Former UK PM Calls For ‘Global Government’ To Tackle Coronavirus

UK’s Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been widely hailed as a Technocrat, social engineer and member of the global elite. He is calling for a ‘working executive’ who would have power to direct all nations in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic.  ⁃ TN Editor

Now is the time for global leaders to create one world government to tackle the twin medical and economic crises caused by the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged on Thursday.

The left-wing former Labour leader said there was a need for a taskforce involving world leaders, health experts and the heads of international organisations that would have supreme and unfettered executive powers to coordinate the response.

He gave no indication of who would appoint the “leaders,” how long they would serve for or just what their powers would involve, the Guardian reports.

Brown simply wants a new layer of global supra-government to force a solution to a crisis that began in Wuhan, China.

“This is not something that can be dealt with in one country,” he said. “There has to be a coordinated global response.”

Brown said the current crisis was different to the one he was involved in 2008 during the global financial crash. “That was an economic problem that had economic causes and had an economic solution.

“This is first and foremost a medical emergency and there has to be joint action to deal with that. But the more you intervene to deal with the medical emergency, the more you put economies at risk.”

Brown said his proposed global taskforce would fight the crisis on two fronts. There would need to be a coordinated effort to find a vaccine, and to organise production, purchasing and prevent profiteering.

Read full story here…

House Dems Push For Renewable Energy Tax Credits As Coronavirus Stimulus

As predictable as the sun coming up in the East, open calls have already emerged for stimulus money to be spent on Green New Deal initiatives and alternative energy. This malinvestment will not help recovery.

During the 2008 financial crisis, President Barack Obama snuck in massive stimulus spending for Smart Grid rollout that now ubiquitously controls energy distribution and consumption. Today, it is renewable energy that is in focus. Can you see that both are directly focused on ENERGY and the control thereof? ⁃ TN Editor

As lawmakers continue to hammer out legislation to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, House Democrats are looking to insert renewable energy tax credit provisions into a larger stimulus package aimed at stabilizing the economy.

The House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition co-chairs said in a joint statement to Morning Consult that they have an eye toward addressing “both the economic slowdown we are facing as a result of COVID-19 and the ongoing climate crisis” with these measures.

“Our members pushed for these credits in the [2019] end-of-year funding package and will continue to fight for them in this round of economic stimulus,” said Reps. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Doris Matsui (D-Calif.).

The seven potential tax credit provisions were the subject of a Feb. 27 letter that 24 environmental advocacy groups and renewable energy trade associations sent to the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. The groups pushed Congress to prioritize codifying clean energy tax incentives promoting the use and production of electricity storage systems, solar, wind and electric vehicles, among others.

Now, those same advocacy and trade groups have seized the opportunity to rally support for the measures as part of a potential economic stimulus package to address the coronavirus pandemic. They are in touch with members of the House sustainable energy coalition, as well as the Senate Climate Crisis Special Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and leadership in both chambers of Congress, according to Bill Parsons, chief operating officer of the American Council on Renewable Energy.

Lawmakers reportedly have two separate stimulus packages in the works: one that would attend to more immediate public health and emergency financial concerns of those impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, and one that would shore up the industries impacted by the anticipated economic downturn. Renewable energy tax credit provisions are currently being considered as part of the latter package.

“The renewable energy industry is definitely not immune to the supply-chain disruptions that accompany a pandemic like this,” Parsons said. “Because of supply-chain disruptions and the time sensitivity of developers’ ability to monetize these tax credits, COVID-19 is already having a damaging impact on the renewable sector, and we expect that impact will only worsen over time.”

As a consequence of the pandemic, the U.S. renewables industry is facing widespread supply chain issues because the materials needed for wind and solar infrastructure come largely from China. And these concerns are compounded by the fact that two existing tax credits are approaching their ends: the investment tax credit for solar and other technologies (which decreased from 30 percent in 2019 to 26 percent to 2020, and is subject to future phase-downs) and the production tax credit for wind (which is expiring in 2021). The last time renewable energy tax credits saw a major extension was in the 2009 stimulus bill following the 2008 financial crisis.

