As Technocrats transform every segment and function of society, work will be transformed through 5G by tethering devices, AI, robotics and what’s left of actual human connections. If this isn’t the future you want, now is the time to decide how to survive it. — Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood
The future of how we work will, in a few years, include smart glasses that transport workers into augmented or virtual reality environments, communicating with your co-workers via a hologram from anywhere in the world or relying on robots powered by artificial intelligence to help run manufacturing operations.
That’s the direction technology is headed, says Cristiano Amon, president and CEO of wireless chip firm Qualcomm. Amon, who started at Qualcomm 27 years ago as an engineer, rose through the ranks to take the top job at the San Diego-based company on June 30. Since becoming CEO, he has been working to diversify Qualcomm’s business from focusing primarily on chips for mobile phones to those used in self-driving cars, A.I.-enabled manufacturing machines and more powerful and battery-efficient laptops. He says Qualcomm’s biggest challenge now is the semiconductor industry not having enough supply to meet demand and hiring talented workers.
“Everything is becoming intelligent,” Amon said in a recent interview with The Washington Post. “We’ve been focused on providing all of the chips that go into all of those smart devices, whether it is a robot in manufacturing, whether it is a drone for agriculture, whether it’s a point of sale when in retail.”
The majority of Qualcomm’s growth is still being driven by chips for mobile phones. In the first quarter, the company reported net income of $3.4 billion on revenue of $10.71 billion, 56 percent of which came from the mobile chip business. But Amon highlighted the growth of other chip sets for connected devices, which increased nearly the same percentage as mobile chips.
Given that Qualcomm chips power many of the devices we use, we sat down with Amon to discuss how he sees technology transforming the way we will work in the future. The following interview has been edited for clarity.
Q: You announced last year that Qualcomm would implement a ‘flexible’ workplace. What does that look like now?
A: We are going to get everyone back to the office in about a couple of weeks, but different geographies may have already started. Employees wanted to keep the best of work from home, but also at the same time maintain the key elements of our culture like collaboration. People can work from home around three days in a week. Two days in a week, people are going to go into the office and every organization is going to pick one day of those two that everybody’s going to get back together at the same time.
Q: What does the future of work look like over time?
A: We think the next-generation PC for work from anywhere is going to be different and connected with 5G. We’re making improvements for augmented reality and virtual reality, as we think about a metaverse, to connect people in the office to people who are not in the office.
Q: What is the biggest technological barrier right now to making hybrid work more efficient?
A: High-performance connectivity is a very big one, especially because what we learned is work from anywhere requires high-quality video. We as a society just finally embraced video telephony as the killer application. We also need high-performance connectivity so you cannot only access information but collaborate with others. Having long battery life so you can actually do that from the cloud will also be important.
Tech at work
Q: What can tech companies like Qualcomm do to make the hybrid work transition easier for workers?
A: We have the ability to build on what we learned during the pandemic. The importance of video collaboration, for example, why not make that a hologram? More important is how can we build technology that allows people to remain productive wherever they are, not only having access to devices and in the cloud but having the ability to do that at a very high speed.
Q: How will developments in 5G change the way workers in different industries do their jobs in the future?
A: The role of 5G is very broad. 5G is the easiest way to have all your data in the cloud so everybody can access it remotely and protect all that data. 5G is changing manufacturing as you connect 5G to robots. They are now driven via the cloud, the data goes to the cloud, and you apply artificial intelligence to improve the data. 5G is changing retail, building indoor navigation systems. At many retail stores you can make an order online and somebody will handpick your product. How they navigate the store and locate everything [through in-store navigation systems requires 5G connectivity].
Q: For office workers, how will 5G change the devices needed for the future of work?
A: It’s already changing. At Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, we announced together with Lenovo the very first ThinkPad laptop for the future of work. It is 5G-connected, and it is a laptop for the enterprise [workforce] with 28 hours of battery life. So that’s how we see the industry already adapting and building devices that are going to be needed for this work-from-anywhere environment.
It is said that this new, emerging international order will be founded upon a global multipolar system of sovereign states and international law. This new system allegedly stands in opposition to the fading, western “rules-based” model.
This time, rather than relying upon western imperialism, the new international law-based system will emphasise multipolar cooperation, trade and respect for national sovereignty. It will instead be led by a Eurasian economic and technological power-block.
The apparent, ongoing antagonism of geopolitics looks likely to maintain the East-West divide we are familiar with. However, what is now being framed as the multipolar order is, in reality, the multistakeholder order.
As we shall discover, nation states are not the driving force behind the current restructuring of global governance. The geopolitical narratives we are given are frequently superficial.
Those leading the transformation have no allegiance to any nation state, only to their own globalist network and collective aspirations. In their hands, international law is no more of an impediment to their ambitions than a vague commitment to “rules.”
National governments are partners within this network formed of both state and non-state actors. Despite professed animosities, they have collaborated for decades to fashion the global governance complex that is now emerging.
No matter who is said to lead it, the IRBO is set to continue in a new form. As the post WWII system recedes, the framework being imposed to take its place is completely alien to the people who live in the former western, liberal democracies.
Thus, we too must be transformed if we are to accept the realignment. We are being conditioned to believe in the promise of the new IRBO and the global technocracy it is built upon.
Rooted firmly in American exceptionalism, Patrick described how the so-called IRBO acted as a mechanism for hegemonic control of global politics, the world’s economy and the international monetary and financial system (IMFS):
“What sets the post-1945 Western order apart is that it was shaped overwhelmingly by a single power, the United States. Operating within the broader context of strategic bipolarity, it constructed, managed, and defended the regimes of the capitalist world economy […] In the trade sphere, the hegemon presses for liberalization and maintains an open market; in the monetary sphere, it supplies a freely convertible international currency, manages exchange rates, provides liquidity, and serves as a lender of last resort; and in the financial sphere, it serves as a source of international investment and development.”
While international law is a component of the IRBO, it is not in and of itself law. Professor Malcolm Chalmers, writing for the UK Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), described the IRBO as a combination of universal security and economic systems combined with international agreement and conflict resolution processes.
The current IRBO is supposedly a western system of international norms and institutions. Based upon both the post WWI and WWII settlements, what is suggested as order is little more than a realisation of “might is right” on the international stage.
Actions Not Words
In the West, we have been educated to have faith in the IRBO. It is sold to us as an arrangement that establishes normative behaviour for nation states. A basis for international relations is supposedly agreed upon and acceptable behaviour ordained.
Far from being a set of rules to facilitate peaceful coexistence between nation states, the IRBO has always been a tool for manipulation. The question is who wields it?
The recent joint statement between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China appeared to explicitly redefine the current IRBO. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping agreement read, in part:
“Today, the world is going through momentous changes, and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation. It sees the development of such processes and phenomena as multipolarity, economic globalization, the advent of information society, cultural diversity, transformation of the global governance architecture and world order. [. . .] a trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world. [. . .] the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role.”
