The Great Reset And Coming Technocratic Reign Of Terror
This article is by a German professor of Economics who teaches in Brazil. He is rare in scholarship as having analyzed Technocracy from an economic perspective. The WEF’s Great Reset will push society back to the mid-1800s or earlier.
Klaus Schwab and his merry band of ideologues believe that personal consumption must be cut in half. Private property must be eliminated. All decisions must be made by Technocrat managers. You must succumb to Transhumanism, the merger of flesh with tech. If you think thoughts contrary to their thoughts, you will be punished. All personal privacy must be abolished.
In short, this so-called Great Reset will create a planet of neo-feudalism where a few control everything and the rest are little more than chattel barely able to eke out a living. ⁃ TN Editor
If one takes the publications of the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an indication of how the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” will change society, the world is facing a massive onslaught against individual liberty and private property. A new kind of collectivism is about to emerge. Like the communism of the past, the new project appeals to the public with the assurance of technological advancement and social inclusion. Additionally, ecological sustainability and the promise of longevity or even immortality are used to entice the public. In reality, however, these promises are deeply dystopian.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
According to Klaus Schwab, the founder and current executive chairman of the WEF, the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2016) represents a new stage of the disruptive technological advances that began toward the end of the eighteenth century with the textile industry and the use of steam power. The Second Industrial Revolution took place in the decades before and after 1900. It created a plethora of new consumer goods and production technologies that allowed mass production. The third Industrial Revolution began around 1950 with the breakthroughs in digital technologies. Now, according to Klaus Schwab, the fourth Industrial Revolution means that the world is moving toward “a true global civilization.”
The fourth Industrial Revolution provides the potential “to robotize humanity, and thus compromise our traditional sources of meaning—work, community, family, identity.” Schwab predicts that the fourth Industrial Revolution will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness.”
Transhumanism is part of the transformation that comes with the fourth Industrial Revolution, as artificial intelligence (AI) will surpass even the best human performances at specific tasks. The new technologies “will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us—they will become part of us, Schwab declares.
In the foreword to Schwab’s latest book, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018), the CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, states that the evolution of the new technologies “is entirely within our power.” Microsoft and the other high-tech companies “are betting on the convergence of several important technology shifts—mixed reality, artificial intelligence and quantum computing.”
Satya Nadella informs readers that Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and IBM will cooperate in an AI partnership that will work to develop and test the technology in fields such as “automobiles and healthcare, human-AI collaboration, economic displacement, and how AI can be used for social good.”
In the preface to his latest book, Klaus Schwab predicts that the fourth Industrial Revolution will “upend the existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering.” He states that “the negative externalities” of the present global economy harm “the natural environment and vulnerable populations.”
The changes that come with the new technologies will be comprehensive and will topple “the way we produce and transport goods and services.” The revolution will upset how “we communicate, the way we collaborate, and the way we experience the world around us.” The change will be so profound that the advances in neurotechnologies and biotechnologies “are forcing us to question what it means to be human.”
Like Satya Nadella’s foreword, Schwab’s text reiterates several times the claim that the “evolution of the fourth Industrial Revolution” is “entirely within our power” when “we” use the “window of opportunity” and drive for “empowerment.” The “we” that both authors speak of is the global technocratic elite that calls for central control and state interventionism (called “shaping the future”) in a new system that is characterized by intimate cooperation between business and government, or, more specifically between high tech and a handful of key states.
The World Economic Forum’s webpage about the “Great Reset” proclaims that “the Covid-19 crisis” presents “a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery.” At the present “historic crossroads,” the world leaders must address “the inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions” ranging from healthcare and education to finance and energy. The forum defines “sustainable development” as the central aim of the global management activities.
The “Great Reset” calls for global cooperation to attain goals such as “harnessing the fourth Industrial Revolution,” “restoring the health of the environment,“ “redesigning social contracts, skills, and jobs,” and “shaping the economic recovery.” As thematized at the October 20–23, 2020, “Jobs Reset Summit,” a “green recovery” from the covid-19 crisis promises a “green horizon.” The WEF summit in January 2021 will specifically address the transformations that are to come. The main topics include “stable climate,” “sustainable development,” a “zero carbon” economy, and agricultural production that would reduce cattle farming in tune with the global reduction of meat consumption.
The rise of living standards together with the growth of the world population became possible because of the Industrial Revolution. Those who want to bring down capitalist society and the economy must necessarily opt for declining living standards and depopulation. The promoters of the plans to bring about a new world order with the force of the state negate that radical capitalism could much better provide the means to move to a better world, as has been the case since the inception of the First Industrial Revolution.
What brought about the industrial revolutions of the past were free markets and individual choice. As Mises explains, it was the laissez-faire ideology that produced the First Industrial Revolution. There was a spiritual revolution first that brought an end to “the social order in which a constantly increasing number of people were doomed to abject need and destitution” and where the manufacturing activity “had almost exclusively catered to the wants of the well-to-do” and their “expansion was limited by the amount of luxuries the wealthier strata of the population could afford.”
The ideology of the World Economic Forum is that of the preindustrial era. While the website of the forum (WEF) teems with terms like “power,” “organization,” and managed “sustainable development,” concepts like “freedom,” “market coordination,” and “individual choice” are blatantly absent. The forum hides the fact that instead of human progress, impoverishment and suppression is the future of humankind. The implicit consequence of the planned “ecological economy” is the drastic reduction of the world population.
With the abolishment of markets and the suppression of individual choice, which the collectivist plans of the WEF propound, a new dark age would come. Different from what the planners presume, technological progress itself would come to a standstill. Without the human creativity that springs from the mindset of individualism, no economic progress has ever been possible.
The new technologies that come with the fourth Industrial Revolution can be of immense benefit to humankind. The technologies per se are not the problem but how they are used. A dystopian future awaits us if the global elite of the World Economic Forum has its say. The result would be a technocratic terror regime masked as a benevolent world government. Yet there is an alternative. As widely proven over the past two hundred years, free markets and individual choice are the sources of technological advancement, human progress, and economic prosperity. There are no rational reasons to presume that the fourth Industrial Revolution would require collectivism. Free markets are the best way to cope with the challenges that come with new technologies. Not less but more capitalism is the answer.
History Warned Us About Technocracy’s Coming Tyranny
Technocracy is a war against humanity and has always been seen that way by critics such as C.S. Lewis. Like him or not, Lewis fully described the future as early as 1947. Technocracy was the most dangerous meme of the 20th century and it has advanced into a clear and present danger today. ⁃ TN Editor
Another great English writer during this same period who also discussed these matters was C. S. Lewis. In a number of books and articles he warned about where we were heading, as new technologies, coupled with increased statism, spelt “the abolition of man”.
And that was the title of his 1947 book. In it, he said this: “What we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.” He continued, “Man’s conquest of Nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men. There neither is nor can be any simple increase of power on Man’s side. Each new power won by man is a power over man as well.”
And of course, his third volume in his space trilogy was all about rogue science and unethical technocrats. That Hideous Strength (1946) was a clear warning about coming coercive dystopias. The evil organisation N.I.C.E. is the villain in the novel.
The National Institute for Coordinated Experiments is a government bureaucracy established to help mankind – aren’t they all? It of course does nothing of the sort. Several quotes can be offered here. One makes the point of how euphemisms and subterfuge are ever the weapons of choice for these technocrats:
We want you to write it down – to camouflage it. Only for the present, of course. Once the thing gets going we shan’t have to bother about the great heart of the British public. We’ll make the great heart what we want it to be. But in the meantime, it does make a difference how things are put. For instance, if it were even whispered that the N.I.C.E. wanted powers to experiment on criminals, you’d have all the old women of both sexes up in arms and yapping about humanity. Call it re-education of the maladjusted, and you have them all slobbering with delight that the brutal era of retributive punishment has at last come to an end. Odd thing it is – the word ‘experiment’ is unpopular, but not the word ‘experimental.’ You mustn’t experiment on children; but offer the dear little kiddies free education in an experimental school attached to the N.I.C.E. and it’s all correct!
And another gives us the bigger picture of this war on humanity:
The physical sciences, good and innocent in themselves, had already… begun to be warped, had been subtly manoeuvred in a certain direction. Despair of objective truth had been increasingly insinuated into the scientists; indifference to
it, and a concentration upon mere power, had been the result… The very experiences of the dissecting room and the pathological laboratory were breeding a conviction that the stifling of all deep-set repugnances was the first essential for progress.
This important thriller clearly shows the deep concerns Lewis had about where unethical science and unconstrained technocracy can take us. And his vision of a dark new world has certainly proven to be quite accurate. Eugenics certainly did not die out with the Nazi experiments but is alive and well in the West today.
In fact, it has only gotten worse. When we combine media-led hysteria and alarmism about things like the climate and corona with these billionaires – be they Schwab or Soros or Gates – who believe they know what is best for us mere humans, we are seeing the prophetic novels coming to life in very real and very frightening ways.
Schwab On Right To Travel: Risk Assessment ‘Brain Scans’
Klaus Schwab is a consummate Technocrat who leading the world straight into Technocracy, or Scientific Dictatorship, where everything and everyone is micromanaged from cradle-to-grave. ⁃ TN Editor
“Great Reset” mastermind Klaus Schwab suggests a number of draconian measures for controlling the population under the umbrella of the ‘4th Industrial Revolution’, including risk-assessment brain scans to cross borders and implantable chips to read people’s thoughts.
World Economic Forum founder Schwab has repeatedly emphasized how technocrats need to take advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to implement “The Great Reset,” a sentiment that was echoed by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during a recent UN video conference.
But the “Great Reset” isn’t just about restructuring the economic system, implementing a ‘Green New Deal’, making more jobs fully automated and lowering energy consumption and living standards, there’s also a policing aspect to the agenda.
That agenda is explicitly detailed in Schwab’s three books, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World, and Covid-19: The Great Reset.
Schwab notes that the use of such technology to conduct mass surveillance and tracking of the population “run(s) counter to healthy, open societies,” yet goes on to present it in a positive light anyway.
“As capabilities in this area improve, the temptation for law enforcement agencies and courts to use techniques to determine the likelihood of criminal activity, assess guilt or even possibly retrieve memories directly from people’s brains will increase,” he writes, suggesting Minority Report-style pre-crime programs.
The globalist also goes beyond merely the mandating of vaccine certificates to travel, suggesting that, “Even crossing a national border might one day involve a detailed brain scan to assess an individual’s security risk.”
He also makes clear that implantable microchips will be the cornerstone of a transhumanist agenda that will merge man with machine.
“Today’s external devices—from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets—will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains,” he writes.
“Active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies” will “change how we interface with the world” and force us “to question what it means to be human,” according to Schwab.
UK MP Threat: Get Vaccine Or Be Banned From Working
The world is about to experience the utter scourge of Scientific Dictatorship, aka Technocracy. Non-vaxxers will be literally ostracized out of normal society, unable to work or travel. This will create an underclass segment of society barely able to survive unless they submit to the Technocrats. ⁃ TN Editor
A British MP faced backlash Monday after suggesting that employees in the UK should not be allowed to go to work unless they can prove that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19, when the shot becomes available.
