The Upcoming Technocratic Showdown
Updated: May 4
A government managed by experts may sound tempting in times such as today. In some situations a technocracy structure has the potential to work, but those situations are short lived and require an extremely high level of stability. Here's our reasoning as to why ...
It's impossible to argue that technocrats maintain heavy influence in the current political times. This is the age of "Big Tech" and choosing to not engage those opportunities creates significant issues as individuals, groups, and governments. At the same time, do we remember 2008? A global financial crisis created by, and missed by, technocrats across nearly every financial industry and impacting all global markets.
Let’s fast forward to 1987 and the first major advancement for technocracy in the last 50 years. A Trilateral Commission member, Gro Harlem Brundtland, concluded a UN sponsored task force with the publication of their reports within a book entitled Our Common Future. Brundtland's book popularized the now common phrase "sustainable development" for world consumption. Brundtland’s book has also provided the framework for Agenda 21 and its related programs focused on social engineering.
A few years later, in 1992, the UN held their first Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro. It was at this summit “Agenda for the 21st Century”, or it’s more common name of Agenda 21, was first introduced to the world. It's targeted implementation has become a foundation of progressive's plans for internal education, promotion of change, and financing of all many programs during the past 30 years. Agenda 21 remains a foundation for the UN’s 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). More recently, the New Urban Agenda was adopted at the UN’s Habitat III Conference as a continued development of Agenda 21. These collective programs are evolving and changing - they are not stopping.
Synonyms for sustainable development include “green economy” and “natural capitalism”. Each of these descriptions outline a new economic system with strong similarities aligned to the original structure of technocracy. In short, it’s a resource-based economic system using energy as its means of accounting. As a reoccurring theme the point of emphasis repeated throughout the agenda is “sustainable,” as it applies to both consumption and production. Those changes will require transitions of cities and urban areas into ‘smart cities’ as the world’s nations are transformed into one borderless state with rural dwellers being forcibly moved into urban city centers. Have you seen the “ghost cities” of China? Fully constructed modern cities have been prepared and now wait to house millions of people from countryside's throughout China. The ultimate goal of this program is the replacement of capitalism and free enterprise as an economic system. Those with vested interest in how much water people drink will be the same people interested in controlling how much water other people drink.
In 2015, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, was noticeably clear in stating, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
It’s essentially the creation of a scientific global dictatorship.
This new resource-based economic system would require 100% of all means of production and consumption to be placed into the hands of technocrats for planning decisions related to manufacturers and consumers. The first writings of technocrats spoke of the same needs back in 1938:
“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…”
This intended global technocracy will be ultimately operated by technocrats, not elected politicians or representatives of the people. The structure of the global community would then be applied to narrow view of science through a technocratic lens. With that being understood, what’s the need for elected officials?
In January 2017, leading globalist scholar Dr. Parag Khanna published, Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info-State. Khanna's message was a clear declaration to emphasize America’s need for a ‘direct technocracy’ to replace capitalism. Among other topics within the book, Khanna calls for the abandonment of the United States Senate, the Supreme Court and a direct modification of the Constitution to reflect greater technocracy. These steps are essential as Khanna, and most technocrats, believe in a borderless world. That vision includes a global community of smart cities and mega-regions being connected to create a city-state. It gives a different perspective to the long term goals of political fights to secure the national borders of western countries.
In April 2018, Brittany Kaiser a former senior director of Cambridge Analytica was summoned to give evidence to a British committee investigating Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. She confirmed Cambridge Analytica had indeed used Facebook data to influence elections around the world, admitting that the true scope of the abuse was likely to be “much greater” than the number of 87 million accounts that had been suggested by other whistleblowers, declaring:
"Now I’m blowing the whistle on the whole industry. The problem starts with the Silicon Valley tech platforms, which track our every movement and make us easy to target." - Brittany Kaiser
Why should we fear environmentalism or a perceived economic efficiency? A major concern is environmentalism, when viewed through the eyes of supporters, does not allow for opposing views or opinions. Environmental extremism targets western democracies while ignoring greater human threats in the form of socialist or dictator driven nations. As for economic efficiency, a cashless society is used to track every movement of its population. This is accomplished by public and private partnerships of the banking and big tech industries. In each of those potential scenarios questions are foundations to the scientific method for validating theories. And ironically, the questioning of those philosophies is off limits.
What about when things go wrong? Technocracy-as-science has been planned for times of stability, when the real world is a relatively calm environment with minimal variables. In reality, our world encounters a common stream of emergencies that disrupt those calm environments which are necessary for a technocratic setting. In those cases, you will find actions taken quickly before evidence is available for a consensus decision.
The modern standard for technocracy is China. In China, micromanagement of the economy may begin with every person having a personal grading or point system to evaluate their character in the eyes of government. That point tracking system punishes and rewards everything from travel plans, entertainment options, employment, housing and/or healthcare. It doesn't matter if you have the money or resources for those activities - you are restricted. In a nutshell, what’s being restricted is individual choice and personal freedoms.
Perhaps the next news cycle could use a moment of pause before we collectively begin cheerleading people like Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg?