‘Free Cities’: The Rise Of City-States

Fans of Game of Thrones will recognize ‘Free Cities’ as autonomous city-states modeled after the ancient Roman era. Today, Free Cities are being promoted as the structure du jour to replace the nation-state. This is a key element for Technocracy to succeed, as described in Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.

Dr. Parag Khanna’s book Connectography explains how global cities are the hinge-pins to the global supply chain, acting autonomously but tightly connected by infrastructure according to their respective economic strengths. Khanna also wrote Technocracy in America (2015), demonstrating his pointed affinity for Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

A GOP lawmaker in Illinois recently introduced a bill that, if passed, would ask Congress to consider making the city of Chicago its own state. Of course, no one really expects this bill to pass—even the congressman who wrote it admits that he only introduced it to highlight Chicago’s disproportionate influence in the state of Illinois.

Chicago holds more voting power than the largely rural rest of the state for a reason: More people live there. More money is made there. More happens there. But because voting choices in Chicago are historically different from those in rural voting districts, fair representation across the state is a growing concern.

This illustrates how political divisions in North America and Western Europe run not only along the fault lines of race and class, but increasingly divide the rural heartlands from the major cities.

This is a divide with real consequences, from Brexit to polarizing politics following the 2016 US presidential election. And it seems like it’s only getting harder to fix.

But, what if instead of trying to mend this cultural schism, we embrace it? And, what if a solution for a better future came from far, far in the past? If we look back to ancient history, one model makes a strong case for this approach: the free city.

A free city is a largely independent municipality that is not subject to local and regional authorities, and has its own representatives in federal or imperial bodies. They were particularly important in the Holy Roman Empire and persisted throughout the Middle Ages, which was when cities became sites of progress, development, and culture.

Free cities largely disappeared as a result of the rise of the nation-state in late medieval and early modern period, but it was a model of governance that worked for centuries. In medieval Italy and Germany, free cities were unencumbered by the authority of regional lords, but nonetheless participated to a limited degree in the imperial government. Still, free cities had their own laws and elected their own magistrates. They controlled their own trade, and regulated the movement of people in and out of their city limits.

Meanwhile, surrounding rural counties enjoyed the economic benefits of the city, such as access to its many markets and industries, but were not subject to the city’s unique laws, nor particularly affected by innovations or changes within the city. Urban residents may have been costumers who bought your crops, but they weren’t necessarily your compatriots. In short, it was a working partnership of more or less mutual benefit.

The free city today

By recreating the free city model today, we might be able to address some of our biggest struggles in society, from the immigration crisis to the rise of populism and mounting trade wars.

For nearly three years, Brexit has consumed much of the political oxygen in Britain with what is essentially a rural revolt against a perceived urban elite. The referendum left behind an electoral landscape in which cities heavily supported remaining a part of the EU, while rural communities largely favored leaving. Imagine how different British politics would be today if London and Liverpool were free to stay in the EU, while Hertfordshire and Surrey departed.

In the United States, a country with a long history of urban-rural tensions, the problem is particularly pronounced. This is thanks to the Senate and the electoral college, which disproportionately favor rural areas in shaping the federal government. Similarly to Brexit, the current US president won electoral victory, but lost the vote in many major cities.

In its modern iteration, a free city could function much like American states do today, effectively able to make its own laws that do not contravene national law or the constitution. In the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire, it would have independent congressional representation.

What if Los Angeles welcomed the immigrants it needs, without the residents of Cheyenne County, Kansas worrying that LA’s changing demographics have any impact on them?

If LA were a free city, it would be able to instate immigration laws that differ from the current federal arrangement. The city government could form its own asylum and migration policies to decide how many people, and which people, it would accommodate.

Conversely, immigration to a free city would have its limitations, meaning immigrants could not reside in surrounding areas without submitting to a separate process, which would be controlled by the surrounding country and not the free city. These “city immigrants” could ultimately apply for residency and citizenship as well, but this status too would be limited to the free city to which they had migrated.

Since free cities would be economically autonomous, no one in the provinces need worry that their tax dollars are going to support the free cities’ new arrivals (though as we know, immigrants provide a net economic benefit). Free cities’ immigration policies would have to account for what could be accommodated by their own coffers.

Free cities would be allowed to negotiate their own trade deals with other free cities—and nations. For example, a free Chicago would need to work out trade deals to bring in food from rural Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana. At the same time, these places would need goods and services produced in Chicago. This type of trade deal would require parties from both sides of the urban-rural divide to come to the negotiating table in acknowledgement of mutual dependence, at the very least.

Bringing back free cities would render a world in which we can be dependent on each other (which, arguably, we already are) without having to be afraid of one another.

Read full story here…

New York Post: China’s ‘Social Credit System’ Is Dystopian Nightmare

Public awareness of this approaching dystopia is growing, thanks to articles in major publications, but few have made the connection with the larger issue of Technocracy, to which China is fully committed. ⁃ TN Editor

Imagine calling a friend. Only instead of hearing a ring tone you hear a police siren, and then a voice intoning, “Be careful in your dealings with this person.”

Would that put a damper on your relationship? It’s supposed to.

Welcome to life in China’s “Social Credit System,” where a low score can ruin your life in more ways than one.

Say you arrive at the Beijing airport, intending to catch a flight to Canton 1,200 miles south. The clerk at the ticket counter turns you away because — you guessed it — your social credit score is too low.

Not only are you publicly humiliated in the ticket line, you are then forced to travel by slow train. What should have been a three-hour flight becomes a 30-hour, stop-and-go nightmare.

All because the government has declared you untrustworthy. Perhaps you defaulted on a loan, made the mistake of criticizing some government policy online or just spent too much time playing video games on the internet. All of these actions, and many more, can cause your score to plummet, forcing citizens onto the most dreaded rung on China’s deadbeat caste system, the laolai.

And the punishments are shocking. The government algorithm will go as far as to install an “embarrassing” ring tone on the phones of laolai, shaming them every time they get a call in public.

But an embarrassing ring tone, flight bans and slow trains are just the beginning of the dystopian nightmare that is now daily life in China for tens of millions of people.

A low social credit score will exclude you from well-paid jobs, make it impossible for you to get a house or a car loan or even book a hotel room. The government will slow down your internet connection, ban your children from attending private schools and even post your profile on a public blacklist for all to see.

According to Australia’s ABC News, the government has produced a “Deadbeat Map” via an app on WeChat, which shows a radar-style graphic identifying every laolai in the vicinity of the user.

“Tapping on a person marked on the map reveals their personal information, including their full name, court-case number and the reason they have been labeled untrustworthy. Identity-card numbers and home addresses are also partially shown,” ABC reported.

There are reports that those whose social credit score falls too low are preemptively arrested and sent to re-education camps. Not because they have actually committed a crime, but because they are likely to.

Elements of the system are in place throughout China, as the government refines its algorithm, and the final rollout is scheduled to be in place nationwide by 2020.

The government claims that its purpose is to enhance trust and social stability by creating a “culture of sincerity” that will “restore social trust.”

What it will actually create, of course, is a culture of fear and a nation of informants.

This is because one of the ways that people can improve their own social credit score is to report on the supposed misdeeds of others.

Read full story here…

Technocracy Unplugged: Jeff Bezos Wants To Colonize Space With 1 Trillion Humans

Along the way to becoming the richest person on earth, Jeff Bezos has certifiably lost touch with reality.  After dominating earth, his latest vision is to put one trillion humans in space in floating cylinders.

According to WebMD, “Schizophrenia is a psychosis, a type of mental illness in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. At times, people with psychotic disorders lose touch with reality.” ⁃ TN Editor


“Guess what the best planet is in this solar system?” asked Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos at a recent media event on his Blue Origin space program.

“It’s easy to know the answer to that question,” he continued. “We’ve sent robotic probes like this one to all of the planets in our solar system. Now, some of them have been fly-bys, but we’ve examined them all. Earth is the best planet. It is not close. This one is really good.”

Bezos then went on to discuss his plan to ship humans off of the best planet in the solar system and send them to live in floating cylinders in space.

Bezos claimed that the growing human population and growing energy consumption will force us to make a choice between “stasis and rationing” and “dynamism and growth”, and claimed that the latter item in his dichotomy is possible only by moving humans off the planet.

“If we’re out in the solar system, we can have a trillion humans in the solar system, which means we’d have a thousand Mozarts and a thousand Einsteins,” Bezos said. “This would be an incredible civilization. What would this future look like? Where would a trillion humans live? Well it’s very interesting, someone named Gerry O’Neill, a physics professor, looked at this question very carefully and he asked a very precise question that nobody had ever asked before, and it was, ‘Is a planetary surface the best place for humans to expand into the solar system?’ And he and his students set to work on answering that question, and they came to a very surprising–for them–counterintuitive answer: No.”

Bezos went on to describe how the limited surface areas, distance, and gravitational forces of the other planets in our solar system make settling on those planets impractical and cost-prohibitive, while constructing giant space cylinders closer to Earth which can hold a million people is far more practical. These cylinders would spin to replicate Earth’s gravitational pull with centrifugal force.

Here are some illustrations Bezos used in his presentation to show us what these “O’Neill colonies” might look like:

“These are really pleasant places to live,” Bezos said. “Some of these O’Neill colonies might choose to replicate Earth cities. They might pick historical cities and mimic them in some way. There’d be whole new types of architecture. These are ideal climates. These are short-sleeve environments. This is Maui on its best day, no rain, no storms, no earthquakes.”

No rain? No weather? Just big, spinning cylinders floating monotonously in space? A trillion divided by a million is one million, which means that the best idea the richest man in the world can come up with for the future of our species is to fill our solar system with a million of these floating homogenized space malls.

“If we build this vision, these O’Neill colonies, where does it take us? What does it mean for Earth?” Bezos asked. “Earth ends up zoned, residential, and light industry. It’ll be a beautiful place to live, it’ll be a beautiful place to visit, it’ll be a beautiful place to go to college, and to do some light industry. But heavy industry, polluting industry, all the things that are damaging our planet, those will be done off Earth. We get to have both. We get to keep this unique gem of a planet, which is completely irreplaceable–there is no Plan B. We have to save this planet. And we shouldn’t give up a future of our grandchildren’s grandchildren of dynamism and growth. We can have both.”

Now, if you look at the behavior of Jeff Bezos, who exploits his employees and destroys his competitors, and who some experts say is trying to take over the underlying infrastructure of our entire economy, you can feel reasonably confident that this man has no intention of leaving “this unique gem of a planet”, nor of having the heirs to his empire leave either. When you see this Pentagon advisory board member and CIA contractor planning to ship humans off the Earth’s surface so the planet can thrive, you may be certain that he’s talking about other humans. The unworthy ones. The ones who weren’t sociopathic enough to climb the capitalist ladder by stepping on the backs of everyone else.

And make no mistake, when Bezos talks about saving the planet for “our grandchildren’s grandchildren”, he’s not just talking about his heirs, he’s talking about himself. Bezos has invested large amounts of wealth in biotech aimed at reversing the aging process and cracking the secret of immortality.

