Technocratic Governance Seen As Ruling In China And Asia

Asia is morphing into Technocracy, with China leading the way. Communism and Socialism are fading away, even as the trappings remain. Facing a potential enemy demands that we know who he is and what he believes. ⁃ TN Editor

Among the unending flood of global news in recent weeks, there was one item that received almost no media comment but which could in the longer run be the most significant of all.

This was the reported remark by U.S. President Donald Trump, while in Hanoi, that if Kim Jong Un would play ball in halting his nuclear program, then America would assist in turning his North Korean “hermit” nation into another Vietnam.

Vietnam? Surely not. There must be some mistake. Was not Vietnam the place where 55,000 American soldiers died almost half a century ago in a vain effort to stop the Vietnam domino falling into the grip of the spreading communist dictatorship? Was it not in the very front line in the world struggle between freedom and tyranny, individual liberty and state tyranny?

But, no, there was no mistake. Trump, with his famous transactional mindset, was looking past and through the slogans of yesterday and discerning utterly changed conditions on the ground. There is plenty to criticize Trump for as he keeps playing the openly populist tune back in Washington. But it could be that in this instance he and his advisors are seeing the real world more clearly than the armies of analysts, party politicians, academics and ideologues who love to fight the battles of long ago.

For, of course, what lies behind the Trump view of things, and maybe the view prevailing through at least the two-thirds of humanity who populate modern, fast-rising Asia, is that the left-right ideological struggle is over and that in the digital age it is technocracy and technology that now reign supreme.

The Vietnamese government calls Vietnam a “Socialist Republic.” In practice it now has strong capitalist characteristics. Is it therefore a free economy or a socialist planned economy? The answer is neither. Is it moving toward the Western model of democracy and market economics? If this means weak and volatile government, widening inequalities, slow growth, lagging infrastructure, rising crime and frequent street protests, the answer is “no” to that, too.

The truth is that the political vocabulary of Western societies and institutions, the political dialectic evolving over the last 200 years or more, cannot explain the patterns of governance now emerging around the world. The words are just not there. A digitally empowered and connected populace is now in a position to demand, insistently and continuously, outcomes that may well contradict each other but just do not fit into the old spectrum of right and left that still shapes much of the Western political colloquy.

Instead, the desired new goal can best be labeled “quality government.” That translates into calls for the highest quality education, much better health care, homes, real gender equality, security, law and order on the streets, jobs for the young, care for the old, a fresh and clean environment, water and reliable energy, a good supply of dignity and identity recognition, and riddance of corruption, which is always the telling and fatal mark of bad governance.

Where systems and regimes can deliver on these fronts, political stability is going to prevail. Where the system is too slow to realize that the people are now in power, protest and the populist virus will inevitably take over.

In the West, certainly in Europe and America, this is already happening. Long stable democracies are grappling with completely unfamiliar new forces and threats. Old political parties, formed around the axis of past debates, are breaking up.

Modern Asia has its quarrels and challenges, but it also has the chance to leapfrog the Western experience and carve out new political paths. The new emerging pattern might be labeled techno-democracy. It requires neither a coercive state too strong and oppressive, nor a state too weak to regulate and administer the rule of law evenly and firmly.

Read full story here…




Busted: Club Of Rome Reveals Gushing Support For Green New Deal

The venerable global elite group, The Club of Rome, has tipped its hand by gushing over the Sunrise Movement and the Green New Deal.

Founded in 1968, the Club of Rome was the original elite group who created crisis-mode global cooling and then global warming. They produced the infamous treatise called “The Limits to Growth” that was positioned as “A Report for The Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind.” Limits to Growth proposed a resource-based economic system in the likeness of Technocracy, and called for economic equilibrium between population and available resources.

When the Trilateral Commission was co-founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski to establish a “New International Economic Order”, Club of Rome members intermingled with the Bilderberg group and members of the Commission.

The totality of the Green New Deal spectacle in America is precisely in line with the global elite’s plan to force Sustainable Development upon the entire world. In the Club’s statement below, they state “We know the facts. We have the solutions. We just need the political will.” The purpose of Green New Deal movement is specifically to develop the “political will” to implement their “solutions”.

The recent tweet that spilled the beans on Club of Rome’s support is pictured below.

The organization sponsoring these youth protests is the Sunrise Movement. Their website states,

We’re building an army of young people to make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people.

We are ordinary young people who are scared about what the climate crisis means for the people and places we love. We are gathering in classrooms, living rooms, and worship halls across the country. Everyone has a role to play. Public opinion is already with us – if we unite by the millions we can turn this into political power and reclaim our democracy.

