The Twelve Days of Technocracy Part 1

Day 1: We Were Warned About Technocracy

TOPICS:12Days

POSTED BY: PATRICK WOOD

After having written two books on Technocracy, reviewed over 230 important historical books and posted almost 4,000 related stories, there is a tendency to think that the subject is exhausted.

But, it is not.

Almost every day some new thing pops up that surprises me, whether from industry, academia or government. Historical tidbits constantly surface that show how analysts foresaw our current trajectory decades earlier. Modern scholars often write openly about Technocracy and Technocrats, especially in Europe or Asia, and yet America largely remains in the dark.

As I present my findings in public forums, whether speaking or writing, I am constantly aware of some kind of invisible wall that keeps the message from being fully understood or propagated. For instance, I have sent dozens of review copies of books to key centers of influence around the country, but how many reviews have actually been published? Hardly any. I have presented to elected officials, attorneys, civic leaders and scientists. How many have embraced any understanding of Technocracy? Again, hardly any.

However, for all the people who have confirmed their understanding and alarm of Technocracy, I am fully convinced that the material is easy enough to understand for anyone who is willing to understand it. Apparently, most are not willing. In some cases, people are too distracted with other things to pay attention. In other cases, people turn a blind eye because they find themselves profiting off some aspect of Technocracy and don’t want to upset their own applecart.

Whatever the case, America is largely missing the many siren calls for radical change in America. Here is a case in point.

Dr. Parag Khanna, a leading global scholar promoting Technocracy, speaks to elite groups all around the world. With bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a PhD from the London School of Economics, Khanna has written several highly esteemed books on various aspects of globalization.

In 2017, Khanna released a book with the very pointed title Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info-State. Endorsed by many prominent globalists, it laid out the radical agenda of what a “direct Technocracy” would look like in America:

In America, direct technocracy would look like this: A collective presidency of about a half-dozen committee members backed by a strong civil service better able to juggle complex challenges; a multi-party legislature better reflective of the diversity of political views and using data technologies for real-time citizen consultation, and the Senate replaced by a Governors Assembly that prioritizes the common needs of states and shares successful policies across them; and a judicial branch that monitors international benchmarks and standards, and proposes constitutional amendments to keep pace with our rapidly changing times. 

How would we get to a direct Technocracy? Khanna states that “it is time again for a new constitutional convention” and concludes that “only utilitarian thinking can bring about another progressive era.”

Of course, Americans can ignore Khanna, but the global elite don’t, because he is writing to their long-established goals of doing exactly what he proposes! Abolish the Senate and give the Constitution to the Supreme Court? Have a committee of Presidents? Adopt utilitarian thinking to promote progressivism?

This is not Marxism, Socialism or Communism. It is Technocracy. Everything else going on around us is a sideshow that provides nothing more than a convenient cover for those behind the curtain who are the real movers and shakers in the world.

Day 2: Academic Backing Of Technocracy

TOPICS:12Days

Dr. Francis Schaeffer was an historian, Christian philosopher and one of the greatest thinkers of the last century. In Episode X (the final segment) of his video series, How Should We Then Live?, he stated that society was falling into a moral abyss with no fixed absolutes to provide form and structure for living. To replace that necessary structure and thereby avoid utter societal chaos, he accurately and clearly recognized that such absolutes would be supplied by an increasingly authoritarian, technocratic elite. (Yes, Schaeffer actually used the word “technocratic”.)

In other words, as people lost the ability to self-regulate their own life and behavior, someone or something would step into the vacuum and do it for them.

A younger contemporary of Schaeffer was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era when he was a political science professor at Columbia University in the late 1960s. Brzezinski was the polar opposite of Schaeffer in that he eschewed Christianity, Christian philosophy and even the existence of God.

Brzezinski came to virtually the same conclusion as Schaeffer (for entirely different reasons) when he wrote,

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. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits. (emphasis added)

Brzezinski further stated,

Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the stepping stones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society. (emphasis added)

Since Schaeffer was an avid reader, he likely had read Brzezinski’s work, but I can find no proof of that. He did, however, read Daniel Bell’s seminal 1973 book, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting.

