Death To Capitalism! Technocracy Cheers As Markets Crumble

Stock markets are crumbling. Oil has cratered. Interest rates are decimated. Economic indicators are pointed straight down. What’s going on?

These are the very barometers and thermometers of Capitalism and Free Enterprise, and they are sounding a “death rattle” reminiscent of imminent demise.  

The coronavirus (COVID-19) contagion in Wuhan, China was not admitted by Chinese officials until December 31, 2019. On January 19, 2020, without even mentioning the coronavirus outbreak, the new head of the IMF addressed the Peterson Institute which prompted the headline in The Guardian, IMF boss says global economy risks return of Great Depression“.

This new IMF leader, Kristalina Georgieva is a died-in-the-wool Technocrat who worships at the alter of the UN’s Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, and is a vociferous leader in the war to stop global warming. 

Did she have an inside track on what was about to happen? Was she a co-conspirator with the UN to achieve its stated goal of killing Capitalism and Free Enterprise altogether? 

While everyone else in the world is eager to blame the coronavirus for today’s tsunami of horrific economic and market news, I suggest that they take a deeper look: when you see the big picture, you can more likely predict what is about to happen next.  

In July 2018, I wrote

Technocrats are licking their chops as politicians drive society into failure and chaos because they will ultimately wind up controlling everything in the end, scientifically, of course. A great moral hazard exists in that the Humpty Dumpty of economy and politics is at risk to be given a little push off the wall.

Well, Humpty Dumpty wasn’t just nudged, he was drop-kicked off the wall. 

Ever since 1932, Technocracy has wished for the death of Capitalism and Free Enterprise. It would be Technocrats who then save the day by taking over all means of production and consumption and return order to chaos: ordo ab chao. 

Given the modern influence of Technocrats and Sustainable Development this writer has repeatedly warned of the huge moral hazard that exists to kick Capitalism into a casket and drive a stake through its heart.  

In 2015, I wrote an article titled “The Untimely Demise of Capitalism” and it is worth presenting here again: 

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recently revealed the UN’s true purpose in the implementation of Sustainable Development on a global scale:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” [Emphasis added]

She amplified by adding, “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.

Two questions immediately come to mind. First, does the UN actually have the wherewithal to displace Capitalism and second, what does it mean for us if they do so?

The first question will assuredly be answered on September 25th at the upcoming UN Summit for the Adoption of Post-2015 Development Agenda. This is the most important general meeting of the UN since the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio De Janiero where Sustainable Development and the Agenda for the 21st Century (Agenda 21) were both given birth in the first place.

The purpose of the current meeting is to herd all nations on earth, including the United States, into signing a politically binding document called the “2030 Agenda” which lists 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets by which to achieve them by 2030.

The answer to the second question is now in view: What goals and targets do they have in mind?

For sugar coating, 2030 Agenda goals include promises of Utopia such as “end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions “, ensure that “all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives”, and to provide “life-long learning opportunities” for all.

However, the devil’s teeth are found in the fine print. Paragraph 28 of the 2030 Agenda states:

“We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services. Governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns… to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.”

Production? Consumption? These are the very cornerstones of Capitalism and Free Enterprise upon which all principles of supply and demand are predicated. Whereas a free market currently determines what is made and what is consumed, the 2030 Agenda intends to overthrow this in favor of a resource-based economic system where “experts” will simply set production and consumption quotas according to their own formulas and computer algorithms.

And what experts, you ask? They will be the unelected, unaccountable and otherwise untouchable social engineers who claim to know better than you what your life should look like. You will be forced to consume less and sacrifice more. Your ability to engage in commerce, to make profits and to create inheritance will be at their whim, not yours. Goods and services will be priced according to resources used instead of supply and demand.

Figueres is absolutely right that replacing free markets will be “the first time in human history”. Although current practices of Sustainable Development around the world have caused many more economic dislocations than successes, the UN simply responds that we need more of it before Utopia is realized.

As a resource-based economic system, the only historical precedent for Sustainable Development is a well-defined economic model called Technocracy, created during the 1930s when the Great Depression was raging. Back then, prominent scientists, engineers and technicians supposed that Capitalism was dead and it was therefore up to them to run all of society as a social engineering project.

Fortunately, the Technocrats failed to gain traction and the movement faded into obscurity. But now it’s back with a vengeance, under the clever guise of Sustainable Development.

Early Technocracy did not go unnoticed, however. Aldous Huxley nailed it in his classic work, Brave New World, which was penned in 1932 at the peak of the Technocracy movement in the U.S. Indeed, the end result of Technocracy was seen to be scientific dictatorship where every detail of life is micromanaged by an unseen hand, driven by uncontestable policies and regulations.

If the upcoming 2030 Agenda meeting is successful in conning world leaders into signing on to it, the euphemism “Brave New World” will be taken to a whole new level as it becomes reality.

R.I.P. Capitalism and Free Enterprise.

This is not the future that America wants, but it is the future that we are about to get.