“If vaccination works and if we’re confident it’s safe, and all indications so far are good, then I can certainly see the day when businesses say: ‘Look, you’ve got to return to the office and if you’re not vaccinated you’re not coming in,’” said Tom Tugendhat.
“And I can certainly see social venues asking for vaccination certificates,” Tugendhat added.
Far from being some extreme leftist politician, Tugendhat is a Conservative MP, he chairs the foreign affairs committee under Prime Minster Boris Johnson’s government.
Tugendhat also suggested that there are precedents for requiring vaccinations for foreign travel.
“I remember when I used to travel rather more than I do now – when you go into certain countries you had to show a yellow fever certificate and if you did not have a yellow fever certificate you weren’t allowed in the country and that was that,” said Tugendhat.
“There was no debates, no appeals and no further requests. And I can see a situation where yes, of course you’re free not to have the vaccine, but there are consequences,” he added.
Tugendhat also suggested that vaccine status could even be required to use public transport, saying “It would depend what the public services were, and who and when, so I wouldn’t want to start predicting.”
“But I do think that if things are shown to be safe then rejecting them when they have a wider effect on the whole of society is going to have consequences,” the MP added.
Tugendhat’s suggestion is just the latest in a string of indications that anyone who chooses not to be vaccinated will be effectively ostracised from society.
Mercola: “The Great Reset is about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with technocracy, publicly referred to as “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism”.
Dr. Joseph Mercola is among the few researchers and writers who truly understand what Technocracy is and where it is headed. He has repeatedly published articles calling it like it is and warning Americans of the clear and present danger.⁃ TN Editor
What is this “Great Reset” we’re now hearing about? In a nutshell, the Great Reset refers to a global agenda to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance.
As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report above,1 the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.
It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” — terms that belie their nefarious, anti-humanity intents. As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”:2
“… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense.”
The Grand Plan
In her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:3
“The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust — but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as ‘their limited resources.’
Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air — literally — while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with ‘behavioral modification,’ a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties (see awful ‘privilege’).
The psychological reason for the Great Reset is the fear of losing control of property, the planet. I suppose, if you own billions and move trillions, your perception of reality gets funky, and everything down below looks like an ant hill that exists for you. Just ants and numbers, your assets. Thus, the practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:
One, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology).
And two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest ‘science.’
The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital … precision — all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability.”
Global Asset Reallocations Will Not Benefit ‘the People’
These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand new financial instruments that can then be traded. An example of this was given by Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., in my interview with her.
In it, she explained how India is headed toward Zero-Budget Natural Farming — a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow.
There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan. The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.
Privacy protections, of course, are a major hurdle in this plan, which is why every effort is made to get people to loosen their views on the right for privacy. In the U.S., we also have the Constitution that stands in the way, which is why efforts to undermine, circumvent, ignore or nullify it are increasing.
“To sum it up, the desired end result is a giant, joyless, highly controlled global conveyor of everything and everybody where privacy is tremendously expensive, dissent is unthinkable, and spiritual submission is mandatory.
It’s like a 24/7 medicated reality, except the medications are both chemical and digital, and they are reporting you back to the mothership, which can then punish you for bad behavior by, say, blocking your access to certain places or by putting a hold on your digital bank account — perhaps without any human intervention at all,” Lena writes.4
An October 5, 2020, Winter Oak article5 addressed the “technocratic fascist vision” of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum who wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Schwab announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets.
In addition to being a staunch technocrat, Schwab also has a strong transhumanist bend, and he has spoken of a near future in which humans merge with machines and in which law enforcement will be able to read our mind.6
Winter Oak — a British nonprofit social justice organization — points out that Schwab and his globalist accomplices are using the COVID-19 pandemic “to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will.”
This is no conspiracy theory. The plan is out in the open. As noted by Time magazine,7 “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want.” The same statement has been delivered by a number of politicians and organizations around the world in recent months.
Schwab’s book,8,9 “COVID-19: The Great Reset” also urges industry leaders and decision makers to “make good use of the pandemic” and “not letting the crisis go to waste.” Incidentally, the owner of Time magazine and founder of Salesforce, Mark Benioff, is also a board member of the World Economic Forum,10 so he’s clearly familiar with the reset plan.
The problem is that while the plan is being sold as a way to, finally, make life fair and equitable for all people, the required sacrifices do not apply to the technocrats running the system. Ultimately, the Great Reset will result in two tiers or people: the technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no say-so in anything.
While technocracy is not a political system but an economic one, in practical terms it does resemble fascism. None of it is being sold under the banner of fascism, of course. Instead, they use financial terms like “stakeholder capitalism,” described by Forbes magazine11 as “the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community and society as a whole.”
Klaus Schwab: ‘Technocratic Dictatorial Rule By A Tiny Elite’
Writers, journalists and analysts are dancing around the fact that Technocracy has been the plan of the global elite for a very long time. It didn’t just start. It wasn’t by random chance or just the “luck of the draw.”
Modern globalization started with the formation of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski promoted Technocracy through what he called the “Technetronic Era”. They fed this to the United Nations, the global corporate world and especially to emerging nation-states such as China.
This was the superstructure that was methodically built over a half-century, and it is trying to bear its final fruit in 2020 and forward. ⁃ TN Editor
Globalist Klaus Schwab: World Will “Never” Return to Normal After COVID
by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News
In his book Covid-19: The Great Reset, World Economic Forum globalist Klaus Schwab asserts that the world will “never” return to normal, despite him admitting that coronavirus “doesn’t pose a new existential threat.”
Breitbart’s James Delingpole unveils how Schwab is even more explicit in his book about the elite’s plan for exploiting the COVID pandemic than in his public statements.