By contrast, the speech delivered by UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss to the Lowy Institute, a Rothschild backed Australian policy think-tank with a focus upon the Asia-Pacific region, illustrated the western position. She said:
“Russia and China are working together more and more, as they strive to set the standards in technologies like artificial intelligence, assert their dominance over the Western Pacific. [. . .] They’re destabilising the international rules-based order and they’re chipping away at the values that underpin it. [. . .] We believe in freedom and democracy. [. . .] As Prime Minister Scott Morrison said, ‘we know from the evidence of human history that democracies are the engine room of change.’ [. . .] Technology has empowered people by enabling incredible freedom, but we know it can be seized upon by others to promote fear. [. . .] By joining forces with the US we are showing our determination to protect security and stability across the region.”
Taken on face value, we would inevitably conclude that, while the axis is in flux, the adversarial stand-off continues. To a great extent, this is a fabrication.
In discussing the IRBO, we immediately run into a nomenclature problem. Sometimes referred to as the “rules-based international order;” at other times the “international order” or “rules-based system;” or occasionally the “rules-based international system,” now we seemingly need to add “international law-based world order.”
While there is no settled definition for this alleged system of global governance, it all amounts to the same thing. The fulcrum may have moved, but the ruse remains intact.
This definition problem illustrates the primary flaw with any notion of a global rules-based order. It is ill-defined and transient. It relies more upon the realpolitik of the day than any genuine moral, legal or political precepts.
While Truss accurately outlined how that so-called order can be seized and exploited, she misled her audience in regards to who the abusers are. Nor is the existing IRBO founded upon democracy and freedom. Her claims were a deceit.
Recently the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that undermining trust in the government was achieved by individuals spreading “false” narratives and that this was tantamount to terrorism. In other words, no US citizen has any right to question government policy. If they do, they are spreading disinformation. Consequently, the DHS suggests that not trusting the government should be prosecuted as a crime.
This is the claimed justification for the focus of the new domestic terrorism unit working alongside the US Justice Department’s National Security Division. Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen told a Senate Judiciary Committee that the unit was created to combat the growing threat of “extremism,” which apparently includes “anti-government and anti-authority ideologies.”
To question either “authority” or “government” is an extremist position, according to the US Justice Department and the DHS. There is no room for freedom of speech in the government’s extremist ideology. Without freedom of speech, US democracy is finished.
Similarly, in New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader) admitted her government’s intention to ignore people’s inalienable right to roam unless they submitted to vaccination. So too with the European Commission, whose EU Digital COVID Certificate limits freedom of movement only to citizens who have the right pharmaceutical products injected into them.
These vaccine “certificates” are the gateway to full digital ID for all compliant citizens. Speaking in June 2021, the President of the EU Commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen, said:
“We want to offer to Europeans a new digital identity. An identity that ensures trust and protects users online. [. . .] It will allow everyone to control their identity online, and to interact with governments and businesses, across the EU.”
In other words, the EU citizen’s vaccine status, which will form a key part of digital identity per EU plans, will also be required for them to access goods and services. Without the appropriate authorisation, they will be excluded from society.
The commitment to digital identity, controlling every aspect of our lives, is inherent to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 16.9. The policy trajectory towards digital identity is global, no matter who allegedly leads the IRBO.
None of these policies indicates, as Truss claimed, any underlying belief in “freedom and democracy.” Among the Five Eyes nations and across the EU, all we see is a commitment to authoritarian dictatorship.
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2020 empowers the state to commit any crime it likes and removes all legal liability from its operatives; the Police, Crimes, Sentencing & Courts Bill effectively outlaws all public protest and, while currently stalled after the House of Lords rejected the Bill, some minor amendments will almost certainly see it passed into law; the Online Safety Bill, when enacted, will end freedom of speech online and the proposed changes to official secrets, counter-espionage; and counter-terrorism legislation will remove the journalist’s defence of acting in the public interest, effectively ending whistle-blowing and investigative journalism in the UK.
All these tyrannical changes are exemplified by the UK government’s proposed Human Rights Act reforms. Their press release demonstrates how their claim of respecting individual rights, freedoms and democracy is nothing more than propaganda designed to dupe an unsuspecting public.
While they speak of diversity and a historical commitment to freedom, peppering their press release with fluffy sound-bites, their actions belie their intent. They state:
“The government wants to introduce a Bill of Rights in a way that protects people’s fundamental rights whilst safeguarding the broader public interest [. . .] [T]he growth of a ‘rights culture’ [. . .] has displaced due focus on personal responsibility and the public interest. [. . .] Whilst human rights are universal, a Bill of Rights could require the courts to give greater consideration to the behaviour of claimants and the wider public interest when interpreting and balancing qualified rights. [. . .] The shift of law-making power away from Parliament towards the courts, in defining rights and weighing them against the broader public interest, has resulted in a democratic deficit. [. . .] [F]reedom of expression cannot be an absolute right when balanced against the need to protect national security, keep citizens safe and take steps to protect against harm to individuals.”
While the UK state claims “human rights are universal” they clearly aren’t if they are “qualified rights” based upon whatever the government decides to be more important. Individuals pressing their rights in court has hampered the government’s programs. This is considered to be a “democratic deficit.” Therefore, the New Bill of Rights will protect the government’s power and authority over-and-above the freedoms of the people.
The UK Government will define “national security.” Protecting it, as they see fit, will override all individual rights. Freedom to roam, of speech and expression will not be tolerated by the UK state. Instead a commitment to the “public interest,” “safety” and protecting the population from some nebulous notion of “harm,” will replace freedom and democracy.
On both sides of the Atlantic, and in the Five Eyes global south, a new system is emerging which facilitates what Mussolini described as the Fascist State:
“The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State. [. . .] Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. [. . .] The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State — a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values — interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.”
It is the US led alliance of Five Eyes nations and the European Union that claim themselves to be the protectors of the international rules-based order. With their commitment to a new form of global fascism, the idea that the IRBO keeps us safe is questionable. In truth, the current IRBO has never actually promoted either freedom or democracy.
While the western hegemony insists that all follow their rules, they don’t hold themselves to the same. A few recent examples, among many, have witnessed the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), often referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal; NATO renege on assurances, given to the last Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, that it would not expand “one inch eastward”; and the imprisonment of journalists.
This is not to claim that the supposed opponents of the current IRBO, notably Russia, China and Iran, are above reproach themselves. However, it is untenable for the “leading nations” of the existing IRBO to commandeer any moral supremacy.
Politicians like Truss promote the IRBO as the cornerstone of international peace and security, but these are meaningless platitudes. There is nothing inherently peaceful or secure about it.