This is the sort of guiding wisdom that is controlling the fate of our species, everyone. The world’s most ambitious plutocrat envisions a world in which, rather than evolving beyond our destructive tendencies and learning to live in collaboration with each other and our environment, we are simply shipped off into space so that he can stretch out and enjoy our beautiful planet. That’s his best idea.

Our plutocratic overlords aren’t just sociopaths. They’re morons.

Bezos’ incredibly shallow vision for humanity reminds me of something Julian Assange said at a 2017 London festival via video link about the way Silicon Valley plutocrats are trying to become immortal by finding a way to upload their brains onto computers.

“I know from our sources deep inside those Silicon Valley institutions, they genuinely believe that they are going to produce artificial intelligences that are so powerful, relatively soon, that people will have their brains digitized, uploaded on these artificial intelligences, and live forever in a simulation, therefore will have eternal life,” Assange said. “It’s a religion for atheists. They’ll have eternal life, and given that you’re in a simulation, why not program the simulation to have endless drug and sex orgy parties all around you. It’s like the 72 virgins, but it’s like the Silicon Valley equivalent.”

I mean, damn. First of all, how stupid do you have to be to overlook the fact that science has virtually no understanding of consciousness and doesn’t even really know what it is? Even if these idiots find a way to upload their neurological patternings onto some AI’s virtual simulation, it’s not like they’d be there to experience it. It would just be a bunch of data running in a computer somewhere, mimicking the personality of a dead person and experienced by no one. People who believe that all there is to them is their dopey mental patterns have not spent any time whatsoever exploring what they are, and have no idea what it is to be human. The fact that anyone would think they could become immortal by digitizing their churning, repetitive personality patterns is crazy, and the fact that they’d want to is even crazier.

People who think this way should shut up and learn about life, not rule the world in a plutocratic system where money translates directly to political influence. People who think that humans can be happily unplugged from the ecosystemic context in which they evolved, the ecosystemic context of which they are an inseparable part, and people who think they can become immortal by uploading their wanky personalities onto a computer should shut the fuck up, spend some time alone with themselves, maybe try some psilocybin mushrooms, and learn a bit about what it means to be human. They certainly shouldn’t be calling the shots.

Earth is our home. It’s what we’re made for. The earth went through a lot to give you life. Sparks had to catch, oceans had to freeze, billions of cells had to survive endless disease, all of these amazing things had to happen just right to give you life. You belong here. You are as much a creation of the earth as the air you breathe. You may feel like a singular organism but you’re actually as much a singular organism as one of the many billions of organisms that make up your body. You and earth are one. And because you evolved on earth, you are perfectly adapted to earth and it is perfectly adapted to you. It yearns for your breath as you yearn for its breeze on your face.

We absolutely have the ability to transcend our unhealthy tendencies as a species which, when you really look at them, are merely creations of a mind that feels alone and separate and like it is in a constant fight for its life. If we just put down our mental swords for a hot second and learned to channel our creativity into the thriving of our society and our ecosystem instead of into killing and out-competing one another then we will be okay. The way out of this is the way towards health. For example, once women have been given back even the most basic rights of sexual sovereignty such as birth control and access to terminations as they have in most western countries, birth rates fall below replication levels. Women’s own internal bodily wisdom makes the problem of overpopulation moot if given half a chance just to make decisions on behalf of her own body.

Another example. People lament the lack of jobs due to AI and automation but we actually desperately need people to do less. We need a whole lot of people doing nothing, not using the roads every morning and evening, not producing widgets that no one needs and creating advertising campaigns to brainwash people into buying them anyway, just to have them end up in the ocean or leaching heavy metals into the earth. Having a whole lot of people doing nothing for more of their week would take the strain off of our health systems as the single biggest factor in disease is stress. Studies show that stress also shrinks your brain and lessens your creativity and innovation too, so all the punitive-minded libertarians out there who are worried that we won’t progress as a species if we start sharing resources around to people who aren’t doing things that traditionally made money because we’ll be too relaxed can chill too. We don’t need to crack the whip to get people to make beautiful innovations. Humans are at their best when feeling playful and relaxed. Nearly all the technological advances of the past came from people who had a lot of leisure time due to their privileged status. Releasing humans from 9 to 5 slavery would be the fastest way to slow our resource consumption and take pressure off of all our systems and would have the added benefit of making us smarter, funnier, more creative and more innovative too.

And for that matter, having every idea and innovation be required to make money is also killing us. We need the ability to fund things that will not make profit. How many times have you been in a conversation and someone’s come up with an idea that will solve a major environmental, energy or health problem and no one’s got excited because it will never get off the ground because it will never make money? Fully disappearing a problem never made anyone any money. Healthy people, for example, never spend a dime at the doctors. The way out of this is detaching human innovation from money and allowing solutions to flourish without the imposition of also having to turn a profit.

These are merely three things I can think of that will dramatically improve our collective ability to reverse this extinction event and all we have to do is get saner, stop punishing each other, start sharing and start collaborating. The only issue we have as humans is that a handful of highly competitive, highly sociopathic and yet incredibly mediocre people have all the power to build our future for us with virtually no input from anyone else. Because all the power in the form of all the money has been allowed to pool into the hands of those most willing to do whatever it takes to get it, we have just a few ruthless yet surprisingly dumb individuals calling the shots on the future of all living beings. The competitive mindset that gave rise to Jeff Bezos is the exact opposite of the kind of collaborative, harmonious mindset we’ll need if we’re going to overcome the challenges we face on the horizon.

Read full story here…


By Any Other Name, Globalism is Technocracy, Not Communism

In a feature article on Eagle Forum website Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh cites Agenda 21 and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’, concluding that the greatest threat to humanity is Socialism/Communism 2.0.