Schwab has continually pushed for COVID to be exploited to push for a new world order, claiming, “Now is the historical moment of time not only to fight the… virus but to shape the system… for the post-corona era.”
However, he goes further in the book, making it clear that the financial elite will never allow life to return to normal, suggesting that rolling lockdowns and other restrictions will become permanent.
“Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal,” writes Schwab. “The short response is: never. Nothing will ever return to the ‘broken’ sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.”
The globalist makes this assertion despite admitting that the threat posed by COVID pales in comparison to previous pandemics.
“Unlike certain past epidemics, COVID-19 doesn’t pose a new existential threat,” he writes.
Schwab makes clear that the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ or ‘The Great Reset’ will fundamentally change how the world operates.
“Radical changes of such consequence are coming that some pundits have referred to as ‘before coronavirus’ (BC) and ‘after coronavirus’ (AC) era. We will continue to be surprised by both the rapidity and unexpected nature of these changes – as they conflate with each other, they will provoke second-, third-, fourth- and more-order consequences, cascading effects and unforeseen outcomes,” he writes.
As Delingpole explains in his column, “The Great Reset” merely represents a re-packaging of the old globalist agenda which has been stuttering over the last decade.
Namely, technocratic dictatorial rule by a tiny elite, the “green new deal,” the gradual abolition of private property, a guaranteed minimum wage that will see jobs replaced by robots, a crackdown on personal liberties and curtailing freedom of movement.
CommonPass Plus Instant DNA Screening To Enable Technocrat Management Of All Humans
By the end of 2021, governments and industry will possess handheld DNA sequencers to instantly couple your DNA to a digital passport such as Commonpass. This is the holy grail of Technocracy and will rapidly usher in its Scientific Dictatorship.
This technology and how it will be used to dominate mankind is far above the head of most people, but we don’t have long before we see it in person… and then it will become clear. Aside from using it for COVID-19 identification, it will become standard fare for all points of government registration, such as driver’s licenses, business licenses, transportation, etc. ⁃ TN Editor
Imagine standing at a TSA security checkpoint on your way home for the holidays. You’re getting ready to go through the awkward travel procedures instituted almost immediately after 9/11 when the Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) was created and air travel in the United States morphed into a search and seizure operation with the implied possibility of your detention and interrogation.
The initial outrage such expressions of implicit state violence caused early on eventually gave way to begrudging acceptance. But now, a new layer of “security,” that could restrict freedom of movement even further, is being rolled out at several ports of entry in partnership with health technology industry leaders, academic institutions, and government health entities in more than three dozen countries.
A new digital certificate called CommonPass, designed to serve as a clearance mechanism for passengers based on a health diagnosis underwent its first transatlantic test on October 21 under the watchful eye of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at Heathrow Airport in London. There, a group of select participantsembarked on United flight 15 to Newark, New Jersey after being screened and tested for COVID-19 at the point of departure in a largely ceremonial exercise that included initiative co-founders, Paul Meyer and Bradley Perkins.
The app’s first trial run took place with much less media fanfare last month on a Cathay Pacific Airways flight from Hong Kong to Singapore and marked the beginning of the CommonPass pilot project launched by The Commons Project non-profit organization in-tandem with the World Economic Forum.
Travel industry insiders claim that CommonPass will allow international travel to resume before a COVID-19 vaccine is made widely available by applying standard methods for certification of lab results and vaccination records of travelers through the CommonPass Framework, based on criteria set by the governments of each port of entry.
J.D. O’Hara, CEO of one of the world’s largest travel services companies and one of the participants at Wednesday’s CommonPass trial run, hailed the app’s ability to “verify health information in a secure, verified manner,” while Roger Dow of the U.S. Travel Association released astatement praising it for paving a “way forward” for the global economy in the wake of the pandemic.
As the multi-sector, global response to the coronavirus tightens the noose around civil liberties, CommonPass stands out as one of the most appalling and dangerous attacks on basic human rights in the name of public health and is rife with a potential for abuse so great, that it behooves us to find out more about the people and interests behind it.
We want your DNA
The difference between IRC’s Mae La project and The Commons Project is a question of class. Class status, to be specific. But, it is essentially the same idea and covers the same interests of the groups and individuals who form part of the Commons Project’s board of trustees; many of whom have been part of the digital tracking and healthcare technology space for years.
People likeLinda Dillman, who ran Wal-Mart’s implementation of RFID employee tracking technology as the retail giant’s CIO or the former Chief Technology Officer for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Bryan Sivak, who is now a Managing Director at Managing Director at Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest healthcare insurance plan providers in the nation. Other trustee affiliations stand out, as well, such as Will Fitzpatrick, General Counsel to the Omidyar Network and George W. Bush’s Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr.
At the core of these efforts is the desire to create a DNA-based population screening agenda, which people like Perkins and Meyer are forcefully pushing forward. Perkins worked as the CMO at a company called Human Longevity, Inc., which “combines state-of-the-art DNA sequencing and expert analysis with machine learning, to help change medicine to a more data-driven science.”
Technocracy Vs. The Republic: The Fight For Our Future
Because the pandemic is being used to destroy constitutional rights and especially the First Amendment, the very mechanism of citizen resistance is disappearing. If you cannot communicate, you cannot resist. Taking over all public media and stomping free speech has always been the first order of business in previous revolutions. ⁃ TN Editor
People living in the western world are in the greatest fight for the future of pluralist and republican forms of governance since the rise and fall of fascism 75 years ago. As then, society had to be built up from a war. Today’s war has been an economic war of the oligarchs against the republic, and it increasingly appears that the coronavirus pandemic is being used, on the political end, as a massive coup against pluralist society. We are being confronted with this ‘great reset’, alluding to post-war construction. But for a whole generation people have already been living under an ever-increasing austerity regimen. This is a regimen that can only be explained as some toxic combination of the systemic inevitabilities of a consumer-driven society on the foundation of planned obsolescence, and the never-ending greed and lust for power which defines whole sections of the sociopathic oligarchy.