The Real IRBO
The current IRBO is portrayed as a project of western, formerly liberal, democratic states that has capitalised upon U.S. economic and military dominance. However, despite that being how mainstream media (MSM), academia and think-tanks present it, that is not what the international rules-based order is today.
The IRBO can more accurately be described as a vehicle for a worldwide stakeholder capitalist network to manipulate nation states in pursuit of its own predominantly private, corporate agenda. Indeed, we might argue that is all it has ever been.
A truly global network of corporations, think-tanks, private foundations, intergovernmental organisations, NGOs and governments work in partnership to convert global policy agendas into policy and legislation at the national and local government level. This is the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) and its reach extends to every nation.
We may view the global political map as a patchwork of sovereign nations, existing in a state of anarchy (no one rules them), but the G3P does not. What the global stakeholder capitalist network (G3P) sees is an authoritarian, compartmentalised structure to be manipulated to reach their objective, with that objective being, to create a cohesive system of global governance under their rule.
Our democratic oversight only reaches as far as our national government’s influence as a G3P stakeholder allows. We can appreciate the extent of this democratic accountability if we consider the comments of Dominic Cummings, former chief advisor to UK Prime Minister. In testimony given to a parliamentary committee on May 2021 (go to 14:02:35), Cummings said:
“In March I started getting calls from various people saying these new mRNA vaccines could well smash the conventional wisdom.. People like Bill Gates and that kind of network were saying. Essentially what happened is, there is a network of people, Bill Gates type people, who were saying completely rethink the paradigm of how you do this […] What Bill Gates and people like that were saying to me, and others in number 10, was you need to think of this much more like the classic programs of the past.. the Manhattan Project in WWII, the Apollo program […] But what Bill Gates and people were saying […] was, the actual expected return on this is so high that even if does turn out to be all wasted billions it’s still a good gamble, and that is essentially what we did.”
Cummings was talking about the UK government’s public health policy response to an alleged global pandemic. These were decisions that would impact the health of every man, woman and child in the country.
His comments reveal that the UK government was simply following the orders issued by the network of “Bill Gates type people.” The UK state designed a crucial national policy at behest of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). They were acting under the instruction of a private, tax exempt foundation.
The BMGF are among the leading stakeholders within the G3P. Like the WEF, their partnerships with government and intergovernmental organisations are extensive.
As we now know, the alleged vaccine safety and efficacy claims made by the BMGF, and the politicians who implemented public health policy for them, weren’t even remotely accurate. We also know that this failure is immaterial to the BMGF because the “return on this is so high” it doesn’t matter.
The policy think-tanks lie at the heart of the G3P. They collaborate with other G3P stakeholder partners to devise the policy agendas that governments then enforce upon their populations.
Think-tanks, such as the Royal Institute for Interantional Affairs (RIIA – Chatham House), are invariably formed by representatives from multinational corporations (including central banks), financial institutions, NGO’s, philanthropic foundations, private donors, intergovernmental organisations, academic institutions and governments, etc.
For example, Chatham House members include the United Nations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, The Bank of England, Astrazeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Bloomberg, The Guardian, The City of London, The European Commission & Union, BAE systems, Goldman Sachs, De Beers, BlackRock, China International Capital Corporation, Huawei, Kings College London, the London School of Economics (LSE), Oxfam, the British Army and governments from around the world. The list goes on.
To imagine that these globalist organisations are effectively powerless and exist merely to help governments devise policy is extremely naive. A more accurate summation has been offered by a few academics. Prof. Hartwig Pautz wrote:
“[T]hey seek to influence policymakers and the wider public, and that they try to do so via informal and formal channels and by making use of their well-connected position in often transnational policy networks encompassing political parties, interest groups, corporations, international organizations, civil society organizations, and civil service bureaucracies. [. . .] [P]olicymakers increasingly need curators, arbiters, or filters to help them decide which information, data, and policy expertise to use in their decision-making processes.”
However, we only need look at the comments of people like Dominic Cummings or Hillary Clinton to recognise that even Pautz’ observations fall short. As then US Secretary of State, Clinton said that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) role – as a US foreign policy think-tank – was to tell the US State Department “what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Governments, including those of the US, Russia and China, are G3P stakeholders. In 2017, speaking at a Harvard seminar, the founder and executive chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, said:
“Mrs Merkel, even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they have all been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of this cabinet, or even more than half of this cabinet, are for our… actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum.”
This was no idle boast. Political leaders such as Tony Blair, Jacinda Ardern, Emmanuel Macron, Alexander De Croo (Belgian PM), Sanna Marin (Finnish PM) and many more political heavyweights have been through the YGL programme. This is why, in an address to the Canadian nation in November 2020, in direct reference to the WEF’s so-called Great Reset, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said:
“Building back better means getting support to the most vulnerable while maintaining momentum on the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the SDGs. [. . .] This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.”
Trudeau is one among many WEF Young Global Leaders (YGL), and members of its predecessor program called the Global Leaders of Tomorrow, who have shaped the global policy response to the pseudopandemic. As a YGL graduate, his task was to convince the Canadian public to embrace the G3P’s Great Reset policy agenda.
Despite Schwab’s claims, Russian President Vladimir Putin does not appear to have been among the WEF’s YGL protégés. Yet, speaking in 2019 to President Quesada of Costa Rica, Klaus Schwab repeated his statement about Putin:
“Mrs Merkel, Tony Blair, they were all, even President Putin, they were all Young Global Leaders.”
In 1993, when the Global Leaders of Tomorrow program began, Putin was 41 and the upper age limit for entry into the program was supposedly 38. It seems unlikely that Putin was “officially” a WEF YGL trainee.
Putin was instrumental in encouraging foreign investment into the city and it was during his time in St Petersburg that Putin seemingly developed a close relationship with Klaus Schwab. In his address to the WEF’s 2021 virtual Davos gathering, Putin said:
“Mr. Schwab, dear Klaus, [. . .] I have been to Davos many times, attending the events organized by Mr. Schwab, even back in the 1990s. Klaus just recalled that we met in 1992. Indeed, during my time in St Petersburg, I visited this important forum many times. [. . .] [I]t is difficult to overlook the fundamental changes in the global economy, politics, social life, and technology. The coronavirus pandemic [. . .] spurred and accelerated the structural changes.”
In terms of G3P partnerships, Russia’s is perhaps one of the closest to the WEF. The WEF’s annual Cyber-Polygon global cybersecurity training exercise is orchestrated by Bi.Zone, a subsidiary of Sberbank.
Other CCS partners include leading US foreign Policy think-tank the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), Europol (representing EU governments), INTERPOL, the Organisation of American States (representing the governments of the North and South American subcontinents), and national cyber security centres from Israel, the UK, Korea, Saudi Arabia and Switzerland (home of the BIS).
Of the many corporations involved in Cyber Polygon 2021, Russian companies formed the largest contingent from any single nation. In addition, the WEF partners with the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF.)