“If the purpose of an economic stimulus bill is to provide support to people and industries that have been adversely impacted by coronavirus, the renewables sector absolutely meets that criteria,” said Parsons, citing the supply-chain disruptions, the tax credit availability and the urgency of addressing climate change.

Read full story here…

alternative energy

China Slashes Subsidies For Alternative Energy

China’s Technocracy is taking major blows at every turn, and it appears that it will stop chasing windmills and solar farms. With crashing energy demand and falling prices on coal and oil, alternative energy has absolutely no economic justification. ⁃ TN Editor

Things might be going from bad to worse for Elon Musk and his merry band of alternative energy cultists in China. While Musk is currently in the midst of criticism from the Chinese government related to a bait and switch he is pulling on vehicle hardware (while blaming the coronavirus), the Chinese government appears to be set on slashing additional alternative energy subsidies in 2020.

China is going to cut its budget for new solar power plants in half this year and plans on completely ending handouts for offshore wind farms, according to Caixin.

It is the latest in a string of moves by the Chinese government to cut support for renewable energy. The attitude has shifted in recent years as manufacturing costs have dropped. The government now seems focused on getting renewable energy to stand on its own.

On Tuesday, China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) announced it had cut this year’s subsidies for new solar power projects by 50% to 1.5 billion yuan ($215.8 million). “Of the total, it has earmarked 1 billion yuan for large solar projects, which will be divvied out through auctions. The remainder will be used for residential solar systems,” Caixin reports.

China is also doing away with subsidies for new offshore wind farms this year and is ending subsidies for new onshore projects in 20201.

Shi Jingli, a professor at a research institute under China’s top economic planner said: “Cutting subsidies for new renewable energy projects is a reasonable measure to allocate funds more wisely. The generous subsidies given to offshore wind farms over the past few years have weighed on the central government’s finances and caused severe deficits in subsidy funding.”

Jingli continued: “Considering the damage that the coronavirus outbreak has done to businesses, the NEA has extended the application period for the auctions until mid-June. It has also given solar and wind farm operators an additional month to apply to connect their projects to the country’s power grid, which is necessary for a power plant to start selling electricity.”

Meanwhile, new installations of solar power capacity plunged 40% last year after the country installed 26.81 gigawatts of new capacity. Numerous other projects underway have already hit major delays due to the coronavirus outbreak and supply chain disruptions. 

Could EVs be next?

Read full story here…

The Looming Collision Between Electric Vehicles And Green Energy

Like in America and Europe, Australian leaders are dancing with the same green fairies who sprinkle the angel dust of delusion, bad science and bad judgement over the whole land. It’s going to end poorly for all of us. ⁃ TN Editor

Two green-dream fantasies are heading for a massive and costly collision.

Firstly they dream of generating all grid power from wind/solar propped up by battery storage (such as lots of giant Tesla batteries and pumped hydro).

Secondly they dream of replacing all petrol/diesel/gas cars, trucks and buses with electric vehicles, powered by more batteries.

But wind farms do well if they can average about 35% of their rated capacity with low predictability, while solar panels average just 25% of their capacity, produced intermittently. To generate zero emissions energy for Australia, we would need hills covered with turbines, flats covered with solar panels, the countryside spider-webbed with access roads and transmission lines, and much more hydro.

To stabilise a green energy system without using hydrocarbons will require an eye-watering quantity of batteries, costing as much as 200 times the cost of any wind/solar facility needing backup. Every home will need a battery in the basement (and sensible ones will also have a diesel in the shed).

Add to this battery bonanza millions of batteries will be needed to electrify and replace our fleet of petrol/diesel vehicles.

No wonder cynical mining companies like BHP are going green – they smell a jackpot from the coming green boom in demand for steel, aluminium, lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, cobalt, rare earths and nuclear fuels. And no wonder Tesla supports green energy – the total annual output of the world’s biggest battery factory in Nevada would store less than five minutes of annual US electricity demand. And they also see booming demand for electric vehicle batteries. No wonder Tesla shares have gone ballistic (the boom before the crash?).