Bell had received his PhD in sociology from Columbia University in 1961. We know he was well acquainted with Brzezinski’s work because he thoroughly critiqued it in his own book.

There are two reasons that I bring up Bell: first, he was a self-professed apologist for Technocracy and second, Schaeffer held up Bell’s book toward the end of Episode X and quoted from page 480:

The lack of a rooted moral belief system is the cultural contradiction of the society, the deepest challenge to its survival.

Bell was indeed a big thinker in the same vein as Brzezinski; both were Technocrats and both were educated at Columbia University where Technocracy was originally conceived in 1932. Bell, however, was much more direct than Brzezinski when he wrote,

The technocratic mode has become established because it is the mode of efficiency – of production, of program, of “getting things done.” For these reasons, the technocratic mode is bound to spread in our society. (p. 354)

It was Bell who first popularized and developed the concept of the “post-industrial” society:

Since the post-industrial society increases the importance of the technical component of knowledge, it forces the hierophants of the new society – the scientists, engineers and technocrats – either to compete with politicians or become their allies.

Bell’s 489-page “essay in social forecasting” presented the big picture of the future. It was ominously written in the same year (1973) that the Trilateral Commission was co-founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller.

Now, I had already cited Bell’s works in both of my books on Technocracy, but I had fallen short in examining who or what might have stimulated Bell to write his book in the first place. This became my 2019 surprise as I picked up my own copy of Bell’s The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (the same edition that Schaeffer referenced above) and read it’s Preface more carefully:

My greatest debt, institutionally, is to the Russell Sage Foundation and its president, Orville Brim. A grant from the foundation in 1967 at first released me from one-third of my teaching schedule at Columbia, and allowed me to organize an experimental graduate seminar at Columbia on modes of forecasting. The foundation also subsidized my research in the next few years. In 1969-1970 I spent a sabbatical year as a visiting fellow at the foundation, where this book began to take shape. (emphasis added)

Essentially, Bell was employed by the Russell Sage Foundation as he fleshed out his book.

The Russell Sage Foundation, launched in 1907, is one of the oldest foundations in America. It started as an ultra-progressive champion of “social sciences” and has been continuously connected to the most progressive elements of the global elite ever since. Its website currently states,

The Russell Sage Foundation is the principal American Foundation devoted exclusively to research in the social sciences. Currently, the Foundation dedicates itself exclusively to strengthening the methods, data, and theoretical core of the social sciences as a means of improving social policies.

Not surprisingly, the historical archives of the Russell Sage Foundation are housed at the Rockefeller Archive Center in New York.

The academic support for modern Technocracy is obvious and easily traced. The literature is pointed and definitive: they all envisaged a technocratic elite rising to dominate populations.

Given this vision, it is no surprise that the Trilateral Commission sprang forth in 1973 to “make it so” – with “Captain Brzezinski” at the helm as its first Executive Director.

Day 3: Technocracy In Europe And America

TOPICS:12Days

Once upon a time, Jean Meynaud (1914-1972) was a professor of Political Science at the University of Paris and widely known as a leading political scientist in Europe. His works are still recognized as foundational in modern Europe, but you would be hard-pressed to find any American who ever heard his name.

In 1964, Professor Meynaud wrote a seminal book with the simple title of Technocracy. Indeed, Europe was not ignorant of the changes taking place that rankled institutions as well as the people they represented, and there was no love lost for unelected and unaccountable technocrats who were usurping power. At the time in France, this topic was even on the lips of political protestors who cried “Down with Technocracy”.

Meynaud noted that “the fundamental basis of technocracy is a faith in an efficiency so great that maximum results are obtained by minimum effort.” He wrote,

Let us suppose that in a world in which the profit motive becomes more and more paramount, the political authorities (as is already partly true) failed to keep a close watch on the activities of technologists, who do not all have the public interest at heart; in the end, the effect would be a barely perceptible evolution towards a regime which would be democratic only on the surface. The elected representatives would be deprived of the substance of their power… The democratic principle would then be nothing more than the ‘front’ (as skeptics say it has always been) behind which the true leaders of the country would justify or disguise their domination. 