The SPIEF International Foundation was formed in St Petersburg in 1998 under the direction of Herman Gref. He was serving as vice governor of the city at the time.
In 1993, Gref was also a close associate of Anotoly Sobchak in St Petersburg where Putin was Sobchak’s senior advisor. Gref is currently the CEO and Chairman of Sberbank.
In 2017, Schwab recognised that the SPIEF and Russia were global leaders on international regulation and stated:
“In the new economic environment and with due regard for the latest technological breakthroughs, we are faced with the need for new cooperation formats. [. . .] I am absolutely positive that Russia, as one of the leaders in responsible global regulation, must play a central role in determining new forms of co-existence in the era of the fourth industrial revolution.”
Russia and the SPIEF are part of the G3P network and are heavily involved in global cybersecurity and, in particular, the regulation of technology. It is clear that, through partners like the CFR, BMGF and the WEF, the Global Public-Private Partnership is pushing a global policy agenda supported by both sides of the East-West divide.
WEF assets, like Trudeau and other compromised officials, are positioned to ensure policy distribution is as frictionless as possible. The Russian and, as we shall see, Chinese governments are equally active stakeholders in the G3P’s global governance efforts.
If we believed the western MSM, this would present a seemingly unfathomable conundrum. While these nation states are G3P partners, we are told that they are also undermining the IRBO. Something doesn’t add up.
All of this seems extremely odd given that western global corporations such as IBM, Deutsche Bank and Santander were engaged in cyber polygon preparedness exercises that were largely run by a Russian state-owned bank. If any of the MSM’s claims are even remotely plausible, the industrial espionage risk alone would appear to have been off the charts.
Governments from across the western world participate in the WEF Cyber Security Centre which was founded, in part, by Sberbank. At the same time, they keep warning their populations about the danger of Russian cyber attacks.
Frankly, these Russian cyber-threat stories are puerile. The western governments and corporations, who appear to follow G3P orders to the letter, are seemingly content to be guided by a Russian state bank’s cybersecurity assessment and recommendations.
A far more credible rationale for these MSM stories and government fearmongering is that they are designed to prepare us, and provide justification, for the digital transformation of the financial sector. In their 2020 cyber threats report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) stated that the pseudopandemic had necessitated this change.
In a barely concealed reference to Russia and China, the CEIP asserted that cyber attacks from nation states were inevitable. They then predicted that the response to this supposedly unavoidable attack would be to fuse the activities of banks, the financial authorities and the national security apparatus of nation states.
Centralising authority, especially over financial systems, is always the solution as far as the G3P are concerned. Primarily because they assume the right to exercise that authority.
On the major issues, governments don’t form policy and policy is instead curated by the G3P think-tanks like the CEIP. We should not labour under the illusion that the think-tanks simply offer suggestions. They have the financial, economic and political power to make decisions on the global stage and they have done so for generations.
No one votes for think-tanks. To this extent, so-called representative democracy is a charade. We, the people, have never had any say on the “big issues.” For those of us who live in western democracies, government grandstanding simply serves to convince us that we are somehow represented in the deliberations. It is essentially a confidence trick.
This is the context within which we can come to understand the International Rules Based Order. While it currently relies upon what appears to be the western hegemony and is transitioning towards a Eurasian led multipolar system, both are just convenient mechanisms through which the G3P wields power and authority.
As noted by many commentators, including the WEF, the IRBO is changing. As it does we all move ever closer to an IRBO based upon the Chinese model of technocracy.
Technocracy: A G3P Love Affair
The G3P think-tanks, perhaps most notably, but not exclusively, the Trilateral Commission, have been pursuing the dream of creating a global Technate for nearly a century. The often heard pseudopandemic mantra of “led by science” exemplifies technocracy.
Technocracy grew out of the efficiency movement during the US progressive era in the early 20th century. It capitalised upon the principles of scientific management suggested by Frederick Winslow Taylor and the economic ideas of social-economist like Thorstein Veblan, who famously coined the term “conspicuous consumption.”
Veblan was among the founding members of a private research initiative in New York funded by John D. Rockefeller called the New School For Social Research. This soon led to the creation of the Technical Alliance.
Howard Scott, the leader of the Technical Alliance, subsequently joined M. King Hubbert at Columbia University. In 1934, they published the Technocracy Inc. Study Course.
This was a blueprint for a North American Technate. It proposed a society led by science, engineering and academia rather than politics. Hubbert wrote:
“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 demands that the activity of every citizen be continually recorded and controlled. It requires constant surveillance of the population.
This enables the Technate’s total energy expenditure to be calculated in real time. The data is then collated and analysed in order for the central committee of technocrats to manage and distribute the Technate’s resources right down to the level of the individual.
Scott and Hubbert planned a new monetary system based upon energy consumption, with goods and services priced according to the energy cost of production. Citizens would be allocated the new currency in the form of “energy certificates.”
In the US of the 1930s, this was a technologically impossible task. Though popular for a decade or so, the people came to realise that the suggested Technate was something of an absurdity.
Despite the seemingly preposterous system proposed by Scott and Hubbert, the Rockefellers in particular could see the potential to use technocracy to enhance their control of society. They continued to bankroll the technocracy movement and associated programs, for many years, regardless of waning public interest.
In 1970, Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski published Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era. At the time, he was a professor of political science at Columbia University, where Scott had met Hubbert in 1932. He had already been an advisor to both the Kennedy and Johnson campaigns and would later become National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter (1977 – 1981).
Through a paper thin veil of caution, Brzezinski wrote enthusiastically about how a global scientific elite could not only use all-pervasive propaganda, economic and political manipulation to determine the direction of society, but could also exploit technology and behavioural science to brainwash and alter populations’ behaviour. Describing the form of this society and the potential for authoritarian control, 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 behaviour and keeping society under close surveillance and control.”
While he didn’t use the word “technocracy,” Brzezinski nonetheless described a Technate. Realising that technology was fast approaching the point where technocracy would be feasible, he described how digital technology would dominate the “technotronic era” to transform society, culture, politics and the global balance of political power.
“[T]he most immediate purpose was to draw together [. . .] the highest-level unofficial group possible to look together at the key common problems. [. . .] .[T]here was a sense that the United States was no longer in such a singular leadership position as it had been in earlier post-World War II years. [. . .] , and that a more shared form of leadership [. . .] would be needed for the international system to navigate successfully the major challenges of the coming years. [. . .] The ‘growing interdependence’ that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s has deepened into ‘globalization.’ [. . .] Doubts about whether and how this primacy will change [. . .] have intensified the need to take into account the dramatic transformation of the international system. [. . ] Our membership has widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, including in 2009 both Chinese and Indian members.”