The carbon dioxide emitted by all the extra mining, transport, manufacture and disposal of green energy generators and batteries would far exceed the CO2 allegedly saved by the threatened green upheaval.

All Australians rely on trucks to deliver their daily food to towns and cities – in road trains, semi-trailers, refrigerated trucks and electric trains, almost all powered by diesel, coal or gas. If they were all-electric and powered by batteries, where will the electricity come from to recharge all of these batteries? In tomorrow’s Australia it must come from an unreliable wind/solar grid, hydro power or diesel generators.

Even if they just focus on forcing electrification of private cars where does the real power come from every night when most of them plug in to re-charge? If it is a still night, ZERO electricity will be coming from wind and solar. That leaves coal, gas, batteries, pumped-hydro, rationing, load-shedding or blackouts to close the gap.

Forget energy-wasting nonsense like capture and burial of CO2, and the energy-consuming roundabout of generating and then burning hydrogen. The zero-emissions delusion is impossible without nuclear power, but this can only happen if people can be reassured on nuclear safety and waste disposal. Are the Greens going to lead that education process?

And if we get global cooling instead of global warming, what will keep us warm on long still winter nights? Any state or country reaching for these impossible green dreams is destined for blackouts and energy riots on the streets.

It’s time for Australian politicians to stop frolicking with green fairies around the zero emissions maypole. Green energy will never power a conversion to electric vehicles. They must remove all barriers and climate taxes on safe, reliable, trusted energy sources – coal, gas and oil.

We need more reliable cheap power for jobs and industry and more CO2 in the atmosphere to make green plants grow faster with less water.

Read full story here…

Gas Stoves Banned

Why Cities Are Banning Gas Stoves To Fight Climate Change

The irrational war on natural gas is driven by global warming hysteria but it is gaining ground all around the world. When burned, natural gas produces only water and carbon dioxide. Generating electricity to do the same work wastes energy. ⁃ TN Editor

Ever since the Green New Deal became a key talking point and policy goal of progressive politicians last year, there’s been a renewed push to make American homes and buildings better for the environment. For a growing number of municipalities and local leaders, part of the answer lies in shifting homes toward relying solely on electricity, instead of gas, for cooking, heating, and running appliances.

The current movement for U.S. municipalities to eliminate natural gas from homes first gained momentum in California. In 2018, the state’s then-governor, Jerry Brown, signed a pair of laws that funded research into reducing building emissions and developing clean heating technology.

Last July, Berkeley became the first U.S. municipality to sign a law banning the installation of natural gas lines in new buildings. Since then, more than 20 other California cities have passed similar laws, and local and state governments across the country have begun considering similar laws as part of their strategies to cut building emissions. Maine passed a bill last June providing funding to install new electric heat pumps in place of furnaces across the state, and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan said her city will unveil a plan in 2021 to make all new civic buildings fully electric.

“This is about what kind of technology can support the cities and homes that we want and need,” says Sage Welch, a spokesperson for the Building Decarbonization Coalition.

Already a trend overseas, especially in Europe—Amsterdam plans to completely eliminate domestic natural gas use by 2050—building electrification appears to be catching on in the U.S. The trend comes right as a series of new building codes, such as those introduced by New York’s Climate Mobilization Act, seek to cut emissions. But the switch also faces some significant headwinds, especially in the form of pushback from the natural gas industry, which is worried about future profits.

What’s the environmental impact of building electrification?

Mandating that new buildings, and any large building retrofits, avoid or replace gas infrastructure and install all-electric appliances won’t completely eliminate the use of natural gas in homes anytime soon. But electrification is a great tool for those seeking to start cutting carbon emissions. Buildings account for 40 percent of the energy used in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and 39 percent of energy-related carbon emissions globally, according to the United Nations. The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates 70 million American households and businesses burn natural gas, oil, or propane for heating alone, generating 560 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, or a tenth of the nation’s total emissions.