These students may think that they are “ordinary young people” but they are completely unaware that they are being shamefully manipulated and orchestrated by the global elite to drive the world into Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

In The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, they stated:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together.”

Thus, The Club itself takes credit for coming up with the global warming mantra in order to drive global adoption of Sustainable Development. In other words, global warming was an intentional, premeditated fraud.

The full statement released by the Club or Rome in support of the above Twitter posting is reproduced below:

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF GLOBAL STUDENT CLIMATE PROTESTS
Winterthur, Switzerland, 14th March 2019

People always tell me that they are so hopeful that young people are going to save the world. But they are not. There is simply not enough time to wait for us to grow up and become the ones in charge” Greta Thunberg

This week, hundreds of thousands of students in multiple cities across the globe will once again follow in the brave footsteps of Greta Thunberg by staging climate demonstrations. Their call to world leaders is simple yet true: “it is time for less talk and more action on the climate”.

We deem the students’ concerns to be utterly justified and irrefutable and will continue to play our role in ensuring ambitious climate action. These courageous young leaders point to challenges for the planet and humanity which have long been recognized by the scientists, economists, business leaders and experts within the Club of Rome*.

It has been 50 years since the “The Limits to Growth”, which alerted the world to the acute environmental and demographic challenges ahead. Decades of exponential growth in both population and consumption are now colliding with the limits of the Earth’s biosphere. We concur with the Extinction Rebellion and the student protesters that we cannot turn a blind eye to the dual tipping points of species extinction and climate change. Emergency action is more necessary than ever and cannot be put off any longer. We no longer have the luxury of time!

We know the facts. We have the solutions. We just need the political will. Global action is lagging and is often woefully inadequate, stymied by political meandering. This is why we are calling on governments across the world to listen to the call for urgent action from young people, scientists and experts and translate these calls into concrete Climate Emergency Plans with clear targets and time lines. To avoid the worst outcomes, global carbon emissions must be cut by half by 2030 and to zero by 2050. For the wealthier nations, this increases to around 80% by 2030, with full de-carbonisation less than a decade later. This is an unprecedented task, requiring a reduction rate of at least 7% annually; no country has to date achieved more than 1.5%.

The only possible response is emergency action that will transform human social, economic and financial systems. Yet we also believe that the existential threat from climate change, if heeded now, offers the possibility for a societal renaissance of unprecedented proportions. This is the vision we seek to promote – a vision of the future, which ensures well-being for the many and harmony between humanity and the planetary boundaries that protect us. A vision which speaks to the calls from young people marching on the streets in towns and cities across the world.

Engaged citizens of all ages demanding action by their politicians on climate change is of paramount importance, to hold us all accountable for delivering on our climate goals and ensuring that we seize this opportunity to sustainably transform our economies.

Let us find the vision, the leadership and the creativity to collaborate in developing constructive solutions for a decent future for present and succeeding generations. We have the capabilities: we must now find the will and listen to the enlightened youth who have taken time away from their studies to march on the streets to be heard.




John Nolte

Dear John Nolte: Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Techno-Futurism’ Is Technocracy, NOT Fascism

A recent article on Breitbart by Editor-at-large John Nolte concluded that  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ (D-NY) Green New Deal is Fascism:

In order to grab more and more control over our lives, she’s selling a lie about being able to organize and control human nature through altruistic automation and altruistic taxes and an altruistic government that knows what’s best for you. There is another name for this…

Fascism.

Thank you, John, for not calling it Communism, but it isn’t Fascism either.

It’s Technocracy.

Nolte writes,

Later in her talk, Ocasio-Crazy reveals what she means by this buzz-phrase “infinite resources:”

“Capitalism is based on scarcity and what happens when there is enough for everyone to eat, what happens when there is enough for everyone to be clothed, then you have to make scarcity artificial. And that is what has happened. We have created artificial scarcity and that is why we are being driven to work 80 hours a week when we are being our most productive at any point in American history. We should be working the least amount we’ve ever worked if we were actually paid based on how much wealth we were producing. But we’re not. We’re paid on how little we’re desperate enough to accept, and then the rest is skimmed off and given to a billionaire.”

This is even beyond socialism and capitalism, which are based on the idea the “workers” are in charge.

Ocasio-Crazy wants to sell us the snake oil of a world where workers are no longer necessary, where if we surrender to automation, we won’t have to work. You see, the robots will produce the goods we need, complete the services we need, and the government will support us by taxing the robot-staffed companies producing those goods.

The idea of ‘”infinite resources” comes directly from the original Technocracy economic model dreamed up by Columbia University engineers and scientists in the 1930s. It was crackpot then, just as it is crackpot today.

