Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order

Alex Newman Reviews ‘Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order’

This is the best book review written by international journalist Alex Newman. Alex has travelled extensively around the world and is a top expert on the U.N. and Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

Please share this post widely on social media and by email.⁃ TN Editor

The planetary “New World Order” regime that so many globalist schemers have heralded will not be a republic, a monarchy, or a democracy. It will not be communist or capitalist. Instead, according to Patrick M. Wood’s phenomenal book on the subject, it will be a “technocracy” — a system that eliminates individual liberty under the pretext of environmentalism and economic efficiency, dominated and ruled by elitist technocrats. In short, a “scientific dictatorship.” The machinery for this monstrosity is being put in place even now. Even in America, the technocratic grip is getting stronger. But the fight is not over, and resistance is not futile, Wood says.

One quote, used more than once throughout the book, offers a revealing picture of what is happening and what is coming in the building of this technocratic “world order” by the elite. “It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ but an end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault,” explained former U.S. State Department bigwig Richard Gardner in a 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, the flagship mouthpiece of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. The article was headlined “The Hard Road to World Order.”

Throughout the book, Wood methodically sorts through the appearance of “booming, buzzing confusion” created by Gardner and his globalist comrades in their bid to subvert freedom and the nation-state. And while the topic itself is confusing — no doubt a deliberate scheme by the “world order” mongers to conceal their agenda from everyday people — Wood cuts through the confusion to reveal a detailed and dangerous plan to enslave humanity that has been in motion for generations at least.

Regular readers of The New American will be familiar with some of the information in the book, including many of the incriminating quotes by globalists and technocrats themselves. However, Technocracy clarifies much about the nature of what is looming. Indeed, Wood, perhaps alone among leaders in the liberty movement, has identified a crucial component of the globalist agenda that is almost universally overlooked — the precise nature of the emerging global economic and political system known as “Technocracy.”

Wood happens to be uniquely qualified to write the book, too. He is among the world’s leading experts on the Trilateral Commission, having written the explosive book Trilaterals Over Washington with the late scholar Antony Sutton, without question one of America’s finest and most important historians. And Wood’s background knowledge in these areas contributes tremendously to his understanding of the global elite and its agenda. Gardner, the advocate of an “end-run” around self-government, was one of the original Trilaterals.

Early on, Wood relies on his extensive knowledge about the Trilateral Commission to set the stage. Founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973, the Deep State cabal was totally dedicated to creating what it described as a “New International Economic Order.” To understand what that order would look like, Wood relies on admissions by the men themselves. Indeed, Brzezinski himself laid out much of the vision in his 1970 book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era.

The establishment lackeys working to usher in this new system of governance barely bother to conceal their agenda any longer. Council on Foreign Relations member Dr. Parag Khanna actually wrote a book in 2015 outlining the plan to make it a reality. Entitled Technocracy in America, the radical plan calls for abolishing the U.S. Senate, replacing the presidency with an executive committee, and allowing the U.S. Supreme Court to “modernize” the U.S. Constitution to make possible technocratic rule by totalitarian “experts.”

Of course, the idea is not new. As Wood discovered long before writing his most recent book, the term technocracy first came to prominence in the early 1930s. In 1932, Nicholas Murray Butler, the president of Columbia University — already a bastion of communists, collectivists, totalitarians, and kooks of all varieties — announced that the institution was supporting a new form of economic organization. With the public already losing confidence in economists and politicians, the new system would be guided and controlled by scientists and engineers. The name for this proposed system was “technocracy.”

After a giant scandal, recounted in the book, the effort failed. But the technocrats did not give up. In fact, they created a magazine called The Technocrat. And in 1938, this publication defined the system like this: “Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” Under the plan, private property, money, and prices arrived at through market forces of supply and demand would give way to a new system in which energy and resources would become the key accounting units throughout the economy. Individuals would become nothing but cogs in the machine.

Obviously, such a system is completely incompatible with individual liberty, Western Judeo-Christian civilization, or free agency. Yet, as Wood documents meticulously, it is the very system being advanced by the United Nations, governments around the world, and their legions of useful (tax-funded) idiots. Under the guise of “sustainable development,” saving the environment, and reducing inequality, countless naive people have been suckered into the movement. Indeed, “sustainability,” the underlying pretext behind the international agreements known as UN Agenda 21 and UN Agenda 2030, is basically warmed-over technocracy, the book shows.

