Taken from a person who sent this link.
Technocracy as the new normal
The ideology of the turning point
Technocracy is the common denominator of all destructive developments of the “new normal”.
It’s hard to find a name for what’s been happening for the last two years. Socialism, collectivism, corporatism, surveillance capitalism, bioethics, eugenics or transhumanism are buzzwords that are currently being used to characterize a global transformation, although all of the terms mentioned are based on the same inhumane ideology: technocracy. It’s the idea of consumer-driven, technologic control of the world. This ideology suffocates all life under a seamless network of information and data processing, in which there is no longer any room for creativity and spontaneity. The first pioneers were already working on this concept at the beginning of the 20th century. What arose in the minds of an avant-garde soon aroused keen interest in high finance circles. And at the latest with the beginning of the “new normal”, these concepts manifested themselves in the everyday reality of people. Monitoring, tracking, capturing and extracting a veritable flood of data that feeds the hungry algorithms. On the horizon of this development are the “Agenda 2030” and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Both come up with seemingly harmless projects worthy of support. But on closer inspection, these pretended intentions turn out to be camouflage under which the real intentions are hidden. The intention is to set up a digital-totalitarian world in which every human being is recorded from the cradle to the grave, evaluated and disposed of from the point at which they can no longer be used by the machine. Looking at China, we get a bitter foretaste of
These are disruptive times. The biometric security doctrine of the “New Normal” is gradually spreading and growing like a malignant brain tumor in all corners of civil society. Preparations for the next escalation level are underway. Even if the corona regime is taking a short summer break. The faceless bureaucratic empire of global governance continues to grow with every crisis and feeds on inactivity, ignorance and passivity in large parts of the population. Inflation and delivery bottlenecks are getting worse and worse.
Meanwhile, corporatist circles coordinate their further course of action to transform the world within the framework of isolated conferences in Davos, Geneva and Washington. And in Ukraine, a military conflict continues to simmer, the current status of which no one can accurately determine due to the lack of independent, objective reporting from the region. The corrupt, right-wing extremist clan led by Volodymyr Zelenskyj has brought the media into line, abolished the opposition and closed off all front areas to foreign journalists.
The sword of Damocles of a third world war hangs worryingly low over the heads of mankind. No one can say for sure how far the spiral of escalation on Russia’s borders will continue. In any case, the United States is preparing for the worst scenarios and is officially rehearsing a nuclear emergency. From May 16, 2022 to May 20, 2022, the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) ran the “ Cobalt Magnet ” disaster simulation. More than 30 government services were involved in the exercise, which the NNSA said was the culmination of 18 months of planning. So while the world was still completely under the spell of the corona crisis at the beginning of 2021, America was already beginning to prepare for a potential nuclear war.
Actually, one should be able to assume that health and economic crises, humanitarian catastrophes and escalating wars would prompt international politics to find sensible solutions to protect the population from further harm. But the opposite is the case. Instead of engaging with its constituents, the ruling panopticon of nation-states bucks before supranational structures of international corporatism. Allegedly democratic governments make themselves the willing agents of a neo-feudal oligarchy’s totalitarian fantasies of omnipotence.
The actions of politicians may initially seem clumsy and helpless, some may even make a serious effort, but ultimately the failure of national administration is programmatic. With their miserable crisis management, the supposed representatives of the people are exacerbating precisely those problems that elite interest groups are trying to exploit for their purposes.
The more trust in the nation state, its ability to act and its democratic processes erodes, the greater the disenchantment with politics among citizens, and the easier it is for supranational agitators and oligarchic power structures, for whom national borders and national laws have long ceased to play a role. The increasing chaos plays into the hands of those who are working to subject the planet to a comprehensive transformation. And it’s just really picking up speed.
The question is: where is the journey going? Looking at the purely political level of the current developments, there is every reason to assume that centralism, collectivism and a corporatist socialism will characterize the revised, multipolar world order under the supervision of supranational bodies.
The anonymous, bureaucratic totalitarianism of this near future knows no participation. The individual conforms to the masses – or is cast out.
However, political systems such as socialism, communism or fascism are always only the expression, result or outgrowth of an ideological superstructure. They determine the corresponding social model. Just as the Inquisition and Crusades were only the sinister result of the clerically blinded feudal rule of the Middle Ages, the burgeoning digital totalitarianism is merely an expression of more fundamental beliefs to which the relevant decision-makers have succumbed.
It is therefore important to find out which ideology motivates the ruling structures of our time to subject the world to a “reset” that leads to dystopia. Because the Chinese general, military strategist and philosopher Sun Tzu already knew:
“He who knows the enemy and knows himself need not fear the results of a hundred battles.”