However, OCM is channeling Sustainable Development directly from the United Nations. It is obvious that her talking points parallel the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) In my books, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, I extensively document how Sustainable Development is also warmed-over Technocracy from the 1930s: Both are resource-based economic systems designed to replace Capitalism and Free Enterprise.

In fact, there has never been an alternative economic system in the world designed from scratch to replace the price-based economic system – except for Technocracy.

You have one observation that is exactly correct, John, and that is “Ocasio-Crazy’s America is one where no one has to do anything; the machines and the government do it all.” That’s Technocracy, pure and simple.

Americans rejected Technocracy in the 1940s, and we can do it again, but not if citizens don’t have a clue as to what it is.

John, I would be happy to send you copies of both of my books on Technocracy and you can judge for yourself what Ocasio-Crazy is up to.

Just fill out the contact form here…




Tim Ball: Technocracy Is A Data-Fed Frankenstein Monster

At its root, Technocracy is based on Scientism and Logical Posivitism that invalidates all knowledge except scientific knowledge. See Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation for a detailed examination of these errors. ⁃ TN Editor

The rise of technocracy is intertwined with data and data collection. These activities are the very heartbeat of our technocratic society. We are now members or rather slaves of the technocrat’s dream, a number. Everything and everyone is quantified, a number registered in a technocrats computer in which they are maneuvered and manipulated, usually without their knowledge. Think about a society in which a family who adopt a child end up knowing more about the child than natural parents. For those of you who think that is important, consider that people raised children of their own and those of others throughout history without that information. Being a parent and raising children has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with humanity and retaining your soul. So much literature is about the struggle people have with that retention. Increase in this type of literature reflects the growing battle and sadly indicates we are losing.

Application of numbers to society began with the introduction of statistics in the early 20th century. I will use climate as a good example of this development but link it across the wider society.

Many scientists deride the involvement of social scientists in climate studies. They claim it is a math and physics number problem, with no need for ill-informed social scientists. Despite that claim, the application of physics and numbers has not improved the accuracy of forecasts.

Ironically, science brought this on themselves when they used science to defeat religion. More narrowly, they used Darwin’s theory of evolution, although Darwin, as an atheist, likely would support the move. By replacing religion, in this case Christianity, they removed God and the reason for people being so remarkably different than all the other species. Academia filled the intellectual vacuum this created with an entirely new faculty called the Social Sciences. It joined the Humanities and the Natural Sciences but became a single focus faculty with detailed studies of people and their behavior. I call it human navel-gazing.

It was already the largest faculty on most campuses by the 1930s but suffered a justified inferiority complex as a shallow and unnecessary development in learning. For example, somebody said about sociology that they were trying to prove scientifically what your grandmother already knew. The title “Social Sciences” and the word “scientifically” underscores their problem. Scientists say it is not a science and Sociologists tried to make it a science by applying statistics. They were so inept they had to create a book of statistical tests titled Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. (SPSS). All you had to do was plug in the data without any knowledge of what was needed or what the results were telling you.

The big difference that really distinguishes the Social Sciences as unscientific is in the ability to predict. Science is easily and completely defined as the ability to predict.  If, your predictions are wrong your science is wrong. In Social Sciences a prediction invalidates itself. For example, if an economist does a study of a community and makes predictions on the findings, the leaders in the community will read it and make adjustments that invalidate the predictions. That cannot happen in science.

In climate, application of statistics began with averages. Climate is the average of the weather in a region or how it changes over time. and explains what it is in a region. That was the first application in society. Suddenly, we saw and heard about averages everywhere. People were identified as above or below average with glory or stigma applied. Bureaucracies and businesses began to group the people for planning purposes. Already, the individual was subsumed as just one component of the average. Consider the information that appeared at the time that there are, on average, 2.6 children per family. I am proud to be the 0.6 child in my family. Emotionally, it is better than being the ‘middle’ child.

The next development came from a need to make predictions for planning and social engineering as modern postwar societies evolved. It was the evolution of simple trend analysis, a pattern that still dominates as the recent assumption that house prices and stock markets would continue to trend upward, proves. What’s interesting is how this mentality persists despite recent evidence of downturns or upturns. The application of trends to climate data began in the 1970s with the prediction of a coming ice age as temperatures declined from 1940. When the temperature turned to warming in the mid-1980s we were told, again simplistically and incorrectly, it would continue unabated. In addition, they now knew human CO2 was the cause and since it would continue to increase because of human additions the upward trend was certain to continue. Like all previous trends it did not last as temperatures trended down starting in 2000. Instead of recognizing that this was a normal statistical trend they chose to change the name from global warming to climate change.