Recently we saw UK PM Boris Johnson stand in front of a ‘Build Back Better’ sign, speaking to the need for a ‘great reset’. ‘Build Back Better’ happens to be Joe Biden’s campaign slogan, which raises many other questions for another time. But, to what extent are the handlers who manage ‘Joe Biden’, and those managing ‘Boris Johnson’ working the same script?
The more pertinent question is to ask: in whose interest is this ‘great reset’ being carried out? Certainly it cannot be left to those who have built their careers upon the theory and practice of austerity. Certainly it cannot be left to those who have built their careers as puppets of a morally decaying oligarchy.
What Johnson calls the ‘Great Reset’, Biden calls the ‘Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution & Environmental Justice’. Certainly the coming economy cannot be left to Boris Johnson or Joe Biden.
How is it that now Boris Johnson speaks publicly of a ‘great reset’, whereas just months ago when those outside the ruling media paradigm used this phrase, it was censured by corporate Atlanticist media as being conspiratorial in nature? This is an excellent question posed by Neil Clark.
And so we have by now all read numerous articles in the official press talking about how economic life after coronavirus will never be the same as it was before. Atlanticist press has even run numerous opinion articles talking about how this may cut against globalization – a fair point, and one which many thinking people by and large agree with.
Yet they have set aside any substantive discussion about what exists in lieu of globalization, and what the economy looks like in various parts of the world if it is not globalized. We have consistently spoken of multipolarity, a term that in decades past was utilized frequently in western vectors, in the sphere of geopolitics and international relations. Now there is some strange ban on the term, and so we are now bereft of a language with which to have an honest discussion about the post-globalization paradigm.
Technocracy or Pluralism? A Fight Against the Newspeak
Until now, we have only been given a steady diet of distancing, of lockdown provisions, quarantining, track and trace, and we have forgotten entirely about the fact that all of this was only supposed to be a two or three-week long exercise to flatten the curve. And now the truth is emerging that what is being planned is a new proposal being disguised as a ‘great reset’.
One of the large problems in discussing the ‘great reset’ is that a false dichotomy has arisen around it. Either one wants things to be how they were before and without changes to the status quo, or they promote this ‘great reset’. Unfortunately, Clark in his RT article falls into this false dichotomy, and perhaps only for expedience sake in discussing some other point, he does not challenge the inherent problems in ‘how things were before’. In truth, we would be surprised if Clark did not appreciate what we are going to propose.
What we propose is that we must oppose their ‘new normal’ ‘great reset’, while also understanding the inherent problems of what had been normalized up until Covid.
The way things were before was also a tremendous problem, and yet now it only seems better in comparison to the police state-like provisions we’ve encountered throughout the course of politicizing the spectre of this ‘pandemic’.
Oddly this politicization is based in positive cases (and not hospitalizations) ostensibly linked to the novel coronavirus. Strangely, we are told to ‘listen to the consensus science’ even as these very institutions consist of politically arrived at appointments. Certainly science is not about consensus, but about challenging assumptions, repeatability and a lively debate between disagreeing scientists with relatively equal qualifications. As Kuhn explains in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science is always evolving, and by definition potentially overturns consensus paradigms. This is a debate we have not seen, and this fact by itself represents an illiberal cancer growing on an already defective pluralist society – ironically, all flying under the banner of liberalism.
Decisions that a society decides to take should be driven by reason, prudence, and justice. What is or isn’t scientific plays a role, but cannot be the deciding factor. Science clearly says that we may eliminate cross-walk injuries by banning street-crossing or by banning driving, but what policy makers must do is account for the need to have both cars and crossing the street, in deciding how – if it’s even possible – to reduce or eliminate such injuries. Science is only one part of this equation.
But isn’t economics also a science? Is sociology not a science? What about psychology and psychiatry – as in the known effects of social isolation and, say, suicide prevention? What about housing and urban planning? The great sociologist Emile Durkheim explains how these are sciences – they adopt and apply the scientific method in their work. Universities have been awarding doctoral degrees in these sciences for a century or more, do these expert opinions not count when managing a public catastrophe?
It is, and always has been, a political and politicized position to listen to some scientists, and not others.
And so what of our term ‘reset’? Indeed, it is itself misleading, and we would propose it is intentionally so if we understand Orwell’s critique of the use of language – newspeak – in technocratic oligarchies.
A ‘reset’ textually refers to going back to something once known, erasing defects or contradictions which arose along the way, which carries with it the familiar, and something we had previously all agreed to. A ‘reset’ by definition means going back to how things were before – not just recently, but before at some point farther back. Its definition is literally contrary to how Boris Johnson means it in his shocking public statement at the start of October.
The term ‘reset’ was therefore arrived with extraordinary planning and thoughtfulness, with the intent to persuade [manipulate] the public. It simultaneously straddles two unique concepts, and bundles them together at once into a single term in a manner that reduces nuance and complexity and therefore also reduces thinking. It does so while appealing to the implicit notion of the term that it relates to a past consensus agreement.
If understood as we are told to understand it, we must hold two mutually contradictory notions at the same time – we are incongruously told that this reset must effectively restore society to how it was at some point before because things can never be how they were at any time before. Only within the paradigm of this vicious newspeak could anything ever have the public thinking that such a textual construction makes any bit of sense.