In the intervening years from 1964 to 2019, Europe has continued this trend, transforming itself into a full-blown Technocracy controlled by unelected and unaccountable European Union Technocrats. Europeans widely recognize this today, laying their angst at the levers of the technocrat machine that dominates every single area of their lives.

Having entrenched themselves into an unmovable power structure, these Technocrats are now killing off democracy, free enterprise and capitalism in order to implement the economic system of Technocracy known as Sustainable Development or the Green Economy. This is a resource-based economic system, unlike the free market of supply and demand, where both production and consumption are controlled by a single entity – namely, those same Technocrats.

Knowing that mass resistance (after all, people were already crying “Down with technocracy”) would accompany the economic transition, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was introduced as a fear mechanism to drive citizens into not only accepting, but demanding the one-and-only solution offered: Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

As his book clearly shows, Meynaud really understood what was about to take place. Technocratic encroachment would eventually dominate the political structure, while leaving its outward appearance in place to placate citizens into thinking nothing had really changed. Meynaud nails this:

I use the term ‘influence’ broadly, meaning the capacity possessed by some people to induce others to act, think and feel in a certain way or according to a predetermined suggestion. This aptitude enables technocrats to grasp a certain measure of authority over the politicians who are directly or indirectly chosen by the people to assume control of public affairs. This allows them to guide the lines of action which politicians adopt and the decisions they take. 

This is Social Engineering on the grandest scale. It is the tail that wags the dog. It is the wizard behind the curtain who pulls the levers.

Has this happened in America? Does anyone really think that our elected representatives in Congress have any substantive power to make key decisions that favor the people instead of other institutional interests? Is the Administration effective at turning back the growing infrastructure of Technocracy? Of course not! Technocrats are seen continuously asserting themselves: Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Banks, etc.

Furthermore, Meynaud nailed the societal impact of this Technocrat encroachment:

In a representative democratic system, the power of suffrage and the trust of the people tend to be eroded by the advance of technologists. (emphasis added)

In today’s America, lack of trust is a scourge nobody saw coming. Nobody trusts anyone anymore. Congress is so badly divided that some people are saying it can never be healed again. The hostile divide between government and citizens is at an all-time high. Families are breaking up as children turn against their parents. Employees are turning on their employers.

In short, trust has been destroyed at every level. But don’t think that this just happened by accident; it is a direct outcome of the growth of Technocracy in America.

Thankfully, Meynaud noted that “Technocratic power is not a permanent acquisition.” Of course, he said that in 1964, before Technocracy had fully asserted itself in Europe. How Europeans could throw off Technocracy today is a mystery and a seemingly impossible feat.

In America, we still have a short window of time to do something about it. We can join the earlier calls made in France of “Down with technocracy”. But… we had better be more certain to follow our rhetoric with tangible, concrete and forceful actions to ensure its demise.

In the meantime, spare me the criticism that Technocracy is just a myth and a conspiracy theory. Many great scholars and thinkers have written extensively about it over the decades, and we all are without excuse if we ignore them.

Day 4: Technocracy Vs. Communism/Socialism, Fascism

TOPICS:12Days

As individualists for the most part, Conservatives are scared to death of Socialism. As collectivists, Socialists are scared to death of falling short of the ‘common good’. Each group has a unique and strikingly different belief system and supporting logic. 

Those who believe that Socialism (or Communism) is the bogeyman just can’t get it out of their head. I have sat down with intelligent people and carefully gone through the following table of comparisons, and they have  eagerly nodded their heads in agreement. But the next day they revert right back to talking about the dangers of Socialism and Communism. Were they just not paying attention? Were they being disingenuous and only pretending to agree with me? Probably neither. 

The fact is, old habits of thinking and acting are very hard to change. All of us struggle to some degree when we are challenged with new thoughts that require a shift in our existing belief system. If we believe that Socialism or Communism is the biggest enemy of the state, we will be very resistant to any facts to the contrary. 

It is true that the trappings of former political systems are still visible in certain countries. China still has the hammer and sickle. Germany still has a few neo-Nazis running around. But how many times have we ever been told, “Don’t judge a book by its cover”? Times change. Things change. Our thinking about them must advance as well. Holding a world view from 10, 20 or 30 years ago is simply not adequate today. 