According to energy consulting firm E3, which receives part of its funding from utilities, if California as a whole adopted the standard of making all new and rebuilt buildings gas-free, emissions from these buildings could be cut 90 percent by 2050.

It’s important to note that building electrification won’t clean up the emissions and other environmental impacts of generating electricity. Advocates note that it’s as much about building the infrastructure for a zero-emission, renewable power system of the future as it is cutting out sources of carbon emissions now. The Sierra Club estimates that a third of the buildings in California that will exist in 2045 will be built between now and then; electrifying now will both cut emissions and help bolster the market for electric appliances.

Others say the building electrification push in California can also be a jobs creator. A UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation study, “California Building Decarbonization Workforce Needs and Recommendations,” found that retrofitting all of California’s buildings to be fully electric by 2045 could create more than 100,000 new jobs in construction, manufacturing, and energy, even after accounting for jobs lost in the gas industry. (It doesn’t, however, note the carbon emissions generated by the retrofitting work itself.)

Read full story here…

Unsustainable: Wind Turbine Blades Are Piling Up In Landfills

Afterthought: these giant windmill blades cannot be recycled so they end up in  landfills. Some are as long as a football field and can only be transported one at a time. How many? Over 8,000 get buried every year in the U.S. ⁃ TN Editor

A wind turbine’s blades can be longer than a Boeing 747 wing, so at the end of their lifespan they can’t just be hauled away. First, you need to saw through the lissome fiberglass using a diamond-encrusted industrial saw to create three pieces small enough to be strapped to a tractor-trailer.

The municipal landfill in Casper, Wyoming, is the final resting place of 870 blades whose days making renewable energy have come to end. The severed fragments look like bleached whale bones nestled against one another.

“That’s the end of it for this winter,” said waste technician Michael Bratvold, watching a bulldozer bury them forever in sand. “We’ll get the rest when the weather breaks this spring.”

Tens of thousands of aging blades are coming down from steel towers around the world and most have nowhere to go but landfills. In the U.S. alone, about 8,000 will be removed in each of the next four years. Europe, which has been dealing with the problem longer, has about 3,800 coming down annually through at least 2022, according to BloombergNEF. It’s going to get worse: Most were built more than a decade ago, when installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.

Built to withstand hurricane-force winds, the blades can’t easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed. That’s created an urgent search for alternatives in places that lack wide-open prairies. In the U.S., they go to the handful of landfills that accept them, in Lake Mills, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Casper, where they will be interred in stacks that reach 30 feet under.

“The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever,” said Bob Cappadona, chief operating officer for the North American unit of Paris-based Veolia Environnement SA, which is searching for better ways to deal with the massive waste. “Most landfills are considered a dry tomb.”

“The last thing we want to do is create even more environmental challenges.”

To prevent catastrophic climate change caused by burning fossil fuels, many governments and corporations have pledged to use only clean energy by 2050. Wind energy is one of the cheapest ways to reach that goal.

The electricity comes from turbines that spin generators. Modern models emerged after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, when shortages compelled western governments to find alternatives to fossil fuels. The first wind farm in the U.S. was installed in New Hampshire in 1980, and California deployed thousands of turbines east of San Francisco across the Altamont Pass.

The first models were expensive and inefficient, spinning fast and low. After 1992, when Congress passed a tax credit, manufacturers invested in taller and more powerful designs. Their steel tubes rose 260 feet and sported swooping fiberglass blades. A decade later, General Electric Co. made its 1.5 megawatt model—enough to supply 1,200 homes in a stiff breeze—an industry standard.

Wind power is carbon-free and about 85% of turbine components, including steel, copper wire, electronics and gearing can be recycled or reused. But the fiberglass blades remain difficult to dispose of. With some as long as a football field, big rigs can only carry one at a time, making transportation costs prohibitive for long-distance hauls. Scientists are trying to find better ways to separate resins from fibers or to give small chunks new life as pellets or boards.