The most recent trend in climate change allowed them to accommodate the third variable of statistics, variation. In recent years, weather has become more variable particularly from month to month and year to year. Authorities exploit this pattern to say, incorrectly, it is evidence of their claim of human-caused global warming. No, it isn’t. It reflects that there is pattern of climate not seen for 60-years.

One of the objectives is to adjust the data so that it masks evidence or confirms or appear to confirm its political position. A good example is the practice of smoothing the graph. You see this practice in almost all graphs and a climate one illustrates the major problem.

The figure shows two measures of atmospheric CO2 for 2000 years between 7 and 9000 years ago. The one on the left is the record from bubbles in the ice. The other is the measure from fossilized tree leaves. They actually measure the size of the holes in the leaf called stomata. These are like your nostrils and their size varies with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even though they are a more precise measure they are made to look better because a 70-year moving average was applied to the ice core data. It removes all the variability and all the important and unique characteristics of the data.

The application of numbers and statistics to everything quickly reached a peak in the early 20th century with a philosophical movement called logical positivism. In simple terms, it implied that everything could and should be quantified and measured. It created a brief intellectual opposition with scientific philosophers like Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. The latter produced a quote that summarized their views.

“There is no more common error than to assume that because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”

Russell’s observation is frighteningly applicable in today’s world.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

And so, we stand on the verge of having capsules with electronic identity numbers injected under our skins as if, out of sight out of mind, it will make us lose sight of the danger to our freedoms. Of course, there are benefits to the identifiers and to the collection of data. However, this is always the major argument to cover the removal of individual power.

Governments expand their voracious need for data and subjugation of the individual constantly. In Canada the fine for not completing the census is $500 and 3 months in jail. In the US the fine is $100 but a form of emotional blackmail was attached.

“Originally, the census was meant to be a way to count everyone so that the members of the House of Representatives could be allocated properly to the states. Every 10 years there would be a count, and states with more people got more members in the House.”

The idea was they needed the information for planning and for the benefit of the people. It was taken a long way from that over the years to the point of almost total control of the people by the technocrats for the benefit of the government. I am not making a comparison about control with any present government, but we must never forget that the ultimate subjugation of people in history was symbolized by a tattooed number on the arm.




Analysis: The Benefits Of Technocracy In China

This is an excellent and scholarly article on Technocracy in China. Note that it was Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, who brought China and its premier, Deng Xiaoping, out of its dark ages in 1978. This is where China’s Technocracy sprung forth. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Since the Reform and Opening initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, any casual observer of China’s leaders might note how many of them were educated as engineers. Indeed, at the highest level, former presidents Jiang Zemin (1993–2003) and Hu Jintao (2003–2013) as well as Xi Jinping (2013–present) all studied engineering, although Xi subsequently did academic work in management and law. And an engineering influence exists not only at the very top. A high proportion of government officials at city, provincial, and national levels have had some form of technical education. For example, of the 20 government ministries that form the State Council, more than half are headed by persons who have engineering degrees or engineering work experience. As a result, foreign analysts have suggested for some time that China functions as a kind of technocracy—a nation run by people who are in power because of their technical expertise—and have often criticized it as such. This assessment reflects a common Western view that technocratic governance is inherently anti-democratic and even dehumanizing.

But what does technocracy mean today, especially in China? Given China’s remarkable emergence in recent decades as a vibrant player on the world economic and political stage, might technocracy in the Chinese context have some positive characteristics?

To understand technocracy in China, one must first have a sense of historical context and above all an understanding of the cultural impact of a series of devastating military humiliations—the Opium Wars of the 1840s and 1860s, in which, in the name of free trade, China was forced to allow the importation of opium and the Summer Palace was sacked; an 1895 war in which Russia captured the Liaodong Peninsula and Japan took Taiwan, the Penghu Islands, and eventually Korea; and the 1899 Boxer Uprising against Christian missionaries, to which Great Britain, France, the United States, Japan, and Russia all responded by looting and raping in Tianjin, Beijing, and elsewhere. In reaction to these defeats, Chinese intellectuals turned the Qing Dynasty thinker Wei Yuan’s injunction “to learn from the West to defeat the West” into a social movement motto. Early Republic of China attempts to learn from the West actually involved the conscious importation of technocratic ideas by the Nanjing government. A number of Chinese who studied in the United States during the 1920s returned home influenced by American technocratic ideals of such figures as Thorsten Veblen and Howard Scott. One example is Luo Longji, who studied at Columbia University from 1922–1923 and returned to China to publish a number of articles arguing for what he called “expert politics,” his term for technocracy. Luo subsequently founded the China Democratic League, which remains one of the eight non-Communist political parties represented in the National People’s Congress.