With that said, I was hoping hope to change readers’ mindsets when I wrote in Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, “The dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism: It is Technocracy.”

The ancient Chinese General Sun Tsu, who wrote The Art of War in the 6th century BC, noted that the enemy must be clearly identified before victory can be achieved.  This is still true today. Technocrats smile inwardly when you call them Communists, Socialists or Fascists because this allows them to continue on their way unthreatened and uninterrupted. 

Here are 25 comparisons that make the proper distinction between Technocracy, Communism/Socialism and Fascism. To correctly cement the features of each ideology into your worldview, I suggest reading and contemplating this list every day for 30 days straight.

TECHNOCRACY	COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM	FASCISM
Endgame: Scientific Dictatorship	Endgame: Classless society	Endgame: National strength
Hates Communists, favored Fascists	Hates Fascists & Technocrats	Hates all types of Marxists
Has contempt for electoral democracy	Promotes electoral democracy	Has contempt for electoral democracy
Seeks totalitarian system by scientific methods	Seeks totalitarian system by communitarianism	Seeks totalitarian system by nationalistic submission
Relies upon cult of science (Scientism)	Relies upon cult of personality (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Che)	Relies upon cult of personality (Hitler, Mussolini)
Promotes Scientism	Promotes atheism	Promotes a form of Christianity
Promotes cities, is anti-rural	Promotes rural development	Anti-urban, promotes rural identity
Replaces Capitalism with resource-based economic system	Managed Capitalism	Generally supports Capitalism for its own purposes
Despises Capitalism	Marx believed Capitalism was a necessary step to Communism	Viewed as a ‘third way’ between Capitalism and Communism
Apolitical	Mostly viewed as ‘left wing’	Often viewed as ‘conservative’
Racially agnostic	Stalin condemned anti-Semitism	Tends toward anti-Semitism and racism
Highly reveres intellectuals who agree with them	Killed intellectuals in their own countries, on multiple occasions	Killed intellectuals in other countries
Generally pacifist	Mostly killed their own citizens	Mostly killed citizens of other countries, plus Jews and other ‘undesirables’
Controls people with the system/technology	Controls people with people	Controls people with dictator
Population: over-populated	Population: non-issue	Population: non-issue
Genetic cleansing, general population reduction	Ideological cleansing	Genetic cleansing, but selective
Universal Basic Income (UBI)	Stratified pay structure, according to the need of each citizen	Stratified pay structure, according to merit and value to leadership
Advances according to the advancement of technology	Advances according to the development of ideology	Advances according to the strength of the nation
Human conditioning to live within the system	Education supports ideology	Education supports nationalism
Global citizen, city-state oriented	Nation-state oriented	Nation-state oriented
Dissolves the state	Empowers the state	Empowers the state
Science knows best	People know best	People know best
Social engineers hide behind facade of science	Leadership easily identified	Leadership easily identified
“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…”  (The Technocrat, 1938) Eradicates profit completely and all private property, establishes a resource-based economy controlled by a scientific elite using data-driven scientific method.	Communism: Political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. (Encyclopedia Britannica)	Fascism, a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (Merriam-Webster) A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the marketplace, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. By extension, Any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law, race-baiting and violence against largely unarmed populations. (Wikitionary)
”We are building this global society without a global leader. Global order is no longer something that can be dictated or controlled from the top down. Globalization is itself the order.”  Dr. Parag Khanna	Stepping-stone to Technocracy Zbigniew Brzezinski stated in Between Two Ages: America’s Role In the Technetronic Era (1970), that Communism and Socialism were necessary stepping stones to get to the end game, but they were not the end game in themselves. The final stage was to be Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era, which is Technocracy

Day 5: The Fitting Of Technocracy And Transhumanism

TOPICS:12Days

If society must be transformed into Technocracy, then the humans who live there must be transformed into Transhumans. In other words, a perfectly efficient, utopian society envisioned by Technocrats would be quickly soiled if it were inhabited by weak-minded and imperfect humans in their present form. This is exactly why we see many Technocrats who also identify as Transhumans as well. Some well-known names that come to mind include Elon Musk (Tesla), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Ray Kurzweil (Google) and Peter Thiel (PayPal).