In UN Agenda 2030, which was adopted by Obama and all other governments in 2015, the UN pledges that it will protect the planet through “sustainable consumption and production” and by “sustainably managing its natural resources.” The document goes on to explain that this must include “sustainable” control of every single inch of the planet’s surface. Thus, as Wood puts it, the initial cost of this utopia promised by the UN is “nothing less than turning control over all natural resources to the UN.” Wood then shows that Agenda 2030 traces right back to globalist John Podesta, a member of the Trilateral Commission and a crucial operative with Obama and the Clintons.

The increasingly discredited man-made global-warming hypothesis is serving as an important justification for the advancement of this ideology. And top UN leaders have been remarkably candid about it. Then-UN Framework Convention on Climate Change boss Christiana Figueres, for example, let the cat out of the bag in 2015. “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” she declared, adding that the goal was to “change the economic model that has been reigning for at least 150 years.”

Audio Book on Audible

Another important component of the march toward technocracy is the infamous “public-private partnership.” This fascistic melding of government and corporate power has become ubiquitous around the world in recent years. And it is no accident. For one, it helps remove control from the people, because the politicians and bureaucrats sign away their rights and responsibilities to major corporate interests. On the other hand, it allows corporate giants to extract large profits from the taxpayers by force even while doing things that consumers would never voluntarily fund, such as high-speed rail boondoggles.

Also critical in eroding self-government has been the proliferation of “regional government” and “councils of governments.” In America, this trend can be observed all over the country, as various city and county governments transfer their powers and responsibilities to “regional” bodies over which voters have no control. Once the people are disenfranchised and accountability to voters is lost, it makes the introduction of these totalitarian and technocratic schemes much easier to get away with. In the United States, the federal government has been unconstitutionally weaponizing taxpayer funds to encourage more and more of these unconstitutional arrangements that make a mockery of the constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government. Supranational regional regimes such as the European Union are crucial, too.

One of the most interesting chapters in Technocracy deals with “Fintech,” or financial technology. As part of making humanity “sustainable,” more than a few prominent voices have explained that a new financial system will be required — a system in which private capital can be “redeployed” to finance the goals of the technocrats and their “world order.” Relying on large amounts of documentation and even public statements by advocates, Wood argues that some form of digital “cryptocurrency” would play a leading role in the technocratic world order. The central banks of the world, along with the Bank for International Settlements, are already plotting away. A “cashless society” is a key part of the plan.

As for what this coming technocratic dictatorship will look like, if the plotters are successful in imposing it on humanity, Wood makes a very compelling case that China is actually the leading contemporary model and example. Even now, Wood says, academics acknowledge that mainland China has transitioned from communism and Marxism to technocracy, despite the remaining outward trappings. And as this magazine has also documented extensively, the Chinese “model” is being spread around the world, with key assistance from Western globalists, the UN, and other powerful forces.

Read full story here…

Trilateral Commission

Ordo Ab Chao: A Look At The Trilateral Commission

This is an excellent read on the Trilateral Commission and not just because it cites the early works of Antony Sutton and myself. The Commission was the fountainhead of Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

In a series of articles last year (Article 50 Revisited: Has the UK’s Secession from the EU been Years in the Making?) I first broached the subject of the Trilateral Commission in relation to the UK’s separation from the European Union. I debated whether communications emanating from both members and the European Group Task Force that reported to the Commission were an indication of Britain’s secession from the EU having been years in the making.

Following on from this let’s take a brief look at the structure of the Trilateral Commission before attempting to gain an understanding of their goals.

In the late 1970s researchers Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood published a two volume book called, ‘Trilaterals Over Washington‘. The opening chapters go into extensive detail on the composition of the commission which is broken down into three key parts: The Operators, The Propagandists and Technicians, and the Power Holders.

The Operators are shown as being a quartet of politicians, bureaucrats, establishment lawyers and trade unionists. According to the authors, operators ‘retain administrative positions only as long as they are successful in using political power to gain political objectives‘. To remain attached to the Commission, they are obligated to ‘go along to get along‘ by expressing loyalty to the institutions aims.