What are Our Real Options? Whose Reset?
Those who understand that this ‘reset’ is not a reset but rather a whole new proposal on the entire organization of society, but being done through oligarchical methods and without the sort of mandate required in a society governed by laws and not men, are – as we have said – reluctant to admit that a great change is indeed necessary.
Rather, we must understand that the underlying catastrophic economic mechanisms which are forcing this great change exist independently of the coronavirus, and exist independently of the particular changes which the oligarchs promoting their version of a ‘reset’ (read: new proposals) would like to see.
You see, the people and the oligarchs are locked into a single system together. In the long-term, it seems as if the oligarchs are looking for solutions to change that fact, and effect a final solution that grants them an entirely break-away civilization. But at this moment, that is not the case. Yet this system cannot carry forward as it has been, and the Coronavirus presents a reason at once both mysterious in its timing and also profound in its implications, to push forward a new proposal.
We believe that technology is quickly arriving at a point where the vast majority of human beings will be considered redundant. If the technocracy wants to create a walled civilization, and leave the rest of humanity to manage their own lives along some agrarian, mediaeval mode of production, there may indeed be benefits to those who live along agrarian lines. But based in what we know about psychopathy, and the tendency of that among those who govern, such an amicable solution is likely not in the cards.
That is why the anti-lockdown protests are so critically important to endorse. This is precisely because the lockdown measures are used to ban mass public demonstrations, a critical part of pushing public policy in the direction of the interests of the general public. A whole part of the left has been compromised, and rolled out to fight imaginary fascists, by which they mean anyone with conventional social views which predate May of 1968. All the while the actual plutocrats unleash a new system of oligarchical control which, for most, has not been hitherto contemplated except by relatively obscure political scientists, futurists, and science fiction authors.
Certainly the consumerist economic system (sometimes called ‘capitalism’ by the left), which is based in both globalized supply chains but also planned obsolescence, is no longer feasible. In truth, this relied upon a third-world to be a source of both raw materials and cheaper labor. The plus here is that this ‘developing world’ has largely now developed. But that means they will be needing their own raw materials, and their own middle-classes have driven up their own cost of labor. Globalization was based in some world before development, where the real dynamic is best explained as imperialism, and so it makes sense that this system is a relic of the past, and indeed ought to be.
It increasingly appears that the ‘Coronavirus pandemic’, was secondary to the foregone economic crisis which we were told accompanied it. Rather, it seems that the former came into being to explain-away the latter.
Another world is possible, but it is one which citizens fight for. In the U.S., England, Scotland, Ireland, and Germany, there have already been rather large anti-lockdown demonstrations. These, as we have explained, are not just against lockdown but are positively pushing to assert the right to public and political association, to public and political speech, and the redressing of grievances. This is a fundamental right for citizens in any republic where there is any sort of check on the oligarchy.
We have written on the kind of world that is possible, in our piece from April 2020 titled: “Coronavirus Shutdown: The End of Globalization and Planned Obsolescence – Enter Multipolarity”. That lays out what is possible, and what the problems of pre-corona system were, in economic terms more than political. Here we discuss the problems of globalization-based supply chain security in a multipolar world, and the larger problem of planned obsolescence, especially in light of 3D printing, automation, and the internet of things.
We posed the philosophical question as to whether it is justified to have a goods-production system based upon both the guaranteed re-sale of the same type of goods due to planned obsolescence and the ‘work guarantees’ that came with it. In short, do we live to work or to we work to live? And with the 4th industrial revolution looming, we posed the question of what will happen after human workers are no longer required.
Pluralist society is the compromise outcome of a ceasefire in the class war between the oligarchy and the various other classes that compromise the people, at large. Largely idealized and romantic ideas that form the basis of the liberal-democratic ideology (as well as classical fascism) are used to explain how it is the oligarchy that is so very committed to that arrangement of pluralism, and that this very arrangement is the product of their benevolence, and not the truth: that it was the fight put up by common people to fight for a more just future. No doubt there have been benevolent oligarchs who really believed in the liberal ideology, of which fascism is one of its more radical products. But the view that the class struggle can be acculturated or legislated into non-existence is similar to believing that the law of gravity can be ruled unlawful in a court.
Perhaps we have forgotten what it takes, and perhaps things just have not gotten bad enough. Decreases in testosterone levels in the population may be leading to a dangerous moment where vigorous defiance to injustice is much less possible. Critical now is to avoid any artificial means to opiate ourselves into thinking things are better than they are, whether by way of anti-depressants or other self-medication. Only with a clear assessment of the real situation on the ground can we forge the necessary strategy.
The great political crisis now is that a pandemic is being used to justify an end-run around constitutional rights, an end-run around pluralist society, and so the vehicle – the mechanism – that the general public might use to fight for their version of a ‘reset’ is on the verge of disappearing.
In many ways this means that now is the final moment. We ask – whose great reset, ours or theirs?
Mercola: The Global Technocrat Takeover Is Underway
This is a must-read article by Dr. Joseph Mercola, who clearly delineates the threats we face from Technocracy, aka Sustainable Development, aka the Great Reset, aka the Global Green New Deal, aka Scientific Dictatorship. ⁃ TN Editor
The World Economic Forum public relations video above, “8 Predictions for the World in 2030,” short as it may be, offers a telling glimpse into what the technocratic elite has in store for the rest of us. This includes:
“You’ll own nothing” — And “you’ll be happy about it.” Instead, you’ll rent everything you need, and it’ll be delivered by drone right to your door.
“The U.S. won’t be the world’s leading superpower” — Instead, a handful of countries will dominate together.
“You won’t die waiting for an organ donor” — Rather than transplanting organs from deceased donors, custom organs will be 3D printed on demand.
