• CU Staff

America's Technocracy Showdown

Updated: 17 hours ago

By Dave McGuire, CU

(CU) - Government managed by experts may sound tempting in times such as today or environments similar to Covid19. In some of these situations the technocracy structure has the potential to work, but those instances are typically for short lived periods of time.

It's impossible to argue that Technocrats have a lot of sway in the current climate. After all, this is the time of Big Tech and choosing to not engage those opportunities creates significant issues as individuals, groups, or nations. At the same time, do we remember 2008? It wasn’t that long ago. A global financial crisis created, and not avoided, by Technocrats crossing nearly every financial industry and impacting all global markets. Take off the rose glasses when the conversation of technocracy enters a coffee break.

Let’s fast forward to 1987 and the first major step forward for Technocracy in the last 50 years. A Trilateral Commission member, Gro Harlem Brundtland, concluded a UN sponsored task force with the publication of a book entitled Our Common Future. That book popularized the term sustainable development for world consumption. Brundtland’s book also provided the framework for Agenda 21 and its related programs.

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. It's continued a drumbeat of internal education, promotion, and financing during the past 30 years.

Even today, Agenda 21 remains largely critical as 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.

Synonyms for Sustainable Development include “Green Economy” and “Natural Capitalism”. Each of these descriptions outline a new economic system with strong similarities with the original structure of Technocracy. In short, it’s a resource-based economic system using energy as a means of accounting. As a reoccurring theme, the key word repeated throughout the agenda is “sustainable,” and it applies to both consumption and production. This will need a transition of cities being converted into ‘Smart Cities’ as the world’s nations are transformed into a borderless state with rural dwellers being forcibly moved into urban city centers. Have you seen the “ghost cities” being built in China? Fully constructed and dense modern cities prepared to house millions of people. They currently sit empty as they are planning moves forward to continue the process of smart cities.

The ultimate goal of this program is the replacement of capitalism and free enterprise as an economic system. There is no middle ground to free market and Technocracy. Those with vested interest in how much water people drink will be the same people interested controlling how much 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 original 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…”

– The Technocrat Magazine, 1938

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 the Technocrat’s narrow view of science. With that being understood, what’s the need for elected officials? In short, we're discussing the creation of a scientific dictatorship.

In January 2017, leading globalist scholar Dr. Parag Khanna published a book, Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info-State, that loudly declared America’s need for a ‘direct Technocracy’. Among other topics, Khanna calls for the abandonment of the Senate and for the Supreme Court and to directly modify the Constitution. These steps are essential as Khanna believes in a borderless world. That vision includes a global community of smart cities and mega-regions being connected to create a city-state.

In April 2018, Brittany Kaiser a former senior director of Cambridge Analytica was summoned to give evidence to a British Government committee investigating Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. She confirmed that 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."

Why should we fear environmentalism or a perceived economic efficiency? Environmentalism, when viewed through the eyes of supporters, is extremely dangerous and does not allow for opposing views or opinions. Those questions are the foundation of the scientific method and its definition. Environmental extremism targets western democracies while ignoring greater 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.

But what about when things go wrong? Technocracy-as-science suits stable times when the real world is a relatively calm environment along the lines of a laboratory. Our world experiences relatively common emergencies that disrupt the norms needed for a laboratory setting. In those cases, actions must be taken quickly often before all the evidence is available for a consensus decision.

China is the world’s standard for technocracy. In China, every person has a personal point system to grade their character in the eyes of the central government. That point system punishes and rewards everything from the ability to travel, 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. Place some research efforts into the pros and cons of the 5G network. There’s certainly a pathway to a technocracy through the newly arriving network.

The greatest attribute of a genuine democracy lies was best described by Hegel, ‘we do not need to be … professionals to acquire knowledge of matters of universal interest’.

Perhaps there should be second thoughts when cheerleading people such as Elon Musk?


Subscribe to Clarksvillian Underground's Newsletter

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram

© 2020 by CU