A step above The Operators are the Propagandists and Technicians. In this instance, Propagandists are the media who seek to control the public news cycle, whereas Technicians are the academics and research controllers who devise the plans required to ‘promote and implement objectives.’ It is these plans which politicians and bureaucrats attempt to bring before the legislature for implementation. However, Propagandists and Technicians are only successful in their endeavour if they manage to ‘conceive and promote plans within the overall framework welcome to the Power Holders.’

In short, Propagandists and Technicians are ‘the intellectual linkage between the Power Holders and The Operators.’ Without them, plans cannot be devised and disseminated down to government.

A level up from the Propagandists and Technicians are The Power Holders, a concentrated mix of multinational corporate directors and international bankers. Sutton and Wood declared that the Power Holders exist to,

lay down guidelines for the propagandists and the research directors, and pass through objectives to the operators for implementation. Remember, a Richard Nixon goes to see international banker David Rockefeller, not the other way around.

The Power Holders are, in part, those who make-up the Trilateral Commission’s Executive Committee. Since its introduction in 1973, membership of the Commission has been by invitation only. Deciding who to extend invitations to is a matter for the chairmen of each regional group in the Commission and fellow members of the Committee. For reference, the three regional groups consist of North America, Europe and Asia Pacific.

From its inception to the present day, the Trilateral Commission has been populated by individuals representing multiple different think tanks, councils and institutions. Some of these include the UK’s House of Commons and House of Lords, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Brookings Institution, Bilderberg, The Carlyle Group and the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs.

On examination of the Commission’s membership list, a clear interlock begins to emerge between the Commission and outside institutions. For example, the chairman of the CFR, Richard Haass, is a member, as is the chairman of the Carlyle Group, David Rubenstein. The Trilateral Commission could be construed as a forum that brings together some of the most influential men and women within industry, those who openly share the Commission’s international objectives.

At the time of publishing their book, Sutton and Wood discovered that of the twelve members of the North American Committee, three of them (David Rockefeller, William Coleman and Henry Kissinger) were intimately connected to Chase Manhattan Bank in New York. In the case of David Rockefeller, not only was he the founder of the Trilateral Commission and chairman of the Executive Committee, he was also the chairman of Chase Manhattan. The authors go on to reveal that, at the time, eight members of the board at Chase were members of Rockefeller’s Commission. In other words, the power base at the Trilateral Commission was firmly rooted within the circles of banking.

For historical context, it is important to note that one of the Trilateral Commission’s founding members was former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. After securing the Presidency in 1976, Carter filled his administration with eighteen members of the Commission – the most prominent of which was Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Commission’s website declares that ‘members who take up positions in their national administration give up Trilateral Commission membership.’ But this does not mean that they do not remain allied to the Commission’s aspirations.

This was certainly the case with Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was the founding director of the Trilateral Commission, and after being selected as Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor promptly relinquished his membership. In the 1980’s he returned to the Commission to resume his duties on the Executive Committee.

Prior to the Commission being founded, Brzezinski wrote a book in 1969 titled ‘Between Two Ages; America’s Role in the Technotronic Era.’ It was here where Brzezinski began to lay out what in his mind was the necessity for international collaboration over the sovereignty of the nation state:

Tension is unavoidable as man strives to assimilate the new into the framework of the old. For a time the established framework resiliently integrates the new by adapting it in a more familiar shape. But at some point the old framework becomes overloaded. The new input can no longer be redefined into traditional forms, and eventually it asserts itself with compelling force.

Today, the old framework of international politics — with their spheres of influence, military alliances between nation-states, the fiction of sovereignty, doctrinal conflicts arising from nineteenth-century crises — is clearly no longer compatible with reality.

The suppression of national sovereignty in favour of a global form of centralised governance is a leading pillar of the Trilateral Commission.

In the book, Brzezinski described how ‘necessary political innovation‘ – such as a ‘re-examination‘ of the American Constitution – could be applied:

Political innovation will not come from direct constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The needed change is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly. Nonetheless, its eventual scope may be far-reaching, especially as the political process gradually assimilates scientific-technological change.

What Brzezinski is describing here is the model of gradualism. The likes of the Bank for International Settlements have openly discussed the benefits of using gradualism as a method for exacting change in regards to monetary policy. Instead of jumping forward with a plan, it is much more beneficial to use covert methods of control that span over the decades. The Trilateral Commission have long since recognised that exercising patience is advantageous when it comes to implementing what is a global agenda.