Read full story here…

Privacy Groups: Surveillance Is Threatening Democracy

Technocracy run by engineers and scientists threatens all types of governmental structures, not just ‘democracy’.  It seeks a scientific dictatorship where society is run and people are controlled by algorithm, as in China. ⁃ TN Editor

On Monday, forty organizations signed a letter calling on an independent government watchdog to recommend a ban on U.S. government use of facial recognition technology.

The letter was drafted by the digital privacy advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and signed by organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Color of Change, Fight for the Future, Popular Resistance, and the Consumer Federation of America. The letter calls on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) to “recommend to the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security the suspension of facial recognition systems, pending further review.

The PCLOB was originally created in 2004, as an independent agency that advises the administration on privacy issues. “The Congress specifically found that new surveillance powers ‘calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life and to ensure that the Government uses its powers for the purposes for which the powers were given’,” the letter states.

The organizations challenge the PCLOB to “examine the more significant public concerns about the use of facial recognition in public spaces.” They also call on the board to address concerns that facial recognition software can be used by “authoritarian governments to control minority populations and limit dissent could spread quickly to democratic societies.

The letter from EPIC mentions a recent New York Times investigation of a facial recognition service used by more than 600 law enforcement agencies across the country.  As the Mind Unleashed recently reported, Manhattan-based Clearview AI is collecting data from unsuspecting social media users and the Chicago Police Department (CPD) is using the controversial facial recognition tool to pinpoint the identity of unknown suspects. The Times investigation shows that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are also using the controversial tool.

The MIT Technology Review believes EPIC’s letter is “one of the biggest efforts so far in the fight to stem the use of facial recognition technologies.

And while these 40 organizations call on the PCLOB to make an official recommendation, there are already examples of push back against facial recognition. San Francisco and Somerville, Massachusetts recently became the first local governments to ban the use of facial recognition tools. The European Commission is also considering a ban on facial recognition in public for five years. In June 2019, the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology released a report titled “America Under Watch: Face Surveillance in the United States” which calls for a moratorium on facial recognition technology.

Read full story here…

Claim: It’s Tech Giants Who Turned San Francisco Into ‘Dystopian Nightmare Of Addiction, Homelessness And Criminality’

Technocrats care about inventing, not improving life for fellow citizens. San Francisco is dominated by tech giants but is in a state of dystopian anarchy by homeless, addicts, and criminals.

If they chose to have a normal role in society,  billionaire entrepreneurs like Jack Dorsey (Twitter),  Dara Khosrowshahi (Uber), Brian Chesky (Airbnb), and Marc Benioff (Salesforce), could have a huge impact in returning the City to human livability. ⁃ TN Editor

Gilles Desaulniers moved to San Francisco 40 years ago, settling in the ‘friendly, quaint and affordable’ city after running out of cash while driving from Canada down the West Coast of America.

Today he runs a grocery store filled with fresh fruit, vegan snacks and organic wines typical of this famously liberal Californian city.

But Gilles has shut one outlet and would sell up entirely if anyone wanted this one, his remaining shop.

Each day, up to 30 people stroll in and openly steal goods, costing him hundreds of dollars.

He has been bitten twice recently by people in his shop and he also found a woman turning blue in the toilet after a drugs overdose, a hypodermic needle still stuck in her leg.

He showed me a metal door that is corroding due to people urinating in his doorway, then spoke of finding a man relieving himself in full view of infants playing in a child centre next door.

‘Our society is falling apart,’ says Desaulniers.

‘If people do not play by some rules, society does not function. But it feels like there is no order, there is no shame.’

He uses two apocalyptic movies to illustrate the state of his adopted city: ‘Living here feels like A Clockwork Orange and Blade Runner have both come true.’

I could grasp his despair. I had just passed dealers selling drugs beside a police car parked outside government offices, and seen their customers openly smoke fentanyl, an opioid 50 times stronger than heroin, then collapse on the street.

All cities have their seedy sides. But this is the very centre of San Francisco, by an upmarket Westfield shopping mall thronged with people in designer clothes perusing Rolex watches, Louis Vuitton handbags and Tiffany jewellery.

