is all about control. Control of resources, government, economies, goods and services, data, and people.
Proponents do not hesitate to,
- conduct mass surveillance
- engage in mind control
- employ propaganda to steer human behavior
They justify strict control and pervasive surveillance as methods to quell civil unrest as societal conditions continue to deteriorate.
Until a critical mass of people are both aware of and actively resistant to the technocratic agenda it may continue largely unabated, but it is far from an undefeatable foe.
Many technocrats view themselves as saviors and authorized themselves to fix the myriad problems humanity faces.
Believing they are possessors of the “one workable answer,” they’re attempting to fashion a world unaffected by the capriciousness of the human condition.
They despise spontaneity and unexpected outcomes, instead preferring a scientific, fact-based worldview that reduces inconsistencies and variables that occur with current governance models.
Their solutions depend on the expanded and efficient use of snake oil digital technology and data and the overt or implicit consent of the people.
Technocratic intervention in society has often been a short-lived experiment, much to the chagrin of the utopian hopium brokers.
To remedy this,
a more comprehensive long-term plan was devised, merging technocracy and environmentalism to accelerate the shift of global wealth and societal control upward.
This global movement threatens to upend all of society ¡by the year 2030…!
Technocracy Ascending
Green Sustainable Slavery
February 5, 2025
As detailed in Part 2 of “Technocracy Ascending,” David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the Trilateral Commission achieved a great deal in moving the world toward a new international economic order and global governance (i.e., a new world order).
Brzezinski understood the decline of nation states was a necessity for advancing a global order where the private banking cabal and transnational corporations assumed political dominance.
In his book Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski stated that:
“The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
Technocracy Inc. was one of the early movements campaigning for centralized control at the expense of democracy.
Though their initial aim was to transform the North American continent into a scientific dictatorship, the Rockefeller clan pushed these ideas globally.
Working through their vast, interwoven network of corporate, academic, political, and philanthropic institutions, they advanced the globalist mindset with the United Nations (UN), often energizing the ideas and formulating the strategies.
More on the UN’s role will be discussed later.
Source: Green Briar Picture Shows
While their agenda grew popular with elites of all stripes, they needed a way to sell the scheme to the masses and accelerate the groundswell for sweeping worldwide changes.
Like the original technocrats, they sought a bloodless revolution and used fear and chicanery to usurp power.
Technocracy Inc. used the stock market crash of 1929 and resulting Great Depression to recruit those fearing total economic collapse into their camp.
“Technocracy… is being hailed as a solution to an economic condition which now threatens to disrupt our economic civilization… figures indicate that unless a vast change is made in the political and economic system of this country, we may soon face a collapse of our present social structure, the downfall of currency, and utter chaos.”
– The Technocrats’ Magazine, 1933
Decades later, the Rockefeller cabal turned to environmentalism and the threat of planetary destruction to enlist zealots fearing complete societal collapse.
In the 1969 Rockefeller Foundation report, they boldly announced their claim, stating that:
“Man is now degrading his environment at a terrifying rate.
The cumulative effects of advancing technology, massive industrialization, urban concentration, and population growth have all combined… not only to create imminent danger to the quality of human life, but even to pose threats to life itself.”
p.5
Coopting a Grassroots Movement
The Rockefeller coterie conspired to reshape the world and gain greater control of its wealth, resources, and people under the guise of saving the planet.
Their challenge involved getting the populace to support the destruction of free market capitalism, nationalism, and democratic principles without noticing the end goal:
the establishment of a global dictatorship ruled by public-private partnerships (PPP).
The method of choice to undo the global order was none other than environmentalism.
Their brand of environmentalism differed greatly from the grassroots movement spawned by indigenous and disenfranchised peoples that campaigned against the poisoning of air, water, and land.
With ‘good intentions’, these activists stood against nuclear fallout, harmful pesticides, pollution, and destruction of natural habitats perpetrated by mega-corporations in the energy, transportation, defense, and manufacturing industries.
To crush the grassroots effort directed against industry titans (which accelerated after the 1970 Earth Day event in the U.S.), Rockefeller-influenced environmentalists stealthily shifted the blame for catastrophic ecological damage onto each individual…
They first sounded the alarm that an ice age was soon to overtake the earth.
Later, they claimed that modern conveniences like vehicle ownership and cheap energy powered by so-called fossil fuels contributed to dangerous increases in the earth’s temperature.
Over the past fifty years, they have cleverly induced both individual and collective guilt, leading to attempts to dial back gains achieved through industrialization and technological advancement.