In a further denouncement of the nation state, Brzezinski posited that it had ‘ceased to be the principal creative force‘. Taking its place were international banks and multinational corporations (the two entities which Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood cited as the Power Holders of the Trilateral Commission). Therefore, with the ‘nation-state gradually yielding its sovereignty‘, banks and corporations were now ‘acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state‘.

From Brzezinski’s analysis, we begin to understand how Corporatism has superseded individual nations. Nearly fifty years on, global corporations have become the vehicle for integrating the planet under the banner of globalisation. This has been facilitated in large part by cross party mergers and acquisitions, which in 2018 have reached record levels. Indeed, the wealth of major corporations now surpasses that of entire countries.

The goal of a global society where the collective takes precedent over the individual is deeply entrenched within the Trilateral Commission. To achieve such a goal requires an extreme level of dedication and conviction. Perhaps the one passage in Brzezinski’s book that speaks of an almost ethereal purpose is where he discusses how man encompass a ‘yearning to understand himself and his environment.’

However crudely and primitively, man has always sought to crystallize some organizing principle that would, by creating order out of chaos, relate him to the universe and help define his place in it.

Order out of chaos has been the prevailing model for globalists dating back to at least the First World War. It was out of chaos that the League of Nations, The Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations were founded. All of which are symbols of internationalism.

In 1998, during a 25 year celebration evening of the Trilateral Commission, Brzezinski hinted at the idea of order originating out of chaos:

Not quite a decade ago, the Cold War came to an end and we all started searching for another formula which would capture the essence of the new situation in which we found ourselves. A phrase emerged which was meant to describe the fundamental character of the security condition of the world, and it was the ‘New World Order’. The New World Order was to imply accommodation, cooperation.

Brzezinski went on to say that after the fall of the Soviet Union, ‘assertive multilateralism‘ came into being. According to Brzezinski, the hope at the time was for the United Nations to help ‘shore up the New World Order‘:

Very quickly we discovered that assertive multilateralism was an oxymoron and that the New World Order wasn’t there.

When Brzezinski wrote of old frameworks becoming ‘overloaded‘, this could be construed today as the gradual breakdown of what world leaders proclaim as the ‘rules based global order‘. The advents of Brexit, Donald Trump and Italian ‘populism‘ serve to reinforce this perception. Media outlets continue to associate a rise in nationalistic / protectionist tendencies as the ‘rules based global order‘ coming under increasing strain. Were Brzezinski alive today, he might well cite resistance to the ‘international order‘ seen throughout the western world as an indication that it is more a myth than a reality.

It was at the same 25 year celebratory event where alternative speakers spoke devotedly about internationalism and in condemnation of nationalism and sovereignty. Sadako Ogata, a former member of the Trilateral Commission’s Executive Committee, remarked how ‘international interdependence requires new and more intensive forms of international cooperation to counteract economic and political nationalism‘. This relates to a recent statement by French President Emmanuel Macron on trade tariffs implemented by Donald Trump, in which he said that ‘economic nationalism leads to war‘.

Ogata also warned of a ‘reawakening of inward-looking attitudes‘ and stressed how the most vulnerable elements of society must be included, such as migrants and refugees. Since the onset of the ‘Arab Spring‘ in 2010, Europe has seen a exponential rise in displaced residents seeking refuge from war ravaged countries. This has contributed to a ‘reawakening‘ of nationalist / protectionist sentiments within both the public and political sphere.

Peter Sutherland, a former European member of the Commission, spoke of how integration in Europe comes down to a ‘willingness on the part of old nations to share sovereignty.’ Sutherland went as far to say that absolute sovereignty was no longer a ‘viable option into the future‘ – not even for the United States. Instead, it was multilateralism which was the essential ingredient for ‘binding our interdependence together.’

Georges Berthoin, once European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, declared the enlarged European community that grew out of two world wars had originated ‘without nationalistic and imperial undertones.’

Outside of the membership, former Presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter wrote letters expressing sorrow for not being able to attend the Commission’s anniversary event. It should be noted that prior to entering the White House, all three gentlemen have previously been members of the Commission.