Over the past two and a half years, it has become abundantly clear that we are dealing with an extremely inhumane future in which faceless authorities, algorithms, QR codes, machines and implants will dominate people. For example, eugenics and transhumanism are often cited as the ideological motives of a ruling caste that sees its existence threatened by freedom of expression, pluralism, creativity and, above all, overpopulation. And in fact, eugenic approaches may well play a not unimportant role in the planning of the globalist ” superclass “.
Because bioethics, a field of research that played a central role in the wake of the Corona crisis, is nothing more than a euphemistic relabeling for long-forgotten ideas of race theory, depopulation and euthanasia. I have already compiled the relevant information in a detailed article on bioethics dated March 5, 2022. Even the English Guardian reported on the disturbing story of “eugenics and the master race of the left” in an article from May 1, 2019.
Transhumanism also takes this line and essentially stands for the abolition of Homo sapiens.
The ideal of the transhumanists is the cyborg — a genetically and technologically modified hybrid being, a kind of centaur of man and machine. In its final form, this creature is connected to the cloud or a matrix and shares a collective consciousness with its kind.
Comparable to the ” Borg “, a warlike people in “Star Trek” who assimilate their enemies instead of killing them. The “Borg” carry nanorobots in their bodies that function autonomously and rewrite DNA if necessary, create new technology in the cyborg’s body or change the immune system, for example to fight new diseases.
So transhumanism insinuates a future very close to the science fiction epic and undoubtedly poses a serious threat to the human species — I also wrote about this in writings of December 11, 2021 and May 28, 2022 — but also the goals of this school of thought are not, by themselves, sufficient to explain the deeper motives leading to a wholesale restructuring of the world by a neo-feudal sect of a few thousand super-rich.
Because transhumanism and eugenics primarily pursue the goal of changing Homo sapiens themselves, of controlling their evolution and reproductive behavior. Technocracy, on the other hand, is a holistic concept for the consumption-based management of the world that includes the aforementioned goals but goes far beyond them. This becomes clear when one looks to the past and examines the basic ideology of the technocratic movement.
Unfortunately, these backgrounds are currently receiving little attention, although they offer fundamental explanations for the transformative processes in society, economy, technology and politics since the 1950s and especially for the past two and a half years.
The technocratic movement began with the founding of the ” Technical Alliance ” in 1919 in New York City. The association of initially 15 engineers, scientists and technicians, headed by the shady Howard Scott , initially set itself the task of documenting the waste of the capitalist system. However, the conservatism and booming economy of the 1920s got in the way of the project. There was a lack of political support. Criticism of capitalism did not fit the zeitgeist. So the group was dissolved just two years after it was founded and things were still unfinished.
But Howard Scott did not give up. He was driven by the notion of finding the ultimate solution and by his need for recognition as a “Greenwich Village upstart” with no formal academic training. He wanted to reorganize the world. In 1933 he founded Technocracy Incorporated together with M. King Hubbert , whom he met in the early 1930s . Hubbert had just started working at Columbia University.
The elite university seemed to be able to get something out of the radical ideas of the technocratic masterminds. Scott and Hubbert were allowed to set up their new venture on the New York campus. From then on, the “Technocracy Incorporated” shared an entire floor with the still small team of the IBM company, founded in 1911, which was already on the trail of the development of the modern computer – and at the same time gave the German National Socialists massive support , including in transport logistics.
The Chicago Tribune reported in 2001 how the Hollerith machines helped IBM’s strategic partners in Nazi Germany organize the myriad rail shipments that transported concentration camp prisoners in cattle cars to various death camps. Unfortunately, many of the relevant IBM documents from that time have mysteriously disappeared from libraries and archives, so that the details and extent of IBM’s funding of Nazi Germany can only be reconstructed incompletely. The IBM team at Columbia University probably got on really well with Scott and Hubbert. Because both teams were probably a collection of ingenious to insane nerds who were far ahead of their time in many ways.
In 1933, the Technocrats published their concept in the form of a document entitled Introduction to Technocracy . This is considered the bible of technocratic ideology and marks the foundation on which the movement is based to this day. And after the stock market crash of 1929, Scott and Hubbert’s ideas fell on fertile ground. The global economic crisis triggered by “Black Thursday” had permanently destroyed trust in the capitalist system. Politics, business and society thirst for new ideas and solutions for the socio-economic misery. The technocracy movement experienced a veritable boom.
Local groups formed throughout the United States and organized regular meetings. The Technocrat magazine was launched. At its peak , the movement had over half a million official members on the east coast of the United States alone. The ideology quickly expanded to Canada, Germany and many other countries. After 1948 enthusiasm for the subject waned somewhat. Nevertheless, the “Technocracy Incorporated” still operates its own website , publishes a monthly newsletter and organizes conferences.