“You’ll eat much less meat” — Meat will be “an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health.”
As detailed in many previous articles, this is a foolhardy idea, not just for health reasons but also environmental ones. Integrating livestock is a foundational aspect of successful regenerative farming that can solve both food shortages and environmental concerns at the same time. For a refresher, see “Top 6 Reasons to Support Regenerative Agriculture.”
“A billion people will be displaced by climate change” — As a result, countries will have to prepare to welcome more refugees.
“Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide” — To eliminate fossil fuels, there will be a global price on carbon. Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., discussed this in a recent interview. Rather than promoting organic and regenerative farming, the technocratic elite are pushing something called zero-budget natural farming. Bill Gates is part of this scheme.
As explained by Shiva, the wholly unnatural setup works something like this: The state takes out large loans, which are then divvied out to farmers to grow food for free. The farmers make their money not by selling their crops, but by trading their soil carbon rate on the global market.
Basically, carbon is being turned into a tradeable commodity, replacing the actual farm output of grains and other crops. Farmers with higher carbon in their soil will make more money than those with carbon-poor soil. Meanwhile, they’ll make nothing from the crops they grow.
“You could be preparing to go to Mars” — Scientists “will have worked out how to keep you healthy in space,” thus opening up the possibility of becoming a space-faring race and colonizing other planets.
“Western values will have been tested to the breaking point.”
Pandemics Are a Tool of Social Control
For decades, war and the threat of war has enriched the technocratic elite and kept the population going along with their agenda. War and physical attacks have been repeatedly used to foist ever more draconian restrictions upon us and remove our liberties. The Patriot Act, rammed through in the aftermath of 9/11, is just one egregious example.
Today, pandemics and the threat of infectious outbreaks are the new tools of war and social control. For years, Gates has prepared the global psyche for a new enemy: deadly, invisible viruses that can crop up at any time.1,2 And the only way to protect ourselves is by giving up old-fashioned notions of privacy, liberty and personal decision-making.
We need to maintain our distance from others, including family members. We need to wear masks, even in our own homes and during sex. We need to close down small businesses and work from home. We need to vaccinate the entire global population and put stringent travel restrictions into place to prevent the potential for spread.
We must track and trace everyone, every moment of the day and night, and install biometric readers into everyone’s bodies to identify who the potential risk-carriers are. Infected people are the new threat. This is what the technocratic elite wants you to believe, and they’ve succeeded to convince a shocking ratio of the global population of this in just a few short months.
If you’re unfamiliar with the term “technocracy,” be sure to go back and listen to my interview with Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation” and “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.” You can also learn more on Wood’s website, Technocracy.news.
A New Digital Currency System Underway
Two of the last pieces of the totalitarian takeover will be the transition to an all-digital currency linked to digital IDs. With that, enforcement of social rules will be more or less ensured, as your finances, indeed your entire identity, can easily be held hostage if you fail to comply.
Just think how easy it would be to automate it such that if you fail to get your mandated vaccine, or post something undesirable on the internet, your bank account becomes unavailable or your biometric ID won’t allow you entry into your office building.
An August 13, 2020, article3 on the Federal Reserve website discusses the supposed benefits of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). There’s general agreement among experts that most major countries will implement CBDC within the next two to four years.
An all-digital currency system also plays into social engineering, as it can be used to incentivize desired behaviors, very similar to what China is doing with their social credit system. For example, you might get a certain amount of digital currency but you have to buy a certain item or perform a particular task within a certain timeframe.
Many uninformed people will believe that these new CBDCs will be very similar to existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, but they would be seriously mistaken. Bitcoin is decentralized and a rational strategy to opt out of the existing central bank controlled system, while these CBDCs will be centralized and completely controlled by the central banks.
If you have been intrigued about investing in Bitcoin as a safer alternative to the stock market, but just didn’t know how or understand the process, the video below is an excellent introduction on how to do this safely without losing your funds. My favorite crypto exchange is Kraken, which has far lower fees than Coinbase.
While I mention Gates a lot, he’s not acting alone, of course. It just so happens that as you trace the connections between the decision-makers of the world, you’ll find him in an astonishing number of places.
For example, In October 2019, Gates co-hosted a pandemic preparedness simulation for a “novel coronavirus,” known as Event 201, along with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Economic Forum.
The event eerily predicted what would happen just 10 weeks later, when COVID-19 appeared. Gates and the World Economic Forum, in turn, are both partnered4 with the United Nations which, while keeping a relatively low profile, appears to be at the heart of the globalist takeover agenda.
Gates is also the largest funder of the World Health Organization — the medical branch of the U.N., while the World Economic Forum is the social and economic branch of the U.N. Other key partners that play important roles in the implementation of the globalists agenda include:5
Foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the UN Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation
Avanti Communications, a British provider of satellite technology with global connectivity
2030 Vision, a partnership of technology giants to provide the infrastructure and technology solutions needed to realize the U.N.’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. 2030 Vision is also partnered with Frontier 2030, which is a partnership of organizations under the helm of the World Economic Forum
Google, the No. 1 Big Data collector in the world and a leader in AI services
Mastercard, which is leading the globalist charge to develop digital IDs and banking services
Salesforce, a global leader in cloud computing, the “internet of things” and artificial intelligence. Incidentally, Salesforce is led by Marc Benioff, who is also on the World Economic Forum’s board of directors
The Fourth Industrial Revolution Is the Technocratic Agenda
In decades past, the technocrats, the global, mostly unelected, elite that steer the management of nations worldwide, called for a “new world order.” Today, the NWO has been largely replaced with terms like “the Great Reset,”6 “the Fourth Industrial Revolution,”7 and the slogan “Build Back Better.”8
All of these terms and slogans refer to the same long-term globalist agenda to dismantle democracy and national borders in favor of a global governance by unelected leaders, and the reliance on technological surveillance rather than the rule of law to maintain public order.