Regardless of how we got to this point in March 2020, you can be certain that Technocrats will come out of the woodwork en masse to offer solutions to fix everything and restore order to society. Nobody will protest that these are the same people who got us into this mess in the first place. 

This is exactly what happened (in a relatively minor way) in the 2011 aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown. On November 15, 2015 I wrote,

Consider that when Greece was melting down in 2011, the European Union summarily dispatched Trilateral Commissioner Lucas Papademos to take the role of Prime Minister. At the same time Italy was headed for economic chaos, which prompted the EU to unilaterally send in Trilateral Mario Monte to assume the position of Prime Minister. No elections. The European press called these men “technocrats” as they were installed as quasi-dictators in two of the world’s most historic bastions of elected representation. 

Yes, yes. The Trilateral Commission. The self-proclaimed sharpest knives in the drawer. The ones who revived Technocracy in 1973 and labeled it as their “New International Economic Order” . The same ones who then fed the whole agenda to the United Nations as Sustainable Development and then drove the world into it by using the fear mongering of global warming.

There will be more to this story in the near future. In the meantime, be assured that as far as Technocrats are concerned, Technocracy is just a hairsbreadth away from finally taking over Capitalism and Free Enterprise, and they will be dancing on their graves.


Big Tech Fights Off Potential Facial Recognitions Bans

Big Tech Technocrats who created facial recognition for surveillance are now fighting against any citizen- or legislator-led initiative to ban the technology over privacy concerns. Technocrats believe that science should know everything about you with no rights to privacy. ⁃ TN Editor

Amid rising calls for regulation, technology companies are pushing for laws that would restrict use of facial-recognition systems—and head off the more severe prohibitions some cities and states are weighing.

Microsoft Corp., Inc. and others stand to profit as government agencies and businesses expand use of the technology, which can require large investments in machine-learning and cloud-computing capacity.

That opportunity is threatened by campaigns to severely restrict its use.

San Francisco and six other cities have passed laws to block government use of facial recognition. Lawmakers in New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Michigan are considering some form of ban or strict limitation.

Pressed by advocacy groups, concert promoters LiveNation Entertainment Inc. and AEG Presents, which stages the Coachella Arts and Music Festival, say they don’t have plans to use facial recognition at their events.

More than 60 college campuses have also disavowed the technology, activists say—including the University of California, Los Angeles, which confirmed it nixed a proposal to link its security cameras to facial-recognition systems.

A coalition of 40 activist groups led by Fight for the Future is circulating “Ban Facial Recognition” petitions that call on lawmakers to block government agencies from any use of the technology. Erica Darragh of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, part of the coalition, says recruiting volunteers is a snap: “Facial recognition freaks people out.”

If elected president, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says he would bar police from using it.

Against this backdrop, Microsoft is backing bills in Congress and in its home state of Washington permitting use of the technology with oversight.

“If we don’t move past the polarizing debates that have blocked progress, people will continue to be left without any protection under the law,” Microsoft President Brad Smith said in a statement.

Read full story here…

U.S. Navy Launches Autonomous Killer Submarine

Of course, the military has consistently lied about not intending to build killer robot drones, and then it builds one anyway.  This is the nature of Technocrats: say whatever is necessary to get critics off their backs so that the ‘work’ can continue. ⁃ TN Editor

Meet the Orca, a 50 ton undersea drone armed with high-tech sensors capable of several attack options, including torpedoes, able to wage a stealth-like war under the ocean surface without a single human being in tow.

According to a special report from Kris Osborn at National Interest, earlier this year, Boeing was awarded a US$43 million deal to build four Orcas for the US Navy.

The XL-UUV (Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle) Orca is based upon Echo Voyager and Echo Ranger undersea drones, said Capt. Pete Small, Program Manager for Unmanned Systems, Naval Sea Systems Command.–X757wc

The latter is an 84-foot long, massive underwater drone able to reach depths of 11,000 feet and hit ranges up to 6,500 nautical miles, the report said.

The drone has obstacle avoidance, substantial carrying capacity of up to 34-feet, autonomous buoyancy and Synthetic Aperture Sonar, the report said.

Extra Large UUVs, such as Boeing’s Orca, are certainly large enough to accommodate weapons payloads, and it seems such an option is entirely feasible, depending upon the pace of undersea connectivity and fire control, the report said.

It goes without saying that use of any kind of lethal force would, according to Pentagon doctrine, require a human functioning in a role of command and control.

An interesting essay from the National Academy of Sciences, called “Military Robotics: Latest Trends and Spatial Grasp Solutions,” cites the unprecedented advantage of being able to send large undersea drones through the open ocean for as long as 70-days.

An undersea sensing UUV introduces a new realm of combat strategies and tactics. First and foremost would simply be an opportunity for greater undersea security and stealth, the report said.

Given the high-risk nature of its mission scope, an attack submarine could greatly benefit from an increased ability to conduct reconnaissance missions close to enemy shorelines and in the open ocean — while remaining undetected.

Read full story here…