The beautiful city by the bay, where Tony Bennett famously left his heart and which poses as a beacon of progressiveness, has more billionaires per capita than any other on the planet.

Not long ago, a seven-bedroom home here recently sold for $38 million (£29 million), while at the Michelin-starred Saison restaurant, the ‘kitchen menu’ starts at $298 a head and reservations require a $148 deposit.

The city authorities have a huge $12 billion budget, handing their 31,800 staff average annual pay and benefit packages of an astonishing $175,000.

Yet the tide of homeless, addicted and mentally ill people washing up here has become so severe that a global expert on slums claimed San Francisco may be more unsanitary than some of the poorest parts of Africa and Asia.

Oracle, one of the technology giants based in the nearby Silicon Valley, has switched a conference for 60,000 people to Las Vegas due to the toxic combination of ‘poor street conditions’ and costly hotels.

This followed a medical association moving its $40 million convention out of San Francisco amid safety fears because of sordid tent encampments and overt drug use. Other events are being affected.

‘Indoors, people are making deals, talking about healthcare and networking. Yet in the streets, I witnessed homeless people injecting cocaine,’ tweeted Kistein Monkhouse while attending a recent J. P. Morgan conference for 9,000 people.

As one prominent academic tells me, it seems a cruel irony that so much squalor and despair is found in the Californian base of all those billionaire technology titans seeking to reshape the world in their image.

‘San Francisco has always had hobos but we’ve never seen anything like this. It’s become a vision of some kind of strange dystopian future,’ says Joel Kotkin, a widely respected professor in urban studies.

He can reel off damning statistics to back his claim that San Francisco symbolises the Golden State’s descent into ‘high-tech feudalism’ including America’s highest poverty levels, its worst rates of property crime and its biggest gap between top and middle incomes.

But one statistic stands out: almost half of homeless people in the United States are in California, according to a recent White House study.

And San Francisco, a comparatively small city that is home to tech giants such as Twitter, Uber and Airbnb, has the highest rate of ‘unsheltered’ citizens – at ten times the national level.

Read full story here…

Scientists: 5G Could ‘Lower Sperm Counts And Sterilize Young Men’

5G wireless companies refuse to invest in scientific studies on the harmful effects of 5G radiation on humans; they also berate legitimate scientists and physicians who are raising serious health warnings like this one. ⁃ TN Editor

There are fears that increased levels of radiation in the UK as 5G coverage spreads across the country could seriously impact human fertility levels.

The rollout of the high-speed network, which was launched in Britain in May last year, has sparked protests from those who believe higher levels of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) in the atmosphere are dangerous and 5G’s potential health effects need to be tested.

A letter presented to Downing Street last week urged Prime Minister Boris Johnson to open an inquiry into “establishing the true impact of wireless communication systems on the health of the UK population”.

“We are extremely concerned by the vulnerability of our young and very young people to the harmful effects of pulsed RF radiation,” read the letter which was handed over along with two petitions, one of which was signed by 268 physicians and scientists.

“Study upon study is showing that this non-ionising radiation is causing oxidative DNA damage in cellular systems and this may be particularly harmful to the reproductive system of young boys, adolescents and young men.”

Sperm counts among British men have fallen by 29% in the last decade. Multiple international studies have found a link between increased mobile phone use and a drop in both the quantity and quality of sperm.

A 2016 review by the Society for Reproduction and Fertility reported that of 27 studies investigating the effects of mobile phone EMR on the male reproductive system, 21 resulted in negative consequences of exposure.

In a 2018 article called ‘Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health’ which was published in the journal Environmental Research, Dr Martin Pall from Washington State University cites a 1997 experiment with chilling results.

Two pairs of young mice were placed into cages with different levels of exposure to a functioning antenna, although the exposure levels at both sites were well within safety guidelines.

The pair in the cage with a higher exposure level produced one litter of smaller than normal babies, a second litter with fewer than normal babies, and demonstrated infertility or very low fertility from this point on.

The pair exposed to a lower level of EMR produced four litters with fewer numbers of babies each time, before they became completely infertile.