First, let me plainly state that I have corresponded with Dr. Paugh and have the utmost respect for her.  She is a very well studied and worthy patriot, but in this case, she has fallen into the trap of identifying all of this as Communism rather than Technocracy. 

This is not unusual, either, because we have been well-conditioned that Communism is the only choice to make when we need an enemy to blame for society’s dysfunction. Further, having lived under Communism for 20 years in her native Romania, she has every reason to point to Communism as the enemy. 

Admittedly, Technocracy and Communism have some surface commonalities. For instance, they both manifest collectivism and both are autocratic as far as subjects are concerned. Technocracy is far worse, however, because it will result in a dystopian Scientific Dictatorship from which there is no escape.

Philosophically, Technocracy is rooted in Scientism that was originally expressed by the French philosopher, Henri de Saint Simon. Communism sprang from Karl Marx, et. al: Different roots and different outcomes. 

In the 1930s,  Communists and Technocrats hated each other. Calling a Technocrat a Communist, or vice versa, could easily spark a fist-fight – and there were actually a few of those! There were a plethora of articles that appeared in the days media where both sides shot barbs at each other for being totally screwed up. (We can say today that they were both screwed up, but I digress.)

Furthermore, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who teamed up with David Rockefeller to found the elitist Trilateral Commission in 1973, wrote in 1970 that Marxism was a necessary stepping-stone to the final age, which he characterized as the Technetronic Era. This is still my analysis today. Today’s Communists are the useful idiots of Technocracy, and they will be the first to be thrown under the bus if Technocracy wins the battle. 

It was Brzezinski in 1986 who almost single-handedly brought China out of its dark ages and onto the world stage. At that time, China was indeed a Communist dictatorship, and a brutal one at that. Brezinski promoted the Trilateral Commission’s New International Economic Order, which we know recognize as warmed-over Technocracy from the 1930s. By 2000, global academics were calling China a Technocracy. The trappings of Communism are still visible, but China is now managed with an iron fist by scientists and engineers who are using the “Science of Social Engineering” that early Technocrats crowed about in the 1930s. Today’s China model, highly regarded by the global elite, is the pattern for the rest of the world. 

In sum, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development economic system (Communism and Socialism are predominantly political systems) is fundamentally identical to historic Technocracy, which I thoroughly documented in my Technocracy series of books. It was spoon-fed to the United Nations by a prominent European member of the Trilateral Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland, in 1987 with the book, Our Common Future.

The UN has declared on multiple occasions that its goal is to replace Capitalism and Free Enterprise with Sustainable Development. Ocasio-Cortez is part of this plot to destabilize Capitalism so that her Green New Deal, aka Technocracy and Sustainable Development, can swoop in. 

I can agree with Dr. Paugh that those who don’t learn from history must repeat it, no matter how disastrous. In this case, it is critical to get an accurate view of history so that we know the enemy we are really fighting. In my view, it is Technocracy, not Communism.  

Here is the full text of Dr. Paugh’s original article.

Communism Making Comeback as Globalism

“It’s a brave new world,” one in which radicals are elected to high office in a system more corrupt and ignorant than ever imagined possible. The voters believe in the “shiny illusions of socialist/communist hell and are racing to implementation.”

Americans are not quite sure when the surge to communism finally planted its roots in the population at large and things began to change. Some argue it was the 1950s, others the 1960s. Over time, the corrupt main stream media and the progressive-controlled education system brought us slowly but surely to today, when good people are overwhelmed by manufactured news and personal attacks meant to marginalize anyone who disagrees with the socialist agenda, while the entire system of liberty and justice for all is collapsing.

The dangerous cult of personality which mesmerized an entire nation into submission to a magical black president now includes Millennials like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), who, despite her International Relations degree, is, by her own admission, totally ignorant of world politics, and two Muslim women who took their oath on a book that contradicts everything our Constitution stands for and are flinging vulgarities and anti-Israel /anti-American insults to the American public.

The same MSM that gives them ample air time to insult anyone who disagrees with them was mostly silent when three new Congressmen, real American heroes and Purple Heart recipients, were sworn in, the “5 eyes, 5 arms, 4 legs … All American,” as Rep. Mast said. Jim Baird (R-Indiana) lost his left arm in Vietnam. Brian Mast (R-Florida) lost both legs in Afghanistan. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) lost his right eye in Afghanistan. Nobody saw them on the evening news but air time was extended ad nauseam to the “new breed of women politicians” who offends us with overt anti-Americanism.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s strong and strange socialist charisma appeals to a large segment of the American population, liberals and Democrats alike, who have made a cult hero out of a former bartender.

Maduro of Venezuela was a taxi driver before he became president. He appealed to low-information voters who have now managed to self-destruct under the leadership or lack thereof of a socialist, long on rhetoric and short on the knowledge of how to successfully lead a country rich in petroleum, a formerly prosperous nation, now a basket case of poverty, rationing, and hunger. He drove it into the ground, turning it into the hell-hole of socialism that it is today.

The Cuban model, the Castro brothers’ communist dictatorship, ended in disaster in Venezuela just as it did everywhere else socialism/communism had been tried.

Should she be ignored in the hope that she goes away back to the obscurity she came from? Liberals are already talking of making her president. People with real skill, intellect, sound judgment, and logical arguments must speak out with intelligence and force. But when they do, would anybody listen?

I am not at all surprised that young and old Americans alike are suddenly infatuated with the empty promises of socialism and communism and do not listen to reason. Decades of socialist indoctrination in public schools and progressive MSM are finally paying off for Democrats and their globalist fellow travelers.