April 16, 1970
Rockefeller-captured institutions and governments agreed on a plan to march the world toward technocracy by undoing the “man-made” evils triggering global warming through a novel concept called Sustainable Development.
The sustainability initiative was born in conspiracy and continues through an endless series of research, conferences, books, speeches, reports, propaganda, agreements, treaties, legislation, and collusion within the public-private sphere.
While it is true that the literal term of “Sustainable Development” was not coined by the original Technocrats, most would be jealous that someone else beat them to it.
The fact of the matter is that Sustainable Development is conceptually identical to Technocracy’s “balanced load.”
“In short, the heartbeat of Technocracy is Sustainable Development. It calls for an engineered society where the needs of mankind are in perfect balance with the resources of nature.”
– Wood, Patrick.Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation – (pp. 80-82).
M. King Hubbert was an original member of Technocracy Inc. and a major contributor for the Technocracy Study Course discussed in part 2.
Hubbert believed in peak oil theory and thought that earth’s resources and energy were finite and if exhausted or destroyed, man would cease to exist.
Growth, growth, growth – that’s all we’ve known…
World automobile production is doubling every 10 years; human population growth is like nothing that has happened in all of geologic history.
The world will only tolerate so many doublings of anything – whether it’s power plants or grasshoppers.”
– M. King Hubbert, 1975
Marion King Hubbert,
Source: Postcarbon, Fair use
His theories would later lead to demands to transition the world to a new “green” economy based on sustainability principles.
Engineering a New Green Economy
Whether acknowledged or not, the counterfeit green movement adopted Hubbert’s ideas and called for a restructuring of the global economy, altering the function of industries and individual corporations to fit this new economic paradigm.
Seemingly out of nowhere, as Brzezinski noted, the Rockefeller-financed shift to a “green economy” was sold to environmental organizations like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and society as a whole under the guise of saving the planet, preserving wildlife, and creating a more just world...
However, when the altruistic façade is removed, it amounts to a technocratic takeover facilitated through a gargantuan civil society network operating within local, state, and national governments to upend democratic pillars.
The green scheme was designed to strip away individual freedom, wealth, property, and resources.
In short,
the purpose of climate agenda policies was to shift the world to “a more controlled and directed society” as Brzezinski noted in Between Two Ages.
In Technocracy – The Hard Road to World Order, Patrick Wood later explained that the sustainable development agenda,
“is not about the environment but rather about economic development.”
Wood’s point can be seen in Principle 8 of the 1992 Rio Declaration at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), where it indicated:
“To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.”
Source: “Towards a Green Economy,”
UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2011
By 2009, calls for a green economy rooted in technocratic concepts began to permeate the universal political landscape.
In 2011, the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) pushed the concept further, stating:
In its simplest expression, a green economy is low-carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive.
In a green economy, growth in income and employment are driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.”
– “Towards a Green Economy,” UN Environmental Program (UNEP), 2011, p. 16
Technocrats relish efficiency often at the expense of human freedom, dignity, and prosperity.
Despite the fluffy UN jargon, the green economy is designed to punish wealthy nations by deliberately lowering living standards. Theoretically, the shift would help poorer nations advance economically.
However, those in impoverished nations rarely benefit as wealth has continued to shift upward, benefitting the top one percent.
As of 2024, Investopedia noted that,
“there are 2,781 billionaires in the world with a cumulative wealth valued at $14.2 trillion.”
The green economy has nothing to do with the environment, it is simply a wealth redistribution scheme where the poor and middle classes in all nations are fleeced by multinational corporations and private banks.
This fact has even been acknowledged by a former working group co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who stated:
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community.
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole”.
– Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair, UN IPCC, 2010
Financing and Controlling the Global Technocratic Shift
The Rockefeller foray into environmentalism was a multi-pronged attack aimed at subverting the goals of environmentalists wanting to protect the planet from being dumping grounds for disease-causing toxic waste.
Largely unbeknownst by the public, they poured millions of dollars into research, opinion and policy shaping, and education.
From this flurry of activity, a new ideology was born proclaiming that mankind itself, through mere existence, was responsible for planetary degradation – not greedy, irresponsible, and corrupt corporations.
In addition to previously noted organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Bilderberg Group, Rockefeller family members created and/or funded the,
- World Bank
- United Nations
- Aspen Institute
- International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
- UN IPCC
- Club of Rome
Each of these deeply interrelated organizations plays a key role in pushing Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), the theory that human activity in industry and agriculture causes the earth’s temperature to rise due to increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane.
This ideology was further cemented into the minds of men in The First Global Revolution – A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome published in 1991.
Under the heading “The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man,” it states:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…
All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then is humanity itself”.