To grasp this larger picture, it is necessary to address three questions:

1. What is Technocracy?
2. What is Transhumanism?
3. How is Scientism the glue that binds them together?

What is Technocracy?

In 1939, The Technocrat magazine wrote:

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.

The magazine went on to explain that Technocracy eschewed capitalism, free enterprise, elected politicians and that it sought to create a resource-based economic system where scientists, engineers and technicians would be the sole planners and controllers of society.

Many Technocrats today have no idea of the deeper goals of Technocracy but nevertheless use their expertise to run portions of society without any regard for America’s traditional political processes. ‘Rule by experts’ is a rule, but it is only one subservient part of the overarching goal of replacing our current economic system with Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, Green Economy, Green New Deal, etc.

What is Transhumanism?

One modern champion of Transhumanism, Dr. Max More, wrote,

Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades. “Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.” (Max More, 1990)

Transhumans seek to apply advanced technology to the condition of man in order to take over the evolutionary process and literally create Humans 2.0. The holy grail of Transhumanism is to achieve immortality, but in the process they intend to weed out the more negative characteristics of Humans 1.0: their warlike nature and their tendency to be argumentative,  inconsistent, unreliable, etc. This is genetic cleansing on the largest possible scale.

Scientism is the glue that binds them together

Scientism is a religious proposition that was first presented by the French philosopher Henri De Saint-Simon (1760-1825). He wrote,

“A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.”

While true science explores the natural world using the time-tested scientific method of repeated experimentation and validation, Saint-Simon’s Scientism is a speculative, metaphysical worldview about the nature and reality of the universe and man’s relation to it.

Saint-Simon proposed that the religious leadership of his day should literally be replaced by a priesthood of scientists and engineers, who would interpret the oracle of science in order to make declarations to society on the human actions necedssary to lead mankind to Utopia. Thus, science would be elevated to a state of immutable godhood, worshiped by its followers, who are led by its priests.

Technocracy and Transhumanism are both based on Scientism.

Both believe that advanced science, engineering and technology are the exclusive instruments of progress. Both are adept at promising benefits that are always just around the corner, but that never materialize. Both are expert at manipulating governments to supply taxpayer resources to fund their respective projects. Both believe they are hijacking evolutionary processes to create a future engineered by technologists.

No Future Here, Go to Mars…

An even more substantive connection between Technocracy and Transhumanism is that they both see no future for the world as it exists today. Radical environmentalists like Greta Thunberg believe the world has only 12 years left before a climate apocalypse destroys us all. Elon Musk uses his billions to escape Earth by funding his SpaceX rocket company with the ultimate intent of colonizing Mars. Jeff Bezos privately funds his Blue Origin for the same purpose – to colonize Mars. They both have stated that the only future for mankind is in outer space, populating the cosmos because Earth is going to hit a dead end when its natural resources run out.

In short, Technocracy and Transhumanism are both anti-human. Technocracy, channeled by the United Nations as Sustainable Development, believes that the earth can only support one billion or so humans. Furthermore, all humans are considered as mere resources on a par with herd animals such as cattle. Transhumanism believes Humanity 1.0 is as good as dead and the only hope for the future of man is for Transhuman scientists to invent Humanity 2.0 and leave Earth altogether.

In one sense, Technocracy’s strict allocation of resources and energy only mark a containment pattern while they build and test space travel technology.

This is not new thinking. In 1872 Winwood Reade wrote The Martyrdom of Man in which he stated as clearly as any modern Transhumanist or Technocrat could:

Disease will be extirpated; the causes of decay will be removed; immortality will be invented. And then, the earth being small, mankind will migrate into space, and will cross the airless Saharas which separate planet from planet, and sun from sun. The earth will become a Holy Land which will be visited by pilgrims from all the quarters of the universe. Finally, men will master the forces of Nature; they will become themselves architects of systems, manufacturers of worlds. 