In the country of my birth, where millions have suffered and died under the boot of socialism and of Ceausescu’s Communist Party dictatorship, there does not appear to exist a significant and strong conservative wing, and politics in Parliament swing back and forth between socialists and communists. How is that possible when their parents and extended families lived in such hell of fear and brutal oppression for decades?

Young generations, with their smart phones, cars, plenty of food, and other electronic gadgets produced by capitalism, indoctrinated by schools and the media into believing that free-market capitalism poses a fundamental threat to their avowed neo-communism.

Young Romanians view any foreigners, no matter how poor in their own countries and how far left leaning they are, as rich capitalists who abuse and steal from the poor. Their parents have been told for decades under communism that capitalists exploit the working class and are out to steal their rights to utopian communism, thus leaving them hungry, cold, and poor in perpetuity. It is extraordinarily bizarre to see young generations, with their smart phones, cars, plenty of food, and other electronic gadgets produced by capitalism, indoctrinated by schools and the media into believing that free-market capitalism poses a fundamental threat to their avowed neo-communism.

A young American friend, who currently lives with his wife in Romania, is considering moving his family to America. As Darius explained, “She’s fixated on the idea of living in an America that probably hasn’t existed since the 1990s at the latest.” He is afraid to discuss any conservative ideas with the young Romanians who openly and proudly express their communist affiliation, rejecting all other ideas that contradict and diverge from their proletarian ideology.

It is no surprise that such young people were indoctrinated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who made their way into the Iron Curtain as soon as it “fell” in 1990. George Soros boasted in an interview that he was the first to be given access into Romania after Christmas 1989 when Ceausescu was executed for communist crimes against his own people. Soros allegedly met with the minister of education to discuss the new curricula post Ceausescu’s regime. Scores of young Romanians studied abroad with financial help from his foundations, assuring their allegiance to the new world globalism.

The “sudden” infatuation of the West with socialism/communism has been developing over decades as the communists had planned to go underground and rebrand themselves into the global communists of today.

I met several such students in 1991, who had been brought to an all-black southern U.S. college to study for Masters Degrees in management. When the two-year university indoctrination ended, they went back to work in the recently fashioned government comprised of former communist upper echelon apparatchiks who had rebranded themselves into the new world globalists.

The “sudden” infatuation of the West with socialism/communism has been developing over decades as the communists had planned to go underground and rebrand themselves into the global communists of today, championed by the United Nations and “civil society,” meaning intellectuals, academics, and other lapdogs of liberalism who advertise and promote everything the U.N. publishes.

Vladimir Bukovsky explained these phenomena in the upcoming English version of his book, Judgment in Moscow. He had found documents in Russia to prove that the reason the horrific crimes of the former Soviet Union and its satellites were not punished like the Nazi crimes were fifty years before was the “Kremlin’s links to and influence over Western political parties, governments, media, and prominent individuals, as revealed in the documents. It was these powerful links, he writes, that prevented any push to prosecute the extreme human rights abuses that took place over the decades of Soviet rule. As a result, the Communist Party and KGB elite were left to regroup and re-establish their power – with new names and new methods, perhaps, but the same goal: to undermine Western democracy.”

It is with sadness, agony, and dread that I see daily evidence of Western democracies turning back to the future. Some people never learn from history and must repeat it no matter how disastrous.

Read full story here…


Technocracy Is The Real Threat, Not Nationalism

The author righty concludes: Technocrat “elites today who fear nationalism are working toward a much more alarming and damaging post-nationalist world of unfreedom and uniformity.” ⁃ TN Editor

Is nationalism right for America? With President Trump, an avowed nationalist, leading the Republican Party, it’s not surprising that the best commentary on nationalism—and the sharpest debate—is now found on the political right.

For proof, one need only have sat in on the National Review Institute’s recent Ideas Summit, where the grand debate saw Rich Lowry, National Review’s editor-in-chief, take the side of nationalism against Jonah Goldberg, the founder of National Review Online.

But why is nationalism such a hot topic today at all? While the president’s rhetoric is influential, and the ferment on the right has an attentive audience, something much more substantial accounts for the rise in nationalist sentiment at home and abroad.

Americans must realize that the solution to the puzzle is hiding in plain sight. Nationalism is back as a burning issue not because of modern demagoguery or ancient hatreds but because of the triumph of digital technology over everyday life.

Dehumanization Versus Self-Rule

In the United States and around the world, the digital age is forcing a new choice between two types of governance—one nationalist, the other imperial. While both carry risks, only one is compatible with constitutional government and the central claims of the Declaration of Independence.

Americans shouldn’t fear that digital life is going to bring back the inhuman old days of twentieth-century-style nationalist extremism. The proper thing to fear is a dehumanizing new form of digital despotism.

The preeminent threat to American life is not the resurgence of the beasts within us, but the mastery of the bots above us. This is why the right’s new nationalists should command our attention.

The debate on the right frames the issue in exactly the right way. One side asserts that nationalism contains the paramount threat of the new age. These critics warn that all will be lost if we fail to head off a primitive backlash against the globalizing forces accelerated by the technocratic elite. They fear the beast within.

The other side warns that the West’s globalist technocrats have embraced a new imperial vision, one that promises uniform unfreedom on all, their worship of “diversity” notwithstanding. Their plan is increasingly out in the open.

In “The Big Nine,” New York University professor Amy Webb argues that artificial intelligence must be put not under American control but under that of a new international organization—a global diversity and inclusion agency. Otherwise, she warns, our robots will have white privilege—or even become white supremacists.

Read full story here…



As A Nation, Silicon Valley Would Be Run As An AI Technocracy

Since nobody would have time to run a nation in Silicon Valley, the logical solution for local Technocrats would be to create an app that would run everything for them. Indeed, an AI Technocracy would be their chosen outcome. ⁃ TN Editor

If Silicon Valley was its own country, its per-person GDP would make it the second richest in the world, just behind oil-producing Qatar.