Initially, however, all attempts to learn from the West had to struggle against internal political disorder (the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911 and a resulting long-term civil war) and renewed invasion by Japan (from 1931 to 1945, through which China endured the brunt of the World War II Pacific Theater). When Mao Zedong and the Communists won the civil war and on October 1, 1949, declared the People’s Republic, political consolidation and technical development vied with each other for priority.

For the next quarter century, until Mao’s death in 1976, the purity of redness often trumped technical engineering competence. The disaster of the Great Leap Forward (1958–1961) was caused by ignoring technological expertise, especially about agriculture, and the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) closed many universities in the name of learning from the peasants. The Reform and Opening that began two years after Mao’s death naturally became an opportunity to rehabilitate expertise, both engineering and economic. In policies influenced by the successful development pathways pursued by technocratic regimes in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, the new paramount leader, Deng, moved engineers into critical government positions. Hu Yaobang, as Party Chairman (1981–1982) and General Secretary of the Communist Party (1982–1987), further proposed that all leading government personnel be trained technical specialists. The technocratic practice of scientific management, which Vladimir Lenin had declared as exploitative under capitalism but beneficial under socialism, offered a bridge between engineering and economics.

The Varieties of Technocracy

Before discussing what technocracy has come to mean in China today, I want to first step back to briefly explore how the term has come to be understood in the Western intellectual tradition. In one of the few empirical studies of technocracy, political scientist Robert Putnam defines technocrats as persons “who exercise power by virtue of their technical knowledge” and describes the “technocratic mentality” in terms of five key characteristics:

  • Confidence that social problems can be solved by scientific or technological means.
  • Skepticism or hostility toward politicians and political institutions.
  • Little sympathy for the openness and equality of democracy.
  • A preference for pragmatic over ideological or moral assessments of policy alternatives.
  • Strong commitment to technological progress in the form of material productivity, without concern for questions of distributive or social justice.

Putnam’s 1977 study further distinguishes between two types of technocrats: those with engineering technical knowledge versus those with economic technical knowledge—noting that the two groups diverge with regard to characteristics three, four, and five. Economic technocrats were more likely than engineering technocrats to grant importance to politics and equality and to be more interested in issues of social justice.

In a recent revisiting of the comparison, Richard Olson’s Scientism and Technocracy in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Scientific Management (2016) suggests that subsequent decades have witnessed something of a reversal. Engineering education has called increasing attention to social contexts that take politics and social justice seriously, while economics has become more quantitative and less concerned with social issues.

Neither author notes, however, the significant roles played in all modern societies by what could be called limited or sectoral technocracies. Technical knowledge is a basis for power that democratic societies willingly grant: for example, by delegating authority to the military, physicians, and civil engineers. At the same time, such societies may bitterly contest technocratic authority with regard to evolutionary biologists, agricultural researchers, and climate scientists.

Such distinctions help make clear what is really at stake in concerns about technocracy. In short, governance by technical experts and governance employing such principles as those of scientific management are not the same. When exercising political power, technical elites such as engineers and economists may also use the authority of their expertise to advance positions or policies that are not simply technical. In doing so they can easily ride roughshod over the interests of those they are supposed to serve, and in the process use their expertise to preserve their own political interests.

In Western developed countries, technocracy has thus been subject to multiple criticisms. Marxists attack technocracy for helping capitalism control workers. Humanists claim technocracy turns humans into machines. Libertarians criticize technocracy as encroaching on individual freedom. Historicists and relativists criticize scientific principles and technological methods for not adapting to human society.

Yet advanced techno-scientific society depends crucially on some level of technocratic governance. City mayors cannot provide safe water systems without asking engineers to design them. Governors cannot promote regional disease prevention and healthcare without medical and public health professionals; they cannot reduce environmental pollution without technical experts to monitor air and water quality. Heads of government would not even know about the ozone hole and global climate change without scientific advisers. The progressive deployment of technocratic elites in the practices of governance, even when under the supervision of non-technocratic elites, is a critical feature of all social orders today.

Maybe the fact that some form of technocracy is one of the basic characteristics of contemporary politics is a reason it is so often criticized. There is certainly some sense in which contemporary politics is characterized by a kind of universal resentment against the unintended consequences of a techno-scientific world that, along with all of its benefits, seems to be depriving us of traditional solaces and stabilities.