In 1973, the Trilateralists had already identified that US primacy would be dramatically transformed. This stemmed from Brzezinski’s realisation that global corporations in the technotronic era would surpass nation states in terms not only of their financial and economic power, but also in their ability to innovate and direct the activities of billions of citizens. In Between Two Ages he wrote:
“The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multi-national corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
Fully committed to the process of globalisation, the Trilateralists started to create the new IRBO. Rather than US economic and military power the new world order would be based upon a communitarian commitment to the efficient management of resources and, via that mechanism, social control.
Nation states would give way to a global network formed by the fusion of state and corporation. This network would manage populations and business activity through a new resource-based monetary system and economic central planning.
Individual citizens and businesses would be constantly monitored and their behaviour restricted and ordered. This would afford the G3P the global governance capability they sought.
Brzezinski suggested how this future could be secured. Technocracy would enable the transformation:
“Both the growing capacity for the instant calculation of the most complex interactions and the increasing availability of biochemical means of human control augment the potential scope of consciously chosen direction. [. . .] In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens [. . .] and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason. [. . .] Though the objective of shaping a community of the developed nations is less ambitious than the goal of world government, it is more attainable. [. . .] In China the Sino Soviet conflict has already accelerated the inescapable Sinification of Chinese communism. [. . .] This may both dilute the regime’s ideological tenacity and lead to more eclectic experimentation in shaping the Chinese road to modernity.”
The modernisation of China was seen as an opportunity to develop an advanced technocratic society which, while developing both economically and technologically, would remain a dictatorship. This presented the G3P with a perfect test bed for the construction of a Technate.
Technocracy provides centralised authority over a managed capitalist system. It allows business to prosper so long as it adheres to the diktats of the technocrats.
The new IRBO will not be based upon the primacy of nation states or their imposition of any agreed values or norms. Rather, it will be founded upon the multistakeholder system, where nominally pragmatic solutions to a declared crisis form the moral imperative. Multistakeholding means a fusion between state and corporation.
“After the Second World War, leaders worked together to develop new institutional structures and governance frameworks. [. . .] The world has changed dramatically since then. [. . .] [T]he context for governance and cooperation is changing due to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. [. . .] We have entered a distinctly new era in which many of the assumptions of prior periods no longer hold. [. . .] As emerging technologies transform our systems of health, transportation, communication, production, distribution and energy, to name just a few, we will need to construct a new synergy between public policy and institutions on the one hand, and corporate behaviour and norms on the other. [. . .] As the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation, the Forum plans to use its platform to advance such thinking and collective action through multistakeholder dialogue. This bottom-up or inductive approach involving national governmental as well as non-state and subnational actors can help accelerate the pace of governance innovations needed in the 21st century as well as enhance the legitimacy and degree of public trust in it.”
Trust is a product of faith and we are being directed to believe in the new resilient and sustainable IRBO — one based, not upon the dominance of nation states who claim moral authority, but upon a globalist multistakeholder alliance between national governments and private interests who will keep us “safe.”
The WEF stresses the need for the people to have faith in the G3P’s globalist project. One of the key themes of the 2021 Davos meeting was rebuilding trust and for 2022 restoring trust. Referring to the alleged global trust crisis, Klaus Schwab said:
“[W]e see a degradation of trust in the world, and trust only builds through personal relations. [. . .] [W]e need a slogan. The slogan is ‘Working Together, Restoring Trust.’”
Trust is key because decisions that impact us at the local level will be taken at the global level by a policy making body that is predominantly a project of unelected private corporations. We must put aside any notion of democratic accountability or oversight and accept that the G3P knows best.
This multistakeholder, globalist structure will use technocracy to conduct its policies. We will be afforded the illusion of democracy in the form of civil society. However, via technocracy, we will be robbed of all agency and political means.
“China is a power with an enormous potential in human and other resources, and its leaders have set out on a course of rational modernisation intended to turn it into a leading world power […] China has never acquired a sphere of influence corresponding to its strength […] The West should not be content to defend its fundamental values […] It should set itself the objective to influence the natural processes of change […] in a direction that is favorable rather than unfavorable to those values. […] There seems to exist sufficient ways for aiding China in acceptable forms with advanced civilian technology […] To grant China favourable conditions in economic relations is definitely in the political interest of the West.”
A thriving export market in China and widening the Sino-Soviet split was in the political and economic interests of western nation states. However, constructing a new superpower to rival the Soviet Union also meant building one capable of challenging the existing IRBO.
As a G3P think-tank, the Trilateral Commission are among those that maintain they are little more than talking shops for the most powerful individuals on Earth. As with all think-tanks, they portray themselves as fundamentally reactive rather than proactive. They claim that they offer suggested policy agendas, but that they have no authority to enforce adoption of those policies.
Yet, these recommended policy agendas often unfold precisely as “suggested” by the think-tanks. Multinational corporations (MNCs) the world over seemingly responded to the Trilateralists’ agenda by engaging in a concerted effort to “influence the natural process of change” in China and to empower it to acquire “a sphere of influence corresponding to its strength.”
The economic, industrial and technological revolution in China has been remarkable, but it didn’t happen by chance. China now stands as the world’s first Technate and the western, liberal democracies are earmarked for the same transformation.
Chinese state media reported that, between 1983 – 1991, foreign direct investment in China increased from $920M to 4.37Bn. By 2019, it had eclipsed $2.1Tn. In 1994, in terms of US overseas investment, China ranked 30th. By 2000, it was 11th, as MNCs quadrupled their FDI into China between 1994 and 2001.
The pseudopandemic saw an initial 42% slow-down in global FDI. Yet, investment in to China actually increased by 4%, as it overtook the US to become the world’s leading recipient of foreign direct investment. Given the huge slump during 2020, inevitably global FDI bounced back in 2021. FDI, excluding financial services, reportedly rose by an additional 20% (in dollar terms) to achieve an annual record high of $178.48Bn in China.
In 1979, the US granted China full diplomatic recognition; in 1982, the commitment was reaffirmed in the third joint communiqué; in 1984, Beijing was permitted to purchase US military hardware; in 1994, the Clinton Whitehouse intervened to scrap the cold war embargo on the export of “sensitive technology” to China (and Russia); the 2000 US – China Relations Act was signed by President Clinton (a member of the Trilateralist Commission), establishing further improvements to trade relations; and, in 2005, then Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick, called on China to take its place as a “responsible stakeholder.” Then, in 2008, China became the world’s leading US creditor.
This is not to suggest that the relationship between the western hegemony and the rising superpower were all plain sailing. For example, news of NATO’s “accidental” 1999 bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade wasn’t received well in China. There were also marked periods of apparent political enmity between the US, its western allies and China.
Yet, a cursory look at the western mainstream media (MSM), and the persistent rhetoric of politicians like the UK Foreign Secretary, suggest we should be fearful and that China is a threat to the western order. How do we reconcile these allegations while, at the same time, the western order has been investing and transferring technology to bring about China’s transformation?