Based on this history, one might assume that the concept of technocracy is the brainchild of a few avant-garde scientists and utopians who have come up with nothing but a few nice theories. But far from it. Because even if the original movement lost momentum, local groups were dissolved and print magazines were discontinued, the ideology of consumption-based control of the world had found supporters in the highest circles. High finance and geostrategists in US politics realized very early on that technocratic ideology had given them a tool with which to implement their totalitarian visions of monopoly, hegemony and population control on a global scale.
As early as the 1930s, the financial oligarchs of the US hegemony decided to make China the experimental laboratory for the model of a technocratic society — the perfect, invisible and faceless dictatorship, the bureaucratic digital monster. In the course of the Nixon administration, intensive work was done to open up China to the West. Supposedly to support the country in its economic development. Henry Kissinger, a close confidante of the Rockefeller dynasty, traveled to the People’s Republic several times during this period and established trusting contacts with the Chinese leadership.
But not only the Rockefellers were interested in China. US President Richard Nixon was also in Beijing in 1972 and happily shook hands with mass murderer Mao Zedong, as original recordings of the meeting show. Zbigniew Brzeziński, alongside Kissinger one of the US government’s most important geostrategists , even received the Chinese dictator a little later at his home in the United States.
However, as a result, it was not Chinese companies that were responsible for the rapid development of infrastructure and China’s economic rise. That was just told to the public. In fact, it was the CIA’s military-industrial complex corporations and front companies that operated illegally in China, providing capital and technical know-how from the United States. Because Kissinger and Nixon did not sell Mao the concept of the free market economy, but presumably that of technocracy. These circumstances and the power structures that have grown out of the technocratic seeds in modern China were examined in an article by Time magazineJune 27, 2001, which describes how the technocratic approach became increasingly important in the 1970s and 1980s and in the context of Chinese neo-authoritarianism.
Current pictures from China show how far the pilot project of the technocrats in the People’s Republic has progressed, where the population is being kept docile with ever new corona lockdowns and totalitarian, technological attacks. The smartphone serves as a shackle for those in power.
Anyone who leaves the permitted radius of movement, does not comply with test cycles or writes critical messages must expect state sanctions. Automated. Anyone who spends too much time on their balcony during lockdowns will be visited by a drone, which will ask the releaser to stay indoors under threat of sanctions. Robots patrol the streets. Resistance is futile and fades away in anonymous, increasingly digital spaces of an intangible bureaucracy. Symbolic of this dystopian system is the fact that delinquents and criminals in China are to be convicted by a virtual judge in the future.
This grotesque example of systematic dehumanization gets to the heart of technocratic ideology — for the technocrats took the position from the start that governments, states, currencies, and even unprofitable people, are obsolete in a perfect system. The world must be controlled primarily via energy consumption, since this is the only way to guarantee optimal use of the available resources.
In addition, the technocrats are convinced that technology cannot be corrupted, is less prone to errors and free of human disruptive factors such as morality, ethics or empathy, which stand in the way of efficient energy management.
For this reason, collectivism, corporatism, digitization, eugenics and transhumanism perfectly complement the concept of technocrats — or are an integral part of it, even if these models of thought are not specifically named. Because they arise logically if you radically think the technocratic goal of the efficient use of existing energy through to the end.
Seen from this perspective, the omnipresent UN Sustainable Development Goals, the reduction of the individual CO2 footprint or the postulated climate apocalypse appear in a different light. For while these issues ostensibly appear to be pursued for the greater good — to save the world — in the context of technocratic ideology, they are nothing more than totalitarian tools of control. Because for the technocrat, nature and Homo sapiens are nothing more than resources that need to be managed efficiently and without emotion.
In 2016, for example, Technocracy Incorporated set up a project group called the Transition Plan 2016 to develop concepts for a system change. Away from the current capitalism trimmed for constant growth — towards a sustainable, centralized energy industry. That this is little more than a euphemism should be obvious from the foregoing.
Of course, today’s Technocracy Incorporated is little more than a club dedicated to estate management and membership maintenance, but the original goals of the movement are being pursued more vigorously than ever before. Because on closer inspection, the humanistic and ecologically sound “Agenda 2030” of the United Nations is nothing more than a new edition of technocratic principles. This is shown by a look at the Technocrats’ Bible from 1933 linked at the beginning.
Only the wording of the “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDG, sustainability goals) have subordinated themselves to the zeitgeist and psychological insights into controlling the masses. Who likes to object to inclusion, sustainability and emission reduction? But behind many of the fluffy worded UN goals, such as the right to an identity, there are more duties. In this case, namely the obligation of the state to assign every person on the planet a digital identity by the year 2030 – and the obligation of these people to be able to identify themselves with the same at any time.