Read full story here…




Beware Green Technocrats: Unelected, Unaccountable, Unremitting

This writer pleads that the answer to global warming cannot and must not be Technocracy, but the fact is that Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development and Green New Deal) is the only solution offered by the global elite. ⁃ TN Editor

The UK Committee on Climate Change has nothing but contempt for the public.

Ask people what the UK’s biggest housing problems are, and most will tell you, rightly, that there aren’t enough homes, and that prices and rents are far too high. But UK policymakers are preoccupied by something else and have been for a long time: that our homes contribute to, and are at risk from, global warming.

So it was that a non-departmental public body, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), announced last week that ‘UK homes are not fit for the future’, and that tough new building standards and enforcement will be necessary. Most shocking of all, the CCC said ‘no new homes should be connected to the gas grid’, and that gas central heating and plumbing should therefore be phased out.

Saving the planet, and homes, from the ravages of climate change is a good idea. But the CCC’s claims are questionable. As I reported here during last Summer’s heatwave, the CCC, like many climate alarmists, has a tendency to exaggerate risk and lose historical perspective. In truth, homes are actually better protected from the slightly warmer, slightly wetter and slightly windier weather that scientists predict might be our future than they were even a generation ago.

The CCC argues that UK emissions-reduction targets cannot be met ‘without near complete decarbonisation of the housing stock’. Gas boilers should therefore be banned in new (and then older) homes, because ‘energy use in homes accounts for about 14 per cent of UK greenhouse gas emissions’. In their place will be more energy-efficient systems, such as ground- and air-source heat pumps, and greater levels of insulation.

The problem with this is that if economic alternatives to gas-fired central heating and hot water existed, there would be no need for standards and their enforcement. But they don’t exist. Zero-carbon homes are the stuff of Grand Designs – a nice idea, but more a fashion accessory for the wealthy than a design principle that will improve lives.

Lower-cost experiments with low-carbon construction have resulted in complaints of homes becoming too hot in the summer; having poor ventilation and, therefore, damp and mould; and of requiring their inhabitants to sacrifice comfort. Most notably, and most tragically, the incautious application of energy-efficiency standards as dictated by remote technocrats – rather than consumers, according to their own needs – contributed to the Grenfell disaster.




Space-Based Technocracy: Asgardia Exceeds 1,000,000 Citizens

The space cult is run by billionaires at the top level of the United Nations and global elite, and yet they now have over 1 million ‘signups’ who have sword allegiance to the new constitution, which touts Technocracy. No, this isn’t a joke! ⁃ TN Editor

A video came out about five months ago that detailed the nation of Asgardia, a newly formed technocracy that is based in space. Their sovereign “lands” are a space station currently in low Earth orbit and their citizens are spread around the world.

When the video popped up, I watched it with some interest but assumed the nation would fail quickly. They have lofty goals and it would take either a lot of time or a whole lot of money for them start gaining real traction. I was surprised to learn that had nearly 300,000 citizens at the time. Apparently, the money is flowing more freely than I expected.

There are a lot of real dangers that should be recognized about such a place. They are hyper-sensitive to self-identity influencing any aspect of life as an Asgardian. While the people are free to have views on anything from politics to religion, those views may not be spread throughout the citizenry. Unity is based on adherence to the constitution as the supreme rule over everything Asgardians believe. Whatever other views their citizens may have, those views are secondary to the collective.

Throughout their constitution, they repeatedly invoke “social justice” as a key role in all aspects of life.

Read full story here…




Sustainable: Democrats Launch 10-year ‘Green New Deal’

Sooner or later, Democrats will regain control of Congress and the Green New Deal will be fully actuated. This will be the coup that the United Nations has been waiting for for over four decades and a rush into full-blown Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

Rising Democratic star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Senator Ed Markey on Thursday laid out the goals of a Green New Deal to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, setting a high bar for Democrats who plan to make climate change a central issue in the 2020 presidential race.

The resolution is the first formal attempt by lawmakers to define the scale of legislation to create large-scale government-led investments in clean energy and infrastructure to transform the U.S. economy.

“The Green New Deal fully tackles the existential threat posed by climate change by presenting a comprehensive, 10-year plan that is as big as the problem it hopes to solve while creating a new era of shared prosperity,” according to a summary of the resolution released by the lawmakers on Thursday.

Ocasio-Cortez said she will immediately begin to work on legislation that would “fully flesh out the projects involved in the Green New Deal.”

Republicans have already criticized the initiative, waving off any kind of proposal as heavy-handed. The Trump administration does not believe action on climate change is necessary and is focused on increasing production of oil, gas and coal on federal and private land.