(p. 115)
Through their philanthropic and venture capital arms including,
- the Rockefeller Foundation (1913)
- Rockefeller Brothers Fund (1940)
- Rockefeller Family Fund (1968)
- Rockefeller Philanthropic Advisors Inc (1991)
…they contributed (at least) hundreds of millions to dozens of environmental organizations.
Some of the most prominent included the,
Tides Foundation, World Resources Institute, Worldwatch Institute, Wildlife Conservation Society, National Resources Defense Council, Alliance for Climate Protection, Environmental Defense Fund, National Resource Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists…
Through a 1974 Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) grant leading to the creation of the Worldwatch Institute (whose mission was to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world), the Rockefellers extended their goals,
“beyond traditional stewardship and conservation to predicting and ameliorating environmental crises.”
This was largely accomplished through the publication of Worldwatch’s State of the World doomsday reports issued from 1984 to 2017, where they attempted to identify the world’s most pressing environmental challenges.
Through their Quality of the Environment program also launched in 1974, the Rockefellers helped pioneer climate research at U.S. universities such as the University of Michigan, University of California at Davis, Pennsylvania State University, and Utah State University.
They also played a key role in convening early climate conferences.
Through foundation Fellowships in Environmental Affairs, they supported researchers who were instrumental in forging the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming.
Those who opposed the theory often had their careers and lives destroyed by deliberate sidelining, censorship, and cancellation of grants and other funding.
The technocratic climate agenda steadily advanced through these NGOs operating in clandestine unison, but it took another Rockefeller minion to propel the faux climate crisis to the forefront as the most pertinent issue facing the world.
His name was Maurice Strong.
Maurice Strong – The Green Apostle
I knew that what was said to be driven from the bottom up, from the grassroots, was actually being driven from the top down.
I had come to this conclusion by following the interconnections among the NGOs active on the Agenda. Many of the NGOs shaping this environment debate were connected, like pearls on a thread.
A central figure in all of these organizations was Maurice Strong, the secretary general of the Rio Summit.'”
– Dewar, Elaine, Cloak of Green, James Lorimer & Company, 1995, p. 251
High school dropout Maurice Strong was born into a poor family in Manitoba, Canada in 1929.
At age 18, he met UN treasurer Noah Monod and stayed with him for a brief time in New York City. Monod helped Strong get a job at the UN as a junior officer in the Security Section.
During his time in New York, Monod also introduced him to David Rockefeller and Strong soon became a protégé.
By his late 20s, he became a multi-millionaire from employment in the oil industry and went on to have one of the most extraordinary business and political careers of all time.
at the High Level Dialogue on Global Sustainability.
Source: Sergio Greif, Stockholm Environmental Institute,
Strong was a Rockefeller (and Rothschild) made man through and through.
In addition to his connection to David, Strong also forged close relationships with his brother Laurance and Steven Rockefeller, grandson of former U.S. Vice President Nelson Rockefeller.
Laurance, the third son of John D. Rockefeller Jr., is most remembered as a devout conservationist.
He served as a longtime trustee, president, and chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF). He was also a member of the CFR, Trilaterals, and Bilderbergs, which Strong was also connected to.
Laurance was a founding member and trustee of The Conservation Foundation established in 1947.
In 1985 the organization became affiliated with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) started by transhumanist and eugenicist Julian Huxley, and fully merged with it in 1990.
Strong, a lifetime affiliate, served as the WWF’s Vice President in 1977, serving under Prince Philip, who once said that if he were reincarnated, he wished,
“to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
The Rio meeting was organized by the UN,
with Maurice Strong as his Secretary General.
It was attended by 172 countries, including
108 Heads of State and Government, as well as
400 representatives of non-governmental organizations.
Strong came to know Steven Rockefeller as a member of the Earth Charter initiative, which Strong created as part of the Earth Council during his stint as Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
Highlighting Strong’s work in advancing the global environmental agenda, Steven wrote:
In the mid-1980s, he became a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
The Commission’s report, Our Common Future, put the concept of sustainable development on the international agenda, and it included a recommendation that a new universal declaration or charter be drafted with the ethical imperatives and basic principles to guide a worldwide transition to a sustainable future…”.
Former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, a staunch globalist and founder of The Gorbachev Foundation and Green Cross International, was an instrumental partner in drafting the charter.
It was launched in 2000 with the support of hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals.
The document served as the building blocks for constructing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Furthering his partnerships with shadowy banking elites, Strong collaborated with Edmund de Rothschild in creating the World Conservation Bank, which later became the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
Since its inception in 1991, the GEF has,
“provided more than $26 billion in financing and mobilized $149 billion for country-driven priority projects relating to climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.”