The Republic of Silicon Valley — more specifically the San Jose metropolitan area, which includes Palo Alto, Mountain View, Gilroy and the headquarters of some of the world’s most valuable public companies — had a per-person gross domestic product of $128,308 in 2017, the most recent data available from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

That’s about $66 (roughly the cost of one Chromecast Ultra from Mountain View-based Google) less than Qatar’s per-person GDP of $128,374 in 2017, as measured by The World Bank and adjusted for the difference in cost of living from country to country. Next highest is Macao, a semi-autonomous region in China best known for its resorts and casinos, with a per-person GDP of $115,123. Other rich countries, according to this measure, include Luxembourg, Singapore and Ireland.

So how do Silicon Valley and Qatar compare?

Qatar is an absolute monarchy on the Arabian Peninsula with a population of about 2.36 million whose top exports include liquified natural gas, petroleum and the Al-Jazeera news network. Qatar’s total GDP of almost $167 billion is the 54th highest in the world, lower than Iraq and higher than Hungary.

Silicon Valley has a yet-to-be-determined type of government — perhaps an AI technocracy — and a population of almost 2 million. Its top exports include Google, Apple products and Stanford graduates. Its total GDP of $275 billion would be the 42nd highest in the world, lower than Chile and higher than Finland. The United States’ total GDP remains the world’s highest at $19.48 trillion, according to The World Bank. On its own, California was the fifth largest economy at $2.79 trillion in 2017, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, less than Germany but more than India.

But giving Silicon Valley sole credit for Apple and Google and all its other international companies isn’t really fair to Qatar — or the rest of the California, said Micah Weinberg, president of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

Read full story here…

Andrew Yang: Presidential Candidate Promises ‘Enlightened Technocracy’

Yang is a mix of Libertarian and Democrat who is appealing to both camps. An ‘enlightened technocracy’ is comparable to Dr. Parag Khanna’s ‘direct technocracy’ as proposed in Technocracy in America (2015). Yang promotes Universal Basic Income, Smart Meters, Medicare for all, carbon fees and legalization of drugs. ⁃ TN Editor

Andrew Yang, a 44-year-old affable technocrat, is leading a rather whimsical presidential run, fused with a litany of policy proposals tackling every aspect of American life. His policies include renovating abandoned malls as new public spaces, limiting smartphone use among children, reviving earmarks in the legislative process, making community college affordable and paying Americans who are moving to new areas for jobs. With his new, cutting-edge brand of politics, Yang could be the perfect antidote to our toxic status quo which feeds on cynicism, contempt, tribalism and above all dysfunction.

Yang’s overarching message of positivity, compassion and concrete policy making would be a welcome disruption to Washington’s refusal to address the nation’s gripping challenges regarding healthcare, education and climate change. In other words, Yang combines the best aspects of personality with policy chops, a valuable mix for a presidential contender.

Yang has weighed in on all sorts of topics one would not expect to hear from a conventional candidate, from free marriage counseling to free HBO accounts to rally the country around Game of Thrones. Then again, Mr. Yang is not conventional at all. As an entrepreneur, Yang created over 2,500 jobs in American cities suffering from the 2008 financial crisis. He then realized that the existential threat fueling poverty and wealth inequality was automation, a problem which job creation on its own could not handle. He subsequently built his political campaign on a central message: universal basic income. That means $1,000 per month for every American adult. Period.

Universal basic income may sound unfathomable. Surely, subsidizing nearly 300 million people every month is too ambitious? Not so, Yang argues. Paying for this program would be realized through a value-added tax on companies like Amazon, which he points out has paid no federal tax even as the corporate giant, the second largest US-based employer in 2017, is at, “the forefront of automation,” according to Nick Wingfield of the New York Times.

While Amazon is creating new jobs at warehouses for those displaced by robots, many suspect this trend cannot continue indefinitely as robots grow increasingly intelligent and capable of performing increasingly complex tasks. In describing the trend of job creation at Amazon, futurist Martin Ford stated, “My assumption is this technology will eventually displace a lot of people in those warehouses. I would not say that overnight huge numbers of jobs disappear. Maybe the first indication is they don’t get rid of those people, but the pace of job creation slows down.”

Surely companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google can find some extra cash lying around in an era of hyper-charged inequality and record profits? Alphabet, the parent company of Google, holds $80 billion in cash reserves, enough to buy Goldman Sachs. That figure rises to $1.9 trillion for all businesses. However, unlike in previous eras, corporations have very little incentive to invest their excess cash in the economy today in expanding business operations or creating new jobs. A value-added tax on Silicon Valley to fund universal basic income would simply be the government stepping in to make crucial investments in America that entities like Amazon, Google, Facebook and Uber currently seem unwilling to make.

Andrew Yang also points out that a value added tax is hardly radical, considering all other advanced economies have it in some form. His proposal, “at even half the European level would generate over $800 billion in new revenue.” If you still thought UBI was too extreme, because it has never been tried before, Yang points to Alaska, where every state resident receives $1,000-$2,000 per year from the state’s massive oil revenues. Furthermore, experiments with universal basic income in Finland are looking positive, where recipients of free money reported increased happiness and trust in social institutions.

At its core a value added tax, “would give the people a tiny sliver of every Amazon sale, every Google search, every robot truck mile.” Yang stresses this policy makes sense since the emerging tech economy will be increasingly designed to create a tiny handful of winners and economically harm the rest of society.