Clinton wrote about the efforts of the G7 and ‘numerous private / public institutions‘ who were all ‘dedicated to deepening international cooperation.’

Bush on the other hand expressed concern about ‘today’s voices of protection from left and right – those that seem to feel we should no longer enter into international trade agreements.’ This mirrors closely what is going on today through the Trump administration.

Lastly, Jimmy Carter was adamant that the Trilateral Commission had ‘encouraged understanding and cooperation rather than conflict.’ What Carter did not mention is that to reach a place of ‘understanding‘ and ‘cooperation‘, conflict almost always ensues first. It is then that globalist organisations like the Commission seek to implement order out of chaos.

When you combine all of these beliefs, it becomes clear that the Trilateral Commission exists to promote internationalism at the expense of national sovereignty. But rather than being a hindrance to their objectives, resurgent nationalism and protectionism provides exactly the sought of chaos in which the Commission and other institutions working through them can exploit in order to promote a global agenda for greater integration between nations.

Read full story here…


Technocrats Turn To Ethicists To ‘Save Their Soul’

Technocrats create because they can, not because there is a moral or ethical case to do so. In their mind, technology is not ethical or moral and therefore does not deserve a consideration during the development processes. ⁃ TN Editor

Fifty-two floors below the top of Salesforce Tower, I meet Paula Goldman in a glass-paneled conference room where the words EQUALITY OFFICE are spelled out on a patchwork bunting banner, the kind of decoration you might buy for a child’s birthday party.

Goldman has a master’s degree from Princeton and a Ph.D. from Harvard, where she studied how controversial ideas become mainstream. She arrived at Salesforce just over a year ago to become its first-ever Chief Ethical and Humane Use Officer, taking on an unprecedented and decidedly ambiguous title that was created specifically for her unprecedented, ambiguous, yet highly specific job: see to it that Salesforce makes the world better, not worse.

“I think we’re at a moment in the industry where we’re at this inflection point,” Goldman tells me. “I think the tech industry was here before, with security in the ’80s. All of a sudden there were viruses and worms, and there needed to be a whole new way of thinking about it and dealing with it. And you saw a security industry grow up after that. And now it’s just standard protocol. You wouldn’t ship a major product without red-teaming it or making sure the right security safeguards are in it.”

“I think we’re at a similar moment with ethics,” she says. “It requires not only having a set of tools by which to do the work, but also a set of norms, that it’s important. So how do you scale those norms?”

I ask her how those norms are decided in the first place.

“In some sense, it’s the billion-dollar question,” she says. “All of these issues are extremely complicated, and there’s very few of them where the answer is just absolutely clear. Right? A lot of it does come down to, which values are you holding up highest in your calculus?”


In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, employee walkouts, and other political and privacy incidents, tech companies faced a wave of calls to hire what researchers at the Data & Society Research Institute call “ethics owners,” people responsible for operationalizing “the ancient, domain-jumping, and irresolvable debates about human values that underlie ethical inquiry” in practical and demonstrable ways.

Salesforce hired Goldman away from the Omidyar Network as the culmination of a seven-month crisis-management process that came after Salesforce employees protested the company’s involvement in the Trump administration’s immigration work. Other companies, responding to their own respective crises and concerns, have hired a small cadre of similar professionals — philosophers, policy experts, linguists and artists — all to make sure that when they promise not to be evil, they actually have a coherent idea of what that entails.

So then what happened?

While some tech firms have taken concrete steps to insert ethical thinking into their processes, Catherine Miller, interim CEO of the ethical consultancy Doteveryone, says there’s also been a lot of “flapping round” the subject.

Critics dismiss it as “ethics-washing,” the practice of merely kowtowing in the direction of moral values in order to stave off government regulation and media criticism. The term belongs to the growing lexicon around technology ethics, or “tethics,” an abbreviation that began as satire on the TV show “Silicon Valley,” but has since crossed over into occasionally earnest usage.

“If you don’t apply this stuff in actual practices and in your incentive structures, if you don’t have review processes, well, then, it becomes like moral vaporware,” says Shannon Vallor, a philosopher of technology at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “It’s something that you’ve promised and you meant to deliver, but it never actually arrived.”

Google, infamously, created an AI Council and then, in April of last year, disbanded it after employees protested the inclusion of an anti-LGBTQ advocate. Today, Google’s approach to ethics includes the use of “Model Cards” that aim to explain its AI.