These bodies which now we wear belong to the lower animals; our minds have already outgrown them; already we look upon them with contempt. A time will come when Science will transform them by means which we cannot conjecture, and which, even if explained to us, we could not now understand, just as the savage cannot understand electricity, magnetism, steam. (p. 179)

The word ‘radical’ doesn’t even scratch the surface

In light of the above, I hope you realize that you simply cannot look at Technocrats and Transhumanists and pin labels on them like Marxist, Socialist, Communist or Fascist. Transhumanists and Technocrats represent a new type of radicalness that the world has never seen before.

It means nothing when people gather to discuss philosophical issues and new ways of doing things, unless they have the means to do what they claim. Jeff Bezos isn’t waiting for NASA to colonize Mars; he is building his own spaceship with his own money. Likewise, Elon Musk is self-funding his own space fleet. The late global financier, David Rockefeller, didn’t wait for governments to flesh out a new economic order, but rather used his own funds to create the Trilateral Commission with its own economic transformations.

Thanks to the United Nations’ adoption of Technocracy as Sustainable Development, its Agenda 21 policies have been spread to every corner of the planet, including every town and county in America. In total ignorance of the trap being laid for them, people are now demanding more, not less. Global warming is being used as the battering ram to break down the current economic system, paving the way for the only alternative being offered: Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

Lest you think that the scientific elite are benevolent pure-hearted idealists simply working for the betterment of mankind, I would caution you to remember the late Jeffrey Epstein, who plumbed the depths of depravity, debauchery, sex trafficking and blackmail and who was also a member of the elitist Trilateral Commission for several years. Epstein was a Technocrat and Transhumanist who hoped to achieve eternal life within his lifetime. Alas, he failed.

To use the word ‘radical’ to describe Technocracy and Transhumanism would be a gross understatement. They are both outside the bounds of objective reality.  And worse, they are dragging the rest of us along with them.

Day 6: Technocracy’s Necessary Requirements

TOPICS:12Days

Just like today, early Technocrats were obsessed with distribution of goods to a targeted region of the world that they called a Technate. In 1934, the North American Technate included Greenland, Canada, United States, Mexico, Cuba, the Caribbean, all of Central America and the northernmost countries of South America. However, no mention was ever made as to how those sovereign nations, each with their own particular type of government, would be persuaded to voluntarily discard those structures and cede control to a group of megalomaniac scientists and engineers.

Nevertheless, framers of Technocracy proceeded as if all of those nations would magically succumb to Technocracy’s scientific dictatorship, and they documented seven key requirements that must be met before the system could function properly.

These seven original requirements are obviously just as valid and operational today as they were back then. [Scott, Howard et al, The Technocracy Study Course, p. 232]

1. Register on a continuous 24-hour-per-day basis the total net conversion of energy

Conversion of energy means creating useable energy from stored energy like coal, oil or natural gas; when they are burned, electricity is generated. Hydroelectric and nuclear also convert energy. There were two reasons to keep track of useable energy: First, it was the basis for issuing “energy script” to all citizens for buying and selling goods and services. Second, it predicted economic activity because all such activity is directly dependent upon energy. (Note that Technocrats intended to pre-determine how much energy would be made available in the first place.)

2. By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load

Once available energy was quantified, it was to be allocated to consumers and manufacturers so as to limit production and consumption. Technocrats would have control of both ends, so that everything is managed according to their scientific formulas.

The modern Smart Grid, with its ubiquitous WiFi-enabled Smart Meters on homes and businesses, is the exact fulfillment of these two requirements. The concept of “energy web” was first revitalized in 1999 by the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) in Portland, Oregon. A government agency, BPA had a rich history of Technocrats dating back to its creation in 1937. The “energy web” was renamed Smart Grid in 2009 during the Obama Administration. Note that Smart Grid was a global initiative that intended to blanket the entire world with this new energy control technology.

3. Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption

Technocrats were obsessed with aggregating inventory quantities in the economic system from beginning to end. Inventory would be stored in production facilities until it was ready to be delivered to consumers and producers. Only actual consumption by end-users would shrink inventory.