Despite the surface hyperbole, occasional vitriolic exchanges and alleged military accidents, the policy trajectory, in the political, economic and even military sphere, was consistent. Just as the Trilateralist Commission “advised,” the western hegemonic order tilted towards enabling the rise of China as both a technocracy and a superpower.
George Soros – Photo: Guliver/Getty Images
George Soros is a convicted insider trader, hedge fund manager, currency speculator and investor. His tax exempt Open Society Foundation has funded political campaigns, activist movements and coups around the world for decades. Though he is ageing today, he was formerly a member of the Trilateral Commission.
As such, Soros was among the global political, financial and corporate “thought leaders” who encouraged the modernisation of China. In a 2009 interview with the Financial Times, he said:
“You really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order; a financial world order […] I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in. They have to own it the same way as, let’s say, the United States owns the Washington consensus […] A decline in the value of the dollar is necessary in order compensate for the fact that the US economy will remain rather weak […] China will be the engine driving it forward and the US will be actually a drag that’s being pulled along through a gradual decline in the value of the dollar.”
Years later, the 2016 – 2020 US Trump administration took what appeared to be an aggressive stance against China. Of particular alleged concern was the US bilateral trade deficit of up to $500Bn annually. A trade war ensued and tariffs were exchanged.
“America has a huge annual trade deficit with China [. . .] shockingly, hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Estimates are as high as $500 billion a year. We must immediately address the unfair trade practices that drive this deficit, along with barriers to market success. We really have to look at access, forced technology transfer, and the theft of intellectual property, which just, by and of itself, is costing the United States and its companies at least $300 billion a year.”
The Trump administration complained bitterly about so-called forced technology transfers(FTT) stipulated by China in exchange for access to their market. Speaking of the supposed trade war between the leaders of the current IRBO and China, the CFR think-tank were among those who criticised China’s apparent protectionism and suggested theft of intellectual property.
These allegations and the declared trade hostility appeared to be little more than a diversion designed for western public consumption. In truth, both public and private deals with China were consistently built upon FTT agreements.
In 2018, the Trump administration started to impose up to 25% tariffs on imports from China. The Chinese soon reciprocated. As the US’ largest single creditor, recently eclipsed by Japan, the US ran the risk of China dumping trillions of dollars worth of US treasuries – a nuclear option, in economic terms, which would also mean huge losses for China.
While a small reduction in the US trade deficit with China was achieved in 2019, global trade tensions increased the US deficit to the rest of the world. At the start of the pseudopandemic, the overall US trade deficit had not changed. In 2020, it reached record highs. During the FDI slump in 2020, the only investment winners were China and India.
In addition to continuously approving technology transfers, the leading IRBO nations had significantly increased their research and development (R&D) partnerships with China over the same period. Irrespective of Trump’s media circus, a 2019 report by the World Bank, referencing western nations public-private R&D investments in China, noted:
“Governments in other high-income countries have supported specific technologies and industries, particularly by targeting research and development (R&D). In the United States, government agencies such as the Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Institutes of Health provided critical financing for key technologies. [. . .] These policies are complemented by support for key enabling technologies and industries—such as the space, defense, automotive, and steel industries—including through various funds, such as the European Structural and Investment Funds (five funds worth more than €450 billion) and Horizon 2020 (€77 billion for 2014–20).”
The Chinese government openly stated its intention for China to become a manufacturing superpower. Degrading US influence and bolstering China’s had been hardwired into western foreign economic & industrial policy and MNC investment strategies for more than a generation. It is difficult to see how any current IRBO nation, or western corporation, has been “forced” to share technology or intellectual property rights against its will.
Although the western MSM and politicians persistently alleged that China was acting against the IRBO, quite clearly that wasn’t true. Western states, and their corporate partners, were fully engaged in a process of modernising China and transforming the international order.
In response to China’s 2015 announcement of the “Made In China 2025” strategy, Klaus Schwab said that China would become “the leader in the fourth industrial revolution.” This is just as Soros and his fellow Trilateralists planned.
The WEF, not national governments, has been the leading proponent for the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). With China clearly set as the “engine” driving the global technological transformation, and Russia leading on regulation, it is apparent that, despite the sabre-rattling of politicians, western governments and corporations have been willing accomplices.
“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.”
Rather like feudalism, resource distribution is controlled by a centralised authority, who mete out access to resources dependent upon the citizen’s behaviour. This is the preferred “social credit” method of population control in China. An increasing number of China’s citizens need a good social credit score in order to access resources and society.
The whole system is administered by central planners within a subordinate policy body to the State Council called the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). They oversee a data mining, collection and analysis operation on an immense scale.
China’s National People’s Congress Photo: Xinhua
Without any democratic oversight, technocracy in China stipulates that the people trust the edicts of the technocrats. They are required to believe, or at least publicly state, that decisions are taken in the interest of the general good. If they don’t comply the Technate can use its surveillance systems to identify offenders and punish them for their selfish behaviour.
In its 2014 document Planning A Social Credit System, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) spoke of their intention to “construct a social credit environment of honesty, self-discipline, trustworthiness, and mutual trust.” They announced:
“Our country is currently in a key period of economic and social transformation. Stakeholder entities are more diversified [. . .] the forms of social organization and management are undergoing deep changes. Comprehensively advancing the establishment of a social credit system is an effective method of strengthening societal creditworthiness, promoting mutual trust in society, and reducing social contradictions, and it is an urgent requirement for strengthening and innovating in social governance. [. . .] The establishment of a social credit system is an important foundation for comprehensively implementing the scientific viewpoint of development. [. . .] Accelerating and advancing the establishment of the social credit system is an important precondition for promoting the optimized allocation of resources.”
This is the epitome of technocracy. It is a monoculture where all are subservient to the technocratic state.
There are two arms to the social credit system in China. Both individual citizens and corporations are given a rating based upon the aggregation and analysis of the data collected from their lives and business practices.
Approximately 80% of China’s provinces have rolled out some form of the social credit system. While still in development, individual surveillance and control systems are most pervasive in the cities. People can either be placed on a “blacklist,” limiting their freedoms, or a “redlist” permitting them to engage in society in a manner deemed appropriate by the Technate. Punishments include denial of access to public transport, refused payments, public shaming or restricted employment opportunities.
Nationally, the focus has been on constructing the Corporate Social Credit System (CSCS). Millions of businesses in China are required to demonstrate their commitment to the general good, as defined by the Technate. As long as they do, they will be allowed to prosper. If they don’t obey, they won’t.