Those who believe that the free market is sacrosanct may be reeling right now, seeing such a proposal as brazen socialism. Yang wholeheartedly disagrees. As an entrepreneur he deeply respects what the free market can accomplish, and unlike his rivals like Senator Bernie Sanders, he embraces the capitalist label. At the same time, he recognizes that our current system of extreme turbo charged wealth inequality is poorly equipped to address the mounting problems average Americans will face in the coming decades. Yang, in short, is a fervent, passionate advocate for what he calls, “humane capitalism.”

This “humane capitalism” goes off in many dimensions beyond universal basic income. Yang supports a “GDP for the 21st century.” Mirroring the UN Human Development Index, Yang’s GDP would look at critical aspects we as humans value beyond money, including clean environment, childhood well being and mental health.

If implemented, Yang’s proposals would be transformative for the broad base of our society. They would resemble a fundamental rethinking of our relationship to the US economy, which is currently at record GDP growth and record low unemployment, even as the working to middle class and young people suffer under soaring housing and healthcare costs and mounting private debt.

I mentioned Yang presented himself as an affable candidate, and I cannot overstate how much of a relief his personality contrasts with our divisive, angry political landscape. Most of us are tired of a president who is obsessed with benefiting his hardcore base of 30% of the electorate and directing their ire against the rest of the country. Yang has repeatedly stressed he wants to run a campaign of positivity, respect and outreach toward all Americans. Indeed, he has successfully conducted outreach to supporters of President Trump. He doesn’t view the middle of the country as uneducated, racist rubes like many of our nation’s elites do. Instead, he views them, along with most Americans, as disadvantaged by the current economy, and in need of a helping hand. I find that philosophy nothing short of inspiring.

Read full story here…

Revealed: China Is Funded And Backed By Wall Street And Western Corporations

Listen carefully to the video below. Steve Bannon pointedly reveals that the rise of China to be an existential threat to America is thanks to Wall Street and Western mega-corporation, which I have been saying for years.

This is a continuation of a long trend that the West is being destroyed from within its own ranks. Professor Antony C. Sutton first exposed this nefarious collusion with his masterpiece books like Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, National Suicide, Trilaterals Over Washington, etc.

Bannon’s solution to ‘back Trump’ is misguided: the solution is to reject Technocracy, which is embedded within these same organizations. ⁃ TN Editor

Perhaps out of concern that his former boss might be pushing Robert Lighthizer and Steve Mnuchin to cave on enforcement, technology transfers and market access for the sake of securing a deal with Beijing, former White House Chief strategist Steve Bannon appeared alongside hedge fund manager Kyle Bass, Wall Street’s most visible China bear, to try and explain why Washington needs to stick to its guns and make sure Beijing is held to account for its decades of trade abuses.

Bass, who just the other day distributed his first investor letter in three years warning about a coming blowup in Hong Kong’s balance of payments, argued that the immense pressure for Trump to strike a deal isn’t coming from voters, but from Wall Street and corporate America, who have abetted Beijing in its efforts to maintain the status quo on trade – selling out their country in the process.

Drawing attention to something that few political analysts have been willing to discuss since the US-China trade spat erupted early last year, Bass broke down China’s lobbying strategy, which we highlighted here.

For years, Beijing has sought to curry favor with individual companies and industries by granting them piecemeal concessions, mostly in the form of market access. And since the start of the trade war, Beijing hasn’t been shy about calling in favors, which is why most of the American business and financial community just wants Trump to end the trade war, even if it means settling for a deal that achieves none of Washington’s objectives on ‘structural reform’, kicks the can on enforcement to Trump’s successor, and touts promises for purchases of billions of dollars of agricultural goods instead of meaningful changes.

“All the pressure on Trump to strike a trade deal is coming from Wall Street and corporate America,” Bass argued. “Look who fought CFIUS reform…some of the biggest companies in the US and Wall Street came together to fight it. Steve is right about who’s fighting…it’s corporate America fighting to get Trump to do a deal…and China plays that card and they play it better than anyone else…they open a market to very specific people to court influence.”

At the. beginning of the interview, Bannon warned that Americans are underestimating the threat posed by China, bringing up Huawei, 5G, ‘One Belt, One Road’ and China 2025′. As he repeatedly warned during the 2016 campaign, China represents “the most significant existential threat we have ever faced.”

“Look at what they’re doing…they have a geopolitical strategy to unite theEurasian land mass into one single market then to force the United States out of the Western Pacific then out of the Pacific overall. The radical cadre – this is not the Chinese people – this is about a radical cadre that is taking charge of the Communist Party led by President Xi…they’ve been running an economic war against the industrial democracies for 20 years.”

Questioned about what’s so different about China’s approach to how the US rose to global dominance almost a century ago, Bannon warned about Beijing’s system of “predatory capitalism” and “debt traps.” Meanwhile, corporate America and Wall Street has repeatedly enabled Beijing.

And by the way, the funding — the entire operation of the Chinese Communist Party and what they’re running in China is being funded by Wall Street, which Kyle can walk through, being funded by Wall Street. And corporate America – remember, PBS or NPR had this thing the other day about intrusions into stealing Intellectual Property in American companies. They talked to a Treasury official went around to 200 companies. Not one company would — had been stolen from would press charges because they didn’t want to be blocked out of China. Corporate America today is the lobbying arm of the Chinese Communist Party and Wall Street is the investor relations department. You can see this on President Trump’s — on President Trump’s trade negotiation, which I say is an armistice on the economic war. When Liu He comes to the United States, where does he go first?

Both Democrats and Republicans have failed to understand, or willingly ignored, this threat. But for the first time, the US has a president who has been willing to take on the Chinese.

“Now we have a whole of government approach to really confront China on an economic war, this has never happened…the permanent political class and their paymasters on Wall Street have owned the political dialogue.”