We see this concept used extensively in modern corporations, termed Supply Chain Management (SCM), where its goal is to minimize stored inventory (squeezing out the inefficiencies) and make for “just-in-time” manufacturing and consumption.

4. Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used

This granular level of data tracking drills down to specific items and would ostensibly assign a trackable serial number to every item manufactured, shipped and ultimately consumed by individuals or other manufacturing processes. Such detailed item tracking is a core value of modern Supply Chain Management theory and practice.

The greatest enabler of Technocracy is the Internet of Things (IoT), where all connected devices are networked together via the latest 5G wireless technology. Tom Wheeler, former head of the FCC, praised 5G and the IoT in 2017: “If something can be connected, it will be connected”.  The harvesting of data from billions of sensors embedded in the IoT will, for the first time in history, provide real-time data collection. In turn, this data flow will put wind in the sails of Artificial Intelligence algorithms designed to control society and people in it.

5. Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual

This requirement is a cross-check of inventory against actual consumption by a verified individual. Thus, if something is bought but not consumed immediately, the Technocrat overlords could take action to stop such behavior. It must be understood that Technocracy intended to altogether eliminate private property, savings, and inheritance, etc. The hoarding of consumable items was viewed as unauthorized savings.

The means of collecting this information is through monitoring and total surveillance. Surveillance and data collection are seen everywhere today, and according to Technocrats there is no such thing as “enough” data. The Intelligence agencies (NSA, CIA, DHS, etc.) are creating massive national databases that harvest real-time data from every conceivable source. Surveillance includes biometric data (i.e., facial scans, DNA, iris and voice scans), communications (email, phone calls) financial transactions, location tracking (geospatial intel), social media, psychographic data, etc.

6. Allow the citizen the widest latitude of choice in consuming his individual share of Continental physical wealth

We must understand this requirement from the perspective of a Technocrat. First, there would not be a wide range of selection of goods and services because there would be no competition between manufacturers. Products would be designed and manufactured by Technocrats at their sole discretion. The real thing in view here is the aggregate amount of “Continental physical wealth” and how much of it you deserve to consume. Technocrats largely view humans as so many cattle in a feed lot, existing only to be fed a managed diet from birth to death, housed and shielded from the weather, medically treated for maximum efficiency, etc.

7. Distribute goods and services to every member of the population

The key to this last requirement is that Technocrats demanded that every single person in the Technate would be forced to participate. As today, outliers were not to be allowed. We see the tagline “No person left behind” throughout the UN’s literature on Sustainable Development.

The Predicted Outcomes

According to The Technocracy Study Course, the anticipated and promised “end products” would be:

1. A high physical standard of living
2. A high standard of public health
3. A minimum of unnecessary labor
4. A minimum of wastage of non-replaceable resources
5. An educational system to train the entire younger generation indiscriminately as regards all considerations other than inherent ability – a Continental system of human conditioning. (Ed. Note: human conditioning is not education but rather propaganda-style indoctrination.)

Not surprisingly, these outcomes overlap perfectly with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted at the 2030 Agenda conference in September 2015:

1. Goal #1 – No poverty
2. Goal #3 – Good health and well-being (the banner on Goal #3 states: “Vaccinate your family to protect them and improve public health”)
3. Goal #8 – Decent work and economic growth
4. Goal #12 – Responsible Consumption and Production
5. Goal #4 – Quality education

At the United Nations 1992 conference in Rio De Janeiro which produced the Agenda for the 21st Century (known as Agenda 21), few realized that it was firmly rooted in Technocracy. Nor did they suspect that its interim name had been changed to “New International Economic Order” by the Trilateral Commission in 1973.

In sum, the above seven requirements are being implemented throughout the world, although Americans should be most concerned about their own country. Look past the thinly veiled utopian promises and you will see only an authoritarian scientific dictatorship run by megalomaniac Technocrats. George Orwell said it best in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

Epilogue

Google is a thoroughly Technocrat organization. In 2018, an internally produced video was leaked, called The Selfish Ledger. The concepts presented are futuristic yet centered on managing all of society and all of its inhabitants.

Continued...
https://newlevellers.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-twelve-days-of-technocracy-part-2.html

https://www.technocracy.news/