For numerous reasons, explored by Prof. Liu Yongmou in the Benefits of Technocracy in China, the Chinese political system lent itself well to the creation of the world’s first Technate:
“In China today, there exists a more favourable attitude toward technocracy than is found elsewhere. [. . .] Insofar as it is scientism applied to politics, the Chinese tend to have a positive attitude toward technocracy. [. . .] Technocracy also fits with the Chinese tradition of elite politics and the ideal, to reference a Confucian phrase, of ‘exalting the virtuous and the capable.’ [. . .] knowledge was more important than the representation of the interests of those being governed. [. . .] Against the background of the Chinese heritage of a long feudal culture, technocracy is a better way to confront social problems than authoritarian politics divorced from technical expertise.”
The WEF, the Trilateral Commission and other G3P think-tanks have encouraged the development needed for the PRC State Council’s NDRC to construct the burgeoning Technate. Foreign investment and an infusion of technology, from the current leading nations of the existing IRBO, has brought China to a position where it will provide the economic, political and cultural impetus for a new world order.
Technocracy, as piloted in China, is now being rolled out globally. Individual sovereignty and freedoms, the claimed moral basis for the current IRBO, are being replaced by a commitment to efficiency and resource management in the interests of the “general good.” In the West, we know this as “sustainable development.”
Such a system is perfect for those who want to wield supreme autocratic power, which is precisely why the G3P have long wished to install technocracy globally. It is the reason why they have assisted the construction of a Technate in China. The new IRBO will be led by the technocrat and they will serve the Global Public-Private Partnership.
By the looks of it, we are about to face one of the most aggressive vaccine campaigns ever created. According to Reuters,1 the U.S. government is planning to launch an “overwhelming” COVID-19 vaccine campaign come November, provided the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gives one or more vaccine candidates the green light.
Considering former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb2 is now on Pfizer’s board of directors,3 and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is one of the lead candidates, jaded minds might assume the FDA isn’t going to put up any significant roadblocks.
According to Reuters, the COVID-19 vaccine campaign “will likely be compressed into a short period of time, around four to six weeks, to eliminate any lag between when Americans are alerted to the vaccine and then they can get vaccinated.” An unnamed “senior White House administration official” is quoted saying:4
“The fine line we are walking is getting the American people very excited about vaccines and missing expectations versus having a bunch of vaccines in the warehouse and not as many people want to get it. You may not hear a lot about promoting vaccines over the airwaves in August and September but you’ll be overwhelmed by it come November.”
It’s still unclear exactly when a vaccine will be available, but it could be as early as October, or as late as January 2021. According to the administration official, the advertising campaign for the vaccine will be tailored to specific subsets of the population, depending on the people the vaccine is likely to benefit the most. Such details are expected to be teased out during ongoing clinical trials.
Study Underway to Identify Most Effective Messaging
The idea that the vaccine promotion might be more “overwhelming” than what we’re used to is further supported by a clinical study5 on ClinicalTrials.gov, the aim of which is to identify the most “persuasive messages for COVID-19 vaccine uptake.”
The study, conducted by Yale University, will test “different messages about vaccinating against COVID-19 once the vaccine becomes available.”
A total of 4,000 participants will be randomized to receive one of 12 different messages (10 messaging variations, one control message and one baseline message), after which they will “compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at three and six months of it becoming available.” The messaging slants under investigation include:6
Personal freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s personal freedom, and how society, by working together to get enough people vaccinated, can preserve its personal freedom.
Economic freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s economic freedom, and how society, by working together to get enough people vaccinated, can preserve its economic freedom.
Self-interest message — A message that COVID-19 presents a real danger to one’s health, even if one is young and healthy, and how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick.
Community interest message — A message about the dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones: The more people who get vaccinated against COVID-19, the lower the risk that one’s loved ones will get sick. Society must work together and all get vaccinated.
Economic benefit message — A message about how COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy is to work together to get enough people vaccinated.
Guilt message — A message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. Therefore, the best way to protect them is not only by getting vaccinated, but to get society to work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then a test question asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and then spread the disease.
Embarrassment message — A message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community: The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
Anger message — The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. It then asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
Trust in science message — A message about how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one’s community, that vaccination is backed by science: If one doesn’t get vaccinated that means that one doesn’t understand how infections are spread or you are one who ignores science.
Not brave message — A message which describes how firefighters, doctors and front line medical workers are brave: Those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.
While the study was completed July 8, 2020, results have yet to be publicly posted. Clearly, this is not the first time researchers have investigated the most effective propaganda angles, but the types of messages listed above really demonstrate just how insidious these types of campaigns can be.
It’s really all about manipulation — pushing the right mental and emotional hot-buttons to fire up a desired response, all while overriding more logical thought processes.
The propaganda push has already started, it seems, with USA Today publishing an article7 titled “Defeat COVID-19 by Requiring Vaccination for All. It’s Not Un-American, It’s Patriotic.” This is precisely the kind of PR we can expect more of in the months to come.
The manipulation aspect is equally if not more evident in the listed secondary outcome measures, which include:
Participants’ confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine
Participants’ willingness to persuade others to get vaccinated
Their fear of those who have not been vaccinated
The social judgment of those who choose not to vaccinate
Effective Totalitarianism Relies on You Enjoying Servitude
A quote from Aldous Huxley’s dystopian 1932 book, “Brave New World,” reads:
“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”
Huxley’s quote starts off a thought-provoking article8 on The Burning Platform that reviews the rise of totalitarianism and parallels presented in popular works of fiction. The author notes Huxley’s book came on the heels of Edward Bernays’ 1928 book, “Propaganda” — a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the historical foundations of modern public relations. The article points out that, in his book, Bernays:9
“… revealed the existence of an invisible government who used propaganda to manipulate the minds of the public to insure those controlling the levers of power were able to engineer their desired outcomes.”
A contemporary to Huxley and Bernays was George Orwell, who wrote the cult classic “1984.” In 1949, Huxley reportedly wrote to Orwell, stating he believed the world’s rulers would soon “discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient as instruments of government than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.”10
At its heart, technocracy is an economic system, not a political one. The system also hinges on the skillful implementation of social engineering.
Huxley believed the nightmarish existence presented in “1984” was “destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in ‘Brave New World’” and that this transition would be the result of “a felt need for increased efficiency.” While Huxley did not use the word “technocracy,” that’s essentially what he was talking about.
Technocracy is an economic and social engineering system that got started in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems.
The Trilateral Commission’s co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Columbia University professor, brought the concept of technocracy into the Commission in 1973, with the financial support of David Rockefeller. Technocrats have silently and relentlessly pushed forward ever since, and their agenda is now becoming increasingly visible.
At its heart, technocracy is an economic system, not a political one. It actually calls for, indeed demands, the total dismantling of the political system, which includes the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is the only thing that has kept technocracy at bay this long in the U.S.
The system also hinges on the skillful implementation of social engineering. Once fully implemented, people won’t have the ability to effectively fight it, but until then, through peaceful civil disobedience, the sharing of information and the exercise of political power, we still have a chance to prevent it.