Asked by CNBC’s Brian Sullivan if he could really blame corporate America for working with China, citing their fiduciary obligations to shareholder, Bannon insisted that corporations also have a commitment to stakeholders like the American people.

Read full story here…

The Ascendence Of Global Cities Pushes Nations Aside

Chapter 4 of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order is titled, “The Rise of the Global City” and details the special role of cities in establishing a global Technocracy. This article is evidence of that. ⁃ TN Editor

When Donald Trump announced in June 2017 that the United States was pulling out of the Paris Agreement—the pact between 195 nations (nearly all the world’s nations) to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions—the mayors of Paris, France, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, responded with an op-ed in The New York Times. In it, they announced that “an unprecedented alliance is emerging” among more than 7,400 cities worldwide to honor and uphold the goals of this agreement irrespective of their own country’s level of commitment. They vowed to do this not only for the citizens of their cities, but also for the citizens of “every other city in the world.”

Most people don’t think of cities when thinking about international relations or international law. After all, cities are local governments and their leaders are concerned with local, not global, issues and challenges. Right?

Wrong, or at best: incomplete. Cities are more involved in international policy-making, more savvy at navigating the international halls of power, more ambitious about voicing their opinions at the global level, and more influential in shaping global initiatives than perhaps any time than since Italy’s city-states dominated during the Renaissance.

In 2017, around the same time as city leaders vowed to honor the Paris Agreement, more than 150 city leaders from around the world assembled in Mechelen, Belgium. Their motive: The United Nations was in the process of drafting the Global Compact on Migration (GCM) and Global Compact on Refugees (GCR). Meeting in Belgium, the city leaders drew up the Mechelen Declaration, demanding a seat at the drafting table.

The two global compacts were adopted in Marrakesh in 2018, prompting 150 mayors and city leaders to sign a second declaration calling for the full and formal recognition of the role of local authorities in the implementation, follow-up, and review of both compacts. The UN High Commissioner on Refugees enthusiastically embraced the city leaders’ declaration in a speech highlighting the necessity of working with city leaders to solve the global refugee crisis.

It’s increasingly apparent that cities are no longer just places on the world atlas, or passive appendages of their state governments, but influential and independent actors in global politics.

Cities’ structural powerlessness in international relations

In a formal sense, cities remain structurally powerless—that is, without an official seat at the table or a platform in the current international political framework, which is built on the foundational idea that nation-states are the sole actors and policy-makers at the international level. This state-centric framework was constructed by and for states following the atrocities of World War II, when the winners of the war came together and, following a series of negotiations, created the United Nations (UN).

Nations, and only nations, are permitted to fill the key positions in the UN. While a small role is granted to non-governmental organizations, that can be consulted on matters pertaining to their expertise, this same privilege is not afforded to cities, which are not mentioned even once in the UN Charter.

Read full story here…

Monopoly Power Is Growing In Response To Sustainable Development

The International Monetary Fund says that the reason for growing market concentration is unclear. Unclear? Really?

A prominent financial publication MarketWatch stated,

Growing monopoly power is seen across the developed world, which could be a contributor to ills ranging from lackluster investment growth to growing income inequality, a new International Monetary Fund report finds.

The IMF paper, released ahead of its World Economic Outlook, finds that firms’ price markups over marginal costs rose by close to 8% since 2000 in advanced countries. The study looked at nearly 1 million firms across 27 countries. It didn’t find the same markups in the emerging markets it studied.

The IMF’s macroeconomic reasoning behind this conclusion is not as important as the conclusion itself.

However, this is nothing new. Consolidation toward outright monopolies has been going on since the early 1970s when the Trilateral Commission first announced their “New International Economic Order.”

Today, four companies produce 84 percent of our beef. Four companies control the world’s grain market. Six corporations control 90 percent of the media. Ten companies control everything you buy. Three companies completely dominate the farm equipment market. Fourteen companies control the entire global auto industry. You get the idea. This extends to many different industries where giant global corporations are gobbling up  everything in sight.

How did we get to this point?

While there are many finer points that might be made, I lay the blame on the New International Economic Order, which rebranded itself as Sustainable Development and Agenda 21, aka Technocracy, in 1992 at the infamous Earth Summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro.

Early critics of Agenda 21 who actually participated in the UN’s conference were largely silenced or ignored. Two such people wrote a book in 1994 called The Earth Brokers, and they spilled the beans:

“We argue that UNCED has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet, and its inhabitants. We see how, as a result of UNCED, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.”

A young woman from Nairobi who was allowed to sit in on the Rio proceedings, addressed the assembly with her own conclusions:

“The Summit has attempted to involve otherwise powerless people of society in the process. But by observing the process we now know how undemocratic and untransparent the UN system is. Those of us who have watched the process have said that UNCED has failed. As youth we beg to differ. Multinational corporations, the United States, Japan, the World Bank, The International Monetary Fund have got away with what they always wanted, carving out a better and more comfortable future for themselves… UNCED has en sured increased domination by those who already have power. Worse still it has robbed the poor of the little power they had. It has made them victims of a market economy that has thus far threatened our planet. Amidst elaborate cocktails, travailing and partying, few negotiators realized how critical their decisions are to our generation. By failing to address such fundamental issues as militarism, regulation of transnational corporations, democratisation of the international aid agencies and inequitable terms of trade, my generation has been damned.”

I  hope these words can be emblazoned on your mind, because it reveals where the modern scam started, and why. The IMF knows full well why monopolies are growing throughout the world, why the middle class is disappearing and why wealth inequality is at the highest level ever.

All the sordid details of this deception is contained in Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.