Strong also has deep connections to Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF), serving a long tenure as its co-chairman.
Schwab, himself a protégé of both David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger (video), also credited Strong as a major influence, writing:
“He was my mentor since the creation of the Forum: a great friend; an indispensable advisor; and, for many years, a member of our Foundation Board.
Without him, the Forum would not have achieved its present significance.”
As founder and current co-chairman of the WEF, Schwab is recognized as the architect of globalist ideas like Stakeholder Capitalism, the Great Reset, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
In 2019, the WEF launched a strategic partnership with the UN to accelerate adoption and funding for Agenda 2030 which spawned from Strong’s leadership as a member of the Brundtland Commission, head of the 1992 Rio climate conference, and role in creating Agenda 21, its precursor.
on Strategic Partnership Framework
for 2030 Agenda.
Strong was the key figure spearheading the international environmental movement from the early 1970s until his passing in 2015.
As the preeminent mouthpiece of global green technocrats, he advocated for the collapse of nation states, lowering the living standards of rich countries, and Malthusian-influenced population reduction to “save the planet.”
In the 1992 essay “Stockholm to Rio – A Journey Down a Generation,” published by the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Strong suggested that nations would have to surrender sovereignty to global dictates, saying:
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful.
The global community must be assured of environmental security”.
Two years earlier, Strong gave an interview where he described a “fiction book” he desired to write, asking:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Interview in West Magazine, 1990
He reiterated the need for international degrowth in a September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine, proclaiming:
“If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
While serving as Secretary General of the Earth Summit, he commented that:
“…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing, are not sustainable.”
Regarding population control, Strong is credited with saying:
“Either we reduce the world’s population voluntarily or nature will do this for us, but brutally.”
He was able to spread his green gospel while holding key positions in a laundry list of organizations including,
- the Aspen Institute
- Rockefeller Foundation
- Rothschild Foundation
- International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
- UNEP
- IUCN
- World Future
- Lindisfarne
- Temple of Understanding (Lucis Trust),
…and many more.
By now it should be obvious that Strong was a part of a powerful machine advancing an agenda that has deeply affected billions of people.
His relations with globalist organizations like UN, WWF, and Club of Rome solidify his place atop the throne of those pushing the global environmental scheme.
The Club of Rome and the “World Problematique”
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– The Club of Rome, 1974
Strong was also an influential figure within the Club of Rome, the organization owing its existence to co-founders Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King in 1968, along with funding from the Rockefellers.
The Club brought together an assembly of bureaucrats, scientists, and business leaders with Rockefeller, Rothschild, and Soros connections.
Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King,
Source: Wikimedia Commons
In the early days, members discussed their plans at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy.
Peccei, King, and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau would later co-establish the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome (CACOR) in the early 1970’s followed by associations in many countries worldwide including the U.S.
The Club of Rome posited that societal collapse was imminent due to,
“a cluster of intertwined global problems, be they economic, environmental, political or social,” defining them as the “World Problematique.”
Their proposed solutions to man’s role in destroying the environment was dubbed the “World Resolutique.”
Many of their recommendations derived from MIT computer models (prone to human error and bias) as discussed in The Limits to Growth report of 1972 and 1977’s Goals for Mankind.
Interdependence, population reduction, and a new global economic system were common themes in Club reports and publications.
They would reappear in myriad publications, speeches, papers, articles, books, and meeting agendas.
Consider the following excerpts from both the first and second reports to the Club as common examples:
“The Limits to Growth.
If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.
The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
Without such a goal and a commitment to it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse.With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.”
–The Limits to Growth, 1972, pp. 23, 184.
The transition from the present undifferentiated and unbalanced world growth to organic growth will lead to the creation of a new mankind.
Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or 20 years from today it will probably be too late…
“A world consciousness must be developed through which every individual realizes his role as a member of the world community…
It must become part of the consciousness of every individual that “the basic unit of human cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global level.”
–Mankind at the Turning Point – The Second Report to the Club of Rome, 1974. pp. 9, 69, 154.
In 1995, the UNEP echoed these ideas in its Global Biodiversity Assessment, writing:
The problems associated with population growth and distribution and loss of biodiversity are reaching critical proportions in many parts of the world… population increases are likely to lead to higher deforestation, degradation of land and loss of biodiversity…
A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2-3 billion would be possible”.
(p. 773)
The Club of Rome has continued to produce doomsday literature promoting global governance and a new economic structure throughout their history.