Time is running short, however. As noted by The Burning Platform,11 “Since 9/11, the United States has unequivocally moved in the direction of Orwell’s 1984 vision,” and “We are now experiencing a dystopian amalgamation of the worst of both novels,” referring to “1984” and “Brave New World.”
Unfortunately, many still cannot see the full picture, nor understand the ultimate real-world danger of unquestioning compliance with ever-more illogical and freedom-quenching recommendations and mandates.
Technocracy Demands the Abolishment of Political Systems
Under technocratic rule, nations are to be led by unelected leaders who decide which resources companies can use to make certain products, and which products consumers are ultimately allowed to buy. Technocracy is essentially a resource-based economic system in which energy and social engineering run the economy rather than pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand.
Patrick Wood — an economist, financial analyst and American constitutionalist — has devoted a lifetime to uncovering the mystery of what is controlling most of the craziness we’re currently seeing, and which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. I go into more details on technocracy in my interview with Patrick Wood.
Importantly, science is a primary tool used to manipulate society and keep the economic engine running under the technocratic system. As explained by Wood, technocracy uses science to issue suggestions, to start. But those suggestions rapidly turn into mandates, which is precisely what we’ve been seeing during this pandemic. We’ve also seen this with vaccines in general.
But the COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed there’s a much larger plan that includes implantable digital identifications, medical records and vaccine passports, digital currency and banking — all of which will ultimately be tied together so that algorithms and automation will be able to keep everyone in line, everywhere, all the time.
Rule by Algorithm
An important tool used to drive the technocratic agenda forward is what Huxley pointed out, namely efficiency. In the name of efficiency and convenience, we are being inundated with an ever-increasing amount of “smart” technology that tracks everything everyone says and does, and artificial intelligence that sorts, interprets and spits out recommendations based on all that data.
This technological infrastructure is crucial for the technocracy, as the ultimate goal is to essentially automate slavery. The idea is that society will be ruled by automated algorithms, thus rendering a political structure irrelevant. Everyone will be automatically kept in line by technology.
For example, you might be told via text message that it’s time to get your annual vaccination. You go there, get the shot, and receive a digital vaccine certificate. Should you get the bright idea to refuse, your bank accounts get automatically frozen, the electronic door pass to your office won’t work, and you won’t be allowed to pass through the electronic check point at the grocery store.
No human authority is required in that system. There won’t be anyone to complain to or debate with. You’re herded into compliance by the fact that you have to do certain things in order to be allowed to participate in society. It sounds crazy, but if you look around, you’ll see clear evidence that this system has been slowly implemented all around us, for decades.
And, when you look at the statements from people like Bill Gates, in conjunction with the technologies he and others are implementing in various parts of the world (such as digital identification, currency, vaccine certificates and medical records, along with implantable chips to track employee attendance, smart appliances and entire smart cities, just to name a few), you can begin to see how the control loop is closing in around us.
In her book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” professor Shoshana Zuboff exposes the stunning capacities currently available to surveil, analyze and manipulate our behavior. It’s crucial to realize that as bad as it is today, the predictive power of technology is advancing at an exponential rate, which means their ability to manipulate behavior is increasing at a pace we cannot fully comprehend.
Regaining Control of Local Government Is Key
Importantly, technocrats are currently making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they’ve simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece. What can we can do to thwart the steady march of technocracy?
As explained by Wood, the most effective way is through local activism. The technocratic system was built from the bottom up, so we cannot tear it down from the top down. They’re already far too powerful for that. So, to begin the dismantling process, we must regain control of our local governments, and work our way up from there.
One of the most important elected local officials that you should concern yourself with is your sheriff. Sheriffs are responsible for enforcing tyrannical edicts from local, state and federal government, and if they choose not to, government has no power. City councils also have a lot of power. They can pass binding resolutions to protect citizens against the technocratic agenda.
1 Person in 40 Is Injured by Vaccines
Getting back to the issue of the COVID-19 vaccine, I urge you to keep a cool head once the PR machine gains speed. Read through the propaganda messages again (above) and familiarize yourself with them so you can identify the buttons they’re trying to push.
Remember, the COVID-19 vaccines currently leading in development have never before been licensed for human use, and there’s no possible way to ascertain what the long-term ramifications might be when you turn your body into a viral protein factory. I’ve discussed the theory behind mRNA vaccines in several previous articles, including “Gates Tries to Justify Side Effects of Fast-Tracked Vaccine.”
Coronavirus vaccine efforts gained speed in early 2002, following three SARS epidemics. However, such efforts have proven highly problematic as coronavirus vaccines have a stubborn tendency to trigger paradoxical immune responses.
In my interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who chairs the board of directors of the Children’s Health Defense,12 he reviewed some of the failed efforts to produce a viable coronavirus vaccine and highlighted the dangers of vaccine exaggeration of the immune response:
“The Chinese, the Americans, the Europeans all got together and said, ‘We need to develop a vaccine against coronavirus.’ Around 2012, they had about 30 vaccines that looked promising. They took the four best of those and … gave those vaccines to ferrets, which are the closest analogy when you’re looking at lung infections in human beings.
The ferrets had an extraordinarily good antibody response, and that is the metric by which FDA licenses vaccines … The ferrets developed very strong antibodies, so they thought, ‘We hit the jackpot.’ All four of these vaccines … worked like a charm.
Then something terrible happened. Those ferrets were then exposed to the wild virus, and they all died. [They developed] inflammation in all their organs, their lungs stopped functioning and they died.”
So please, review ALL the vaccine studies BEFORE you get the COVID vaccine because as far as I have read, this essential part of the study — ensuring that no paradoxical immune enhancement will occur — has not yet been done.
Even with conventionally manufactured vaccines, data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research Quality suggests vaccine damage occurs in 2.6% of all vaccinations. This means 1 in 40 people — not 1 in 1 million, which is what we’ve been repeatedly told — is injured by vaccines. Kennedy Jr. reviewed this data in a recent online vaccine debate13 with attorney and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz.
The U.S. Vaccine Court has also paid out $4 billion to patients permanently damaged or killed by vaccines, and that’s just a small portion of all the cases filed. According to Kennedy, less than 1% of people who are injured ever get to court, due to the high bar set for proving causation.
Will the novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be more dangerous than conventional vaccines, or will they be safer? Considering these vaccines are being fast-tracked and are forgoing all traditional animal testing and long-term evaluation, I suspect they may end up having far more unanticipated complications.
So, as the vaccine campaign rolls out, remember to weigh whatever potential risks and benefits that might apply in your particular situation, and avoid falling for emotional triggers.
Regardless of what you decide, also try to accept the personal decisions of others. The PR campaign will clearly try to manipulate you into fearing those who chose not to vaccinate, and trigger you into condemning them. Hopefully, knowing that you are being manipulated will help ease these tendencies.
“As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity.” -Hunter Thompson