“That’s not anything that has any teeth,” says Michael Brent, a data ethicist at Enigma and a philosophy professor at the University of Denver. “That’s just like, ‘Here’s a really beautiful card.'”

The company has made more-substantial efforts: Vallor just completed a tour of duty at Google, where she taught ethics seminars to engineers and helped the company implement governance structures for product development. “When I talk about ethics in organizational settings, the way I often present it is that it’s the body of moral knowledge and moral skill that helps people and organizations meet their responsibilities to others,” Vallor tells me.

More than 100 Google employees have attended ethics trainings developed at the Markkula center. The company also developed a fairness module as part of its Machine Learning Crash Course, and updates its list of “responsible AI practices” quarterly. “The vast majority of the people who make up these companies want to build products that are good for people,” Vallor says. “They really don’t want to break democracy, and they really don’t want to create threats to human welfare, and they really don’t want to decrease literacy and awareness of reality in society. They want to make things they’re proud of. So am I going to do what I can to help them achieve that? Yes.”


The Markkula center, where Vallor works, is named after Mike Markkula Jr., the “unknown” Apple co-founder who, in 1986, gave the center a starting seed grant in the same manner that he gave the young Steve Jobs an initial loan. He never wanted his name to be on the building — that was a surprise, a token of gratitude, from the university.

Markkula has retreated to living a quiet life, working from his sprawling gated estate in Woodside. These days, he doesn’t have much contact with the company he started — “only when I have something go wrong with my computer,” he tells me. But when he arrived at the Santa Clara campus for an orientation with his daughter in the mid-’80s, he was Apple’s chairman, and he was worried about the way things were going in the Valley. “It was clear to us both, Linda [his wife] and I, that there were quite a few people who were in decision-making positions who just didn’t have ethics on their radar screen,” he says. “It’s not that they were unethical, they just didn’t have any tools to work with.”

Read full story here…

The Connective

‘The Connective’: Arizona Pioneers ‘Smart Region’ Concept

National and global buzz is increasing over the Smart Region concept dreamed up by Arizona State University where smart city technology will bypass individual cities by imposing regional policies directly.

Many think this is a great idea, but there are just a couple of problems with it. First, it strips sovereignty from individual cities and second, any regional form of governance is patently unconstitutional. ⁃ TN Editor

During the ASU Smart Region Summit in November, the formation of the statewide collaborative, The Connective, was announced at the State of the Smart Region Gala. The Connective’s vision is that through a community-driven applied research model and intentional, unprecedented collaboration, the consortium of public, private, university, and community partners will empower Greater Phoenix communities to build the nation’s largest, most connected smart region, developing and deploying technology-scalable solutions rooted in connectivity, mobility, equity, and sustainability. This constitutes a big bold new vision for Arizona!

“This is the first major regional effort in the United States to engage communities across such a broad range of municipalities in co-designing and co-investing in our smart and connected futures,” says Lev Gonick, chief information officer at Arizona State University (ASU).

While ASU is planning its own smart city project, they’re also uniting with the Arizona Institute for Digital Progress (AZiDP), Arizona Commerce AuthorityMaricopa Association of GovernmentsGreater Phoenix Economic Council, and 22 Greater Phoenix cities and towns to create and build The Connective.

“Creating a smarter, safer, more vibrant city is at the heart of this effort. ASU is proud to partner with industry and municipalities to advance this initiative for our city, our region, and the state,” says Cynthia Sagers, vice president for research at ASU.

A day-long summit closed the SRS focusing on surfacing the big ideas and highlighting the strategic partnerships that will bring our cities and regions into the future.

Several companies have announced partnerships with The Connective, including Cox, Dell, Sprint, and SRP. Cox and ASU recently announced their plan to launch the Cox Connected Environments Collaboratory at ASU, an incubation space that will cultivate a smart region ecosystem while addressing the need for a consistent, powerful network on campus and beyond to really capitalize on the promise of these smart region initiatives. Students, faculty, and staff will develop Internet of Things (IoT) solutions to problems facing the optimization of buildings for sustainability and new way for us to interact with our evolving environment, providing new learning experiences in virtual and augmented reality, infrastructure modeling, privacy and security, sustainability, and more.