A small sampling of their many publications includes:
- Beyond The Limits to Growth (1989)
- Globalization and Culture (2000)
- Humanity At the Crossroads (2001)
- World Economic and Environmental Order (2001)
- Globalization, Governance and Sustainable Development (2002)
- A New World Order Without Ideologies (2003)
- Sustainable Development and Governance (2004)
- Globalization And Civil Society (2005)
- Rethinking Civilization (2006)
- Towards A Global Ethic (2006)
In 2017, Dennis Meadows, co-author of the Limits to Growth report, argued that most of the world’s population must be wiped out if the rest were to maintain a high standard of living, saying:
“If we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart … and [people have] a low standard of living…
But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down.”
| https://www.youtube.com/embed/ojK05pVOlhs |
The Club’s methodical work over the decades has led to many of the policies and technologies now being thrust upon society presumably “for the common good.”
Agenda 21 + Agenda 2030 = Global Technocracy
The applied doctrines of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and the energy Smart Grid that have resulted from Trilateral interactions testify to their ideological grounding in historic Technocracy.”
– Wood, Patrick.Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, 2014. Convergent Publishing. Kindle Edition, (p. 44).
Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.
This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level”.
(Source)
The plan put in place by men like Maurice Strong and organizations like the UN and Club of Rome to completely restructure the world is unprecedented in scope.
Similar plans originating with Technocracy Inc. in the 1930s were often criticized and rejected.
However, the Rockefeller-influenced ideologies of man-made climate change, global governance, and a new international economic structure won over many who might have resisted these ideas in the past.
If all their plans are successfully implemented, individual rights and national sovereignty will be annihilated.
Since its inception, many have tried to describe Agenda 21, but the best definition comes from the late Rosa Koire, author of Behind the Green Mask.
Koire’s book is a must read for a detailed understanding of how Agenda 21 is implemented in local communities.
While peering behind the green mask, she defined the agenda as follows:
“UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world.
INVENTORY AND CONTROL…”
In less than fifty words,
Koire perfectly penned the nightmare that is Agenda 21…!
Despite the noble pretense, it’s simply an all-encompassing plan to control every aspect of human life and nature from cradle to the grave.
It is the global extension of the “scientific control of all social functions” as described by early technocrats. To many, what’s transpiring on the world stage resembles fascism – to others communism – and to some, socialism.
But the ring that rules them all is technocracy.
Agenda 2030 is the overarching plan to implement what began in Agenda 21.
Its goal is to have all mechanisms of societal transformation and control in place by the year 2030.
It is the ultimate bait and switch designed to dupe humans into voluntarily giving up their rights to save the planet from climate-related disasters, though predictions of doom never materialize.
Sustainable Development ideologues have created a de-facto religion surmising that the earth is dying, natural resources will soon become extinct, and there are way too many people living.
These factors have increased CO2 in the atmosphere from all the breathing, farting, and farming causing the earth’s climate to be out of whack, spelling doom for us all…
See how this all works now?
Now that the green mask has been completely removed, the “worldwide inventory and control” plan Koire mentioned should be evident.
It is you and I that need to be reined in to save the planet.
We are the CO2 emitters that need to be controlled and, if possible, eliminated…!
As I’ve stated previously:
Today’s climate crusade is not a grassroots, bottom-up movement. It’s a top-down initiative seeking to redistribute wealth upwards and privatize all biodiversity and natural resources.
Its real goal is captured in the infamous phrase,
The good news is that many are now seeing through the mask of the environmental movement and are aggressively resisting.
However, today’s technocrats have stepped up their efforts to seize control and are actively embedding themselves in every facet of society, including government
Afrikaans
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Basque
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Catalan
Cebuano
Chichewa
Chinese (Simplified)
Chinese (Traditional)
Corsican
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Esperanto
Estonian
Filipino
Finnish
French
Frisian
Galician
Georgian
German
Greek
Gujarati
Haitian Creole
Hausa
Hawaiian
Hebrew
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Icelandic
Igbo
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Javanese
Kannada
Kazakh
Khmer
Korean
Kurdish (Kurmanji)
Kyrgyz
Lao
Latin
Latvian
Lithuanian
Luxembourgish
Macedonian
Malagasy
Malay
Malayalam
Maltese
Maori
Marathi
Mongolian
Myanmar (Burmese)
Nepali
Norwegian
Pashto
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Romanian
Russian
Samoan
Scottish Gaelic
Serbian
Sesotho
Shona
Sindhi
Sinhala
Slovak
Slovenian
Somali
Spanish
Sundanese
Swahili
Swedish
Tajik
Tamil
Telugu
Thai
Turkish
Ukrainian
Urdu
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Welsh
Xhosa
Yiddish
Yoruba
Zulu