Doug Lamborn, a Republican from Colorado, said at a climate change hearing in the House natural resources committee on Wednesday that the policy was akin to a “Soviet five-year plan.”

The non-binding resolution outlines several goals for the United States to meet in 10 years, including meeting 100 percent of power demand from zero-emissions energy sources.

It also calls for new projects to modernize U.S. transportation infrastructure, de-carbonize the manufacturing and agricultural sectors, make buildings and homes more energy efficient and increase land preservation.

Read full story here…




Warning: Democrat’s ‘Green New Deal’ Is A Trojan Horse For Technocracy

Ocasio-Cortez says her Green New Deal is “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II.” It is 100 percent Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.  If Technocracy gains hold, it will be the end of America and the beginning of total Scientific Dictatorship.

Thus far, 40 House Democrats have pledged support for the Green New Deal. Additionally, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have openly endorsed it. ⁃ TN Editor

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday unveiled new details on the so-called “Green New Deal” she plans to introduce in a matter of days, as she worked behind-the-scenes to rally congressional support for the proposal that could cost as much as $7 trillion.

Ocasio-Cortez, who is set to unveil the plan with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, told her fellow representatives in a letter that the Green New Deal calls for a “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II.”

To raise awareness for the measure, Markey announced Monday he had invited Varshini Prakash, the co-founder of the Sunrise Movement environmentalist group, to be his guest at President Trump’s State of the Union addressTuesday night. (Several other Democrats announced guests apparently intended to highlight their opposition to various Trump administration policies, while Trump himself extended invites to the family of a couple allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant and a child bullied at school for having the last name “Trump.”)

The Green New Deal proposal would lead to national net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, according to Ocasio-Cortez’s letter, “through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers,” while also generating millions of “good, high-wage jobs.” Details of the letter were first published by Bloomberg.

Through it all, the Green New Deal would additionally “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities,” according to Ocasio-Cortez.

On Twitter Monday, Ocasio-Cortez reposted a claim from one of her advisers, Robert Hockett, arguing that “in this case, size matters” and that “the problems the Green New Deal addresses require solutions where bigger is better, imperative, and paraodixcally, more affordable.”

Hockett is a lawyer and law professor, and is not an expert in environmental policy.

Several analysts, meanwhile, have cautioned that the liberal firebrand is in over her head, even though the as-yet vague and uncertain details about the Green New Deal render a precise calculation impossible at the moment. Physicist Christopher Clack told The Hill that the cost would easily be into the trillions.

“It’s a daunting task, and I’m not sure that the authors of the Green New Deal fully comprehend how much they’ll need,” Clack said.

Institute for Energy Research president Tom Pyle was more blunt: “One hundred percent renewable energy defies the laws of physics. It would be impossible to achieve.”

And Paul Bledsoe, a strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute, said progressives were overcompensating. “I understand the value of aspirational goals,” Bledsoe said. “My personal view is, that undermines the credibility of the effort.”

Nevertheless, approximately 70 Democratic lawmakers have so far tentatively endorsed a Green New Deal plan, including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has vowed to address climate change, has not publicly signed onto the plan, even though scores of progressive activists — joined by Ocasio-Cortez — staged a sit-in at her House office late last year, demanding action on the climate.

While there is no legislative text yet available for the Markey/Ocasio-Cortez proposal, a draft circulated by Ocasio-Cortez last week called for a committee to be formed to create a plan, and lays out a framework that includes eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and agriculture, while “dramatically” expanding energy sources to meet 100 percent of power demand through renewable sources.

Read full story here…


If Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ succeeds in 2019 it will be the most radical plan offered in decades

Justin Haskins/Fox News

Incoming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., pledged to voters she would be a far-left outsider who would push her party toward adopting “democratic socialist” policies, including universal health care and free college tuition. So far, she has kept her promise.

Ocasio-Cortez has been calling for the creation of “Green New Deal” legislation, which would eliminate much of the United States’ fossil-fuel consumption. So far, Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.,  and Cory Booker, D-N.J., and 40 House Democrats have said they support the proposal.

In a draft resolution to create a House select committee that would be responsible for writing the Green New Deal legislation, Ocasio-Cortez outlines the primary goals of her plan. Among them, Ocasio-Cortez proposes eliminating all fossil-fuel-powered electricity, closing every coal and natural gas power plant in the country, thus destroying the hundreds of thousands of jobs related to these businesses. Even more stunning, all this would occur by 2030, just 10 years after Ocasio-Cortez expects the legislation to be completed.