Read full story here…

Coronavirus: An Analysis In Relation To Technocracy

People around the world are in near-panic over the potential pandemic emanating from the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. Face masks and bottles of hand sanitizers have been flying off the shelves and trips involving air travel are plummeting.

Not surprisingly, there is a mountain of disinformation with attendant conspiracy theories racing around the Internet, all of which only exacerbate the fear and muddle what facts we know for certain.

ZeroHedge Banned from Twitter

The widely-read ZeroHedge news site was completely banned by Twitter over the weekend for “violating community policies”. The ban was apparently due to the release of a certain scientist’s email and phone number, both of which are publicly and freely available elsewhere. The scientist in question, Dr. Peng Zhou, is a prominent researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and leads the Bat Virus Infection and Immunization Group. Coincidentally, his lab is only 20 miles from the epicenter of the outbreak.

The frenzied questions concerning motive of the outbreak are largely pointless at this time. It happened. It is what it is. Real answers might surface someday but not because governments anywhere are known for their honesty and intellectual integrity, especially China, the United States  and Canada.

In light of this, I would direct readers of Technocracy News & Trends to think about the role played by Technocracy and its Technocrat operators.

China is a Technocracy

China is a full-blown Technocracy that has elevated science and engineering to god-like status. They are noted for their mastery of technology promoting Scientific Dictatorship, where every citizen is tracked, monitored and socially engineered to the satisfaction of the controllers. Furthermore, their economic system is completely engineered by Technocrats.

I have repeatedly noted and warned of the carelessness of Technocrats in the object of their studies. Data security in Smart Cities is always an afterthought. Massive computer systems are routinely hacked, exposing personal data of hundreds of millions of people. Amazon’s Ring Cameras are increasingly hacked to terrorize unsuspecting children and their parents. Boeing’s 737 Max was grounded because of amateurish software developers who failed to adequately test their creations. You get the idea.

When Technocrat engineers build complex laboratories able to handle the world’s worst killing agents like Ebola, SARS, Anthrax and even the Spanish Flu, there can be no room for error. When these labs are then staffed with human scientists who decide to experiment with genetic engineering to see what they can come up with, there can be no room for error. The obvious problem with this is that errors always creep in because error prone Technocrats simply don’t think things through to the very end and they end up creating things they cannot control.

In my opinion, this new Coronavirus outbreak bleakly underscores the built-in structural failures of Technocracy in general and Technocrat achievements in particular. In deference to the original father of Technocracy, French philosopher Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), science is not a god and there is no priesthood of scientists and engineers.

The Global Supply Chain Is As Risk

China itself has absolutely no reason to purposely release a killer virus that would choke its economy and besmirch its already-tenuous scientific reputation. The gigantic and precision-oriented global supply chain that it helped to create, including all of China’s Belt and Road initiatives, is at risk of serious disruption if not complete collapse. It would be truly insane for China to intentionally jeopardize 45 years of progress.

However, no one can rule out the possibility of an act of eco-terror by a group or even a single person. There are plenty of death-crazed zealots in the world who would count it a great victory to kill thousands and terrorize billions.

The global elitists who created the economic paradigm of Sustainable Development through the United Nations, have been preparing for an economic reset (death) of Capitalism and Free Enterprise. In 2015, the head of climate change at the UN, Christiana Figueres, clearly stated:

“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.

Since then, governments, global corporations, central banks and UN-linked NGOs have all jumped on the Sustainable Development band wagon. Anyone who has read my latest book, Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, knows that Sustainable Development is functionally equivalent to Technocracy that was originally created in the 1920s and ’30s.

No matter what happens from this point forward, the economic impact of the Wuhan coronavirus will be an order of magnitude greater than the health impact. This implies at least temporary shortages of products that are dependent on the global supply chain to work correctly; unfortunately, that is most products that are necessary for modern living. Further, the already-fragile global financial system could seize up, resulting in another financial meltdown.

In the meantime, expect bizarre social behavior that will further exacerbate the situation.