If you take the social goals of technocracy to its logical conclusion, they stand for the abolition of every freely organized society, the free market economy and ultimately also the spiritual being, the spiritual human being, who, classified as livestock, is euthanized for optimization purposes at the end of his useful life .
The 2016 book “Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info State” proves that the ideology of technocracy is not a dusty relic of the past . The author Parag Khanna , a busy strategy consultant and entrepreneur, was a consultant for the “Global Trends Program 2030” of the US National Intelligence Council and seems obsessed with the idea of reshaping the world according to technocratic specifications.
In the work in question he is the advocate for a “direct technocracy”, a system of technocratic totalitarianism in which people can still influence their environment indirectly, namely via the data they generate. One can imagine how great this influence will be by looking at China. Because there, too, people are happy to be questioned digitally by the state. Hardly anyone dares to give honest answers.
Khanna’s book also found its way into the renowned Time Magazine in December 2016 , which prominently presented the author’s radical theses . The old goals of the technocrats are not only already being implemented with the “Agenda 2030”, strategists are also constantly working on their refinement. They adapt and modify Scott and Hubbert’s concepts in the context of our time. What they all have in common is that they elevate science to religion, to the absolutism of the 21st century.
The Corona cult has impressively demonstrated that mankind is quite receptive to this religion. He focused the magnifying glass on the identity crisis of the species and revealed more than ever that many people are overwhelmed with the modern world and above all with themselves, that they lost values, goals and self-confidence long ago.
They stagger between addictions, work, smartphones, Netflix and superficial social contacts. Nervous distraction crowds out reflection. This makes us receptive to new promises of salvation, to warmth and leadership.
So it fits well that WEF protégé Yuval Noah Harrari, who has recently made a name for himself with his disturbing statements on the subject of transhumanism, defined the religion of the future as early as 2015: dataism. In his book Homo Deus—A Brief History of Tomorrow, he describes how all political and social structures can be viewed as systems of data processing, and dataism consequently explains that “the universe is made up of flows of data, and the value of a phenomenon or entity flows through its contribution to data processing is determined”. Therefore, the ultimate goal of the dataist is to maximize the flow of data and to link more and more media with each other. It’s not just surveillance capitalism, digitization or a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” — it’s technocracy. But with his theses, Harrari tries to give the cold, mechanical things a sacred substructure, a spiritual basis.
He further writes:
“We can interpret the entire human species as a single data processing system, with individual humans serving as chips.”
Harrari predicts that in the near future, humans will give algorithms the power to make the most important decisions in their lives, from career paths to mate choice and medical treatment. And in fact, Homo sapiens are already more often subconsciously controlled by their own innovations than they are aware of. The current developments in terms of data protection and the creeping abolition of privacy underline that Pandora’s box has long been wide open in this area.
Despite various scandals in the recent past, massive data leaks and obvious misuse of personal information by corporations and states, the resistance of society as a whole to the invasive plans of governments and supranational institutions with regard to the protection of their own data is limited. Because many people are willing to sacrifice their freedom for supposed security.
Prime example: Facebook . The group had misappropriated the personal data of around 87 million users and made it available to Cambridge Analytica . This uses the information, among other things and illegally, to provide analytical support for the election campaigns of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in 2016. The company was also accused of collecting and evaluating data and using it to manipulate the public in the context of the Brexit referendum in Great Britain. Cambridge Analytica filed for bankruptcy in 2018. A pawn sacrifice. Because other companies did exactly the same thing before and after — but made sure not to be in the limelight.
At that time, this scandal still caused an outcry among the population and focused on topics such as personalized advertising (targeting), nudging and psychological manipulation of the masses. These days, it seems, has largely resigned itself to corporations and governments stealthily harvesting data and using it for their shady purposes.
The Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal would have been an opportunity to take a closer look at the corporate purpose, business practices and financial background of Mark Zuckerberg’s group in general. Because what is commonly perceived as a start-up by a weird IT nerd may just be the continuation of a project by DARPA, a Pentagon research institute.
In 2003, they set up an IT project called “ Life Log ”, which had set itself the task of collecting all activities, information, interactions and interests of US citizens, whether online or offline, in a central database. Every person should have some sort of personalized “timeline” that authorities can use to track the person’s entire life. After the public got wind of the matter, the Life Log project was officially shut down on February 3, 2004.
Founded exactly one day later, on February 4, 2004, with seed capital from investor Peter Thiel , who has close ties to the military-industrial complex and US intelligence agencies, Facebook has been collecting the very information DARPA once sought . Only that the users are now willingly making them available to the group and its backers themselves.