In its place, nearly all energy would be produced by renewable sources of power, especially wind and solar. This goal would create massive amounts of economic harm. Although economists have yet to provide an analysis of Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to eliminate all fossil fuels, other studies have found less-extreme policies would be absolutely devastating. A study published in October 2018 by Capital Alpha Partners on behalf of the Institute for Energy Research found a national tax on carbon dioxide would cost the U.S. economy $4.21 trillion to $5.98 trillion, depending on the tax level chosen, in just the first 10 years of the tax scheme. By 2040, as much as $12.32 trillion would be lost. Nearly one-quarter of the country’s GDP, relative to what it would otherwise be, could be lost as a result of a nationwide carbon-dioxide tax. And this far left-wing plan is nowhere near as radical as Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal.

Not only would Ocasio-Cortez’s plan destroy trillions of dollars in wealth, but it would also be virtually impossible to achieve. When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, renewable electricity generation relies on fossil-fuel power to keep the lights on. Currently, the only way to have a 100 percent renewable-energy-powered electric grid would be for Americans to live without power when renewables aren’t producing enough energy. Among many other problems, that means there would be no stable electricity sources for hospitals and other essential services.

Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t merely want to destroy the existing energy industry, the plan also requires “upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety” and “eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure.” Ocasio-Cortez’s draft resolution also proposes the elimination of “greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries.

Read full story here…




Facebook’s Data Scandals Multiply Like Rabbits

Now Facebook is caught in yet another outrageous data scandal that pays unsuspecting teenagers to install a background app that sucks all data out of their phones: messages, emails, browser histories, phone calls, etc. This may be in violation of both Apple and Android app store regulations. ⁃ TN Editor

Desperate for data on its competitors, Facebook  has been secretly paying people to install a “Facebook Research” VPN that lets the company suck in all of a user’s phone and web activity, similar to Facebook’s Onavo Protect app that Apple banned in June and that was removed in August. Facebook sidesteps the App Store and rewards teenagers and adults to download the Research app and give it root access to network traffic in what may be a violation of Apple policy so the social network can decrypt and analyze their phone activity, a TechCrunch investigation confirms.

Facebook admitted to TechCrunch it was running the Research program to gather data on usage habits, and it has no plans to stop.

Since 2016, Facebook has been paying users ages 13 to 35 up to $20 per month plus referral fees to sell their privacy by installing the iOS or Android “Facebook Research” app. Facebook even asked users to screenshot their Amazon order history page. The program is administered through beta testing services Applause, BetaBound and uTest to cloak Facebook’s involvement, and is referred to in some documentation as “Project Atlas” — a fitting name for Facebook’s effort to map new trends and rivals around the globe.

We asked Guardian Mobile Firewall’s security expert Will Strafach to dig into the Facebook Research app, and he told us that “If Facebook makes full use of the level of access they are given by asking users to install the Certificate, they will have the ability to continuously collect the following types of data: private messages in social media apps, chats from in instant messaging apps – including photos/videos sent to others, emails, web searches, web browsing activity, and even ongoing location information by tapping into the feeds of any location tracking apps you may have installed.” It’s unclear exactly what data Facebook is concerned with, but it gets nearly limitless access to a user’s device once they install the app.

The strategy shows how far Facebook is willing to go and how much it’s willing to pay to protect its dominance — even at the risk of breaking the rules of Apple’s iOS platform on which it depends. Apple could seek to block Facebook from continuing to distribute its Research app, or even revoke it permission to offer employee-only apps, and the situation could further chill relations between the tech giants. Apple’s Tim Cook has repeatedly criticized Facebook’s data collection practices. Facebook disobeying iOS policies to slurp up more information could become a new talking point. TechCrunch has spoken to Apple and it’s aware of the issue, but the company did not provide a statement before press time.

“The fairly technical sounding ‘install our Root Certificate’ step is appalling,” Strafach tells us. “This hands Facebook continuous access to the most sensitive data about you, and most users are going to be unable to reasonably consent to this regardless of any agreement they sign, because there is no good way to articulate just how much power is handed to Facebook when you do this.”

Facebook’s surveillance app

Facebook first got into the data-sniffing business when it acquired Onavo for around $120 million in 2014. The VPN app helped users track and minimize their mobile data plan usage, but also gave Facebook deep analytics about what other apps they were using. Internal documents acquired by Charlie Warzel and Ryan Mac of BuzzFeed News reveal that Facebook was able to leverage Onavo to learn that WhatsApp was sending more than twice as many messages per day as Facebook Messenger. Onavo  allowed Facebook to spot WhatsApp’s meteoric rise and justify paying $19 billion to buy the chat startup in 2014. WhatsApp has since tripled its user base, demonstrating the power of Onavo’s foresight.

Read full story here…