Sprint recently announced a significant collaboration to bring 5G, the Curiosity IoT Network to fruition, a whole new university degree program for IoT development.

Further, Alteryx and ASU are teaming up to use the former’s data analytics platform to effectively use data to solve smart region challenges. This partnership will give students, faculty and staff members an edge on tackling real-world business issues and driving social impact.

All of these announcements signal a substantial industry commitment to public private partnerships and improving the experience of ASU community members while broadly sharing their discoveries and forward pathways.

Bill Gates, Microsoft’s co-founder, had invested in the purchase of 25,000 acres west of the White Tank Mountains for a planned new smart city known as Belmont, and has now also invested in another 2,800 acres in Buckeye.

Belmont’s partners consider the greenfield community to be a “blank slate of opportunity” for developing advanced communication, energy, and transportation infrastructure designed for innovation and delivering an improved quality of life.

In the meantime, Microsoft Corporation has acquired three land parcels in the West Valley for enormous data center builds.

Read full story here…

As Sun ‘Hibernates’, Mini Ice-Age Is Coming

Global warming alarmists will live on in denial of the sun’s role in shaping climate on earth. Nevertheless, they are fully committed to the transition to a green economy and Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

Sunspot activity on the surface of the Sun follows a well-known but little understood 11 year cycle. Activity rises and falls creating the so-called solar maximum and then solar minimum. During a solar maximum, the Sun is more powerful and is littered with sunspots.

Conversely when the Sun enters a solar minimum – which it did about two years ago – energy from our host star begins to lessen.

However, one expert has warned that the Sun will enter a period of “hibernation” this year, in what as known as a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM).

Prof Valentina Zharkova, from the department of mathematics, physics and electrical engineering at Northumbria University, warned this could cause global temperatures to drop by one degrees Celsius.

While that sounds like an insignificant drop, it could have major ramifications for the planet, including a slow down in agricultural production.

The expert added the Sun’s hibernation period could last for three decades, which will lead to wetter and colder summers.

Prof Zharkova told The Sun: “The Sun is approaching a hibernation period.

“Less sunspots will be formed on the solar surface and thus less energy and radiation will be emitted towards the planets and the Earth.”

“The reduction in temperature will result in cold weathers on Earth, wet and cold summers, cold and wet winters.”

“We will possibly get big frosts as is happening now in Canada where they see [temperatures] of -50C.

“But this is only the start of GSM, there is more to come in the next 33 years.”

The last GSM, which comes around roughly every 400 years, came in the 17th century.

Research produced by NASA indicated during this last prolonged solar minimum the cooling temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were indeed exacerbated by that Maunder minimum.

In 2006, NASA said: “From 1650 to 1710, temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum.

Read full story here…

China Requiring Electronic Tracking For Coronavirus Quarantine

For coronavirus victims who are quarantined in their own home, China is making sure they stay there by using devices similar to the electronic ‘bracelets’ that courts and jails use for tracking prisoners. ⁃ TN Editor

The Hong Kong government has announced it has 500 electronic monitoring tags ready to distribute to Hong Kong people placed under home quarantine upon returning to the SAR after having spent time in Hubei province, the epicenter of the ongoing coronavirus outbreak.

The government’s chief information officer, Victor Lam, unveiled the e-tag at a press briefing this afternoon, saying that any Hong Kong residents who have been to Hubei in the past 14 days must undergo home quarantine of 14 days, a measure the new electronic bracelets are meant to ensure.

The tag is paired to a person’s smartphone — using Bluetooth Low Energy, or BLE, technology — and is plugged into the mains at the wearer’s home.

If the person wearing the tag unplugs the phone and leaves the quarantine zone with it, or if the distance between the tag and the phone exceeds 20 meters, an alert will be sent to the Department of Health and the police.

The authorities will also get an alert if the tag is broken or removed. Anyone who violates the home quarantine order faces up to six months in jail and a fine of HK$5,000 (US$644).

Lam added that because of concerns about personal privacy, the e-tag will not collect any personal data, and the tags aren’t equipped with GPS. When asked by reporters how will they be able to find anyone who absconds, Lam said they will first try calling the person on their phone.

At the moment, 500 tags are ready to be handed out, and an additional 1,000 can be made available within two weeks if necessary.

Read full story here…