As expressed by Matt Hancock, the British Minister for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, during a speech before the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Fourth Industrial Revolution in 2017:9
“One of the roles of Parliament is to cast ahead, to look to the horizon, and tackle the great challenges of our time. So, I applaud the creation of the APPG on the fourth industrial revolution, which surely is one of the greatest challenges we face, as a nation, and as a world.
The nature of the technologies is materially different to what has come before. In the past, we’ve thought of consumption as a one-off, and capital investment as additive. Yet put resources into the networks that now connect half the world, or into AI, and the effects are exponential …
I’m delighted to speak alongside so many impressive colleagues who really understand this, and alongside Professor Klaus Schwab who literally ‘wrote the book’ on the 4th Industrial Revolution. Your work, bringing together as you do all the best minds on the planet, has informed what we are doing …
Our Digital Strategy, embedded within the wider Industrial Strategy, sets out the seven pillars on which we can build our success. And inside that fits our 5G strategy, like a set of Russian Dolls.
Our Strategy covers infrastructure, skills, rules and ethics of big data use, cyber security, supporting the tech sector, the digitization of industry, and digitization of government.”
The Great Reset — A Techno-Fascist Recipe
If you listened to my interview with Wood, you will recognize the technocratic elements of Hancock’s speech: the focus on technology — in particular artificial intelligence, digital surveillance and Big Data collection (which is what 5G is for) — and the digitization of industry (which includes banking) and government, which in turn allows for the automation of social engineering and social rule (although that part is never expressly stated).
Then there’s the direct reference to professor Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum. Schwab is also highlighted in the June 29, 2020, Technocracy.news article,10 “The Elite Technocrats Behind the Global ‘Great Reset,” which reads, in part:11
“The UN Agenda 2030 with its Sustainable Development Goals is claimed to ‘ensure peace and prosperity for people and the planet.’ The actions are said to tackle poverty and hunger, bring better health and education, reduce inequalities, and save the oceans, forests and the climate.
Who can argue against such benevolent goals? But the promised Utopia comes with a price — it sets shackles on our personal freedom …
The leading partners of the United Nations Global Goals project reveal the real technocratic agenda that lies behind the polished feel-good façade — it involves a plan to fully integrate mankind into a technological surveillance apparatus overseen by a powerful AI.
The current pandemic scare has been a perfect trigger to kickstart this nefarious agenda … The current COVID-19 crisis is seen by the World Economic Forum and its chairman Klaus Schwabas the perfect trigger to implement their grandiose technocratic plan. Big Tech will come to ‘rescue’ the world.
In June 2020, Schwab declared … the need of a Great Reset to restore order in a world steeped in panic, conflict and economic turmoil:
‘The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit anymore for the 21st century. It has laid bare the fundamental lack of social cohesion, fairness, inclusion and equality. Now is the historical moment in time, not only to fight the real virus but to shape the system for the needs of the Post-Corona era.
We have a choice to remain passive, which would lead to the amplification of many of the trends we see today. Polarization, nationalism, racism, and ultimately increasing social unrest and conflicts.
But we have another choice, we can build a new social contract, particularly integrating the next generation, we can change our behavior to be in harmony with nature again, and we can make sure the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are best utilized to provide us with better lives.’
This techno-fascist recipe will then, in an utmost non-democratic fashion without any public debate or skeptic inquiry, soon be integrated into the agenda of G20 and the European Union — relabeled as the Great Green Deal …
Unsurprisingly, Klaus Schwab fails to mention his own and his cronies’ role in creating this global economic mess in the first place — as it was ‘foreseen’ with stunning accuracy in World Economic Forum’s and Bill Gate’s Event 201 (October 2019) and in the Rockefeller Foundation report12Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development (2010).”
UN Calls for Nations to ‘Build Back Better’
The U.N.’s central role in the technocratic agenda is hard to miss once you start looking. As reported by the U.N.’s Department of Global Communications April 22, 2020, in an article about climate change and COVID-19:13
“As the world begins planning for a post-pandemic recovery, the United Nations is calling on Governments to seize the opportunity to ‘build back better’ by creating more sustainable, resilient and inclusive societies …
‘With this restart, a window of hope and opportunity opens… an opportunity for nations to green their recovery packages and shape the 21st century economy in ways that are clean, green, healthy, safe and more resilient,’ said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa in her International Mother Earth Day message … It is therefore important that post-COVID-19 stimulus packages help the economy ‘grow back greener’ …
As Governments approve stimulus packages to support job creation, poverty reduction and economic growth, UNEP will help Member States ‘build back better,’ and capture opportunities for leap-frogging to green investments in renewable energy, smart housing, green public procurement and public transport — all guided by the principles and standards of sustainable production and consumption. These actions will be critical to fulfilling the Sustainable Development Goals.”
Here too, we see the technocratic agenda shining through. As described by Wood (see interview hyperlinked above), technocracy is an economic system based on the allocation of energy resources, which necessitates social engineering to control the population and the technological infrastructure to automate this control.
Rather than being driven by supply and demand and free enterprise, this system is one in which companies are told what resources they’re allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers are told what they are allowed to buy — or rather, rent, judging by the World Economic Forum video above.
If you need something, you’ll be allowed to rent it. You probably won’t even own the clothes on your back. Everything will be “fair” and “equitable.” There will be no need for hard work, ingenuity or higher-than-average intelligence. Everyone will be the same — with the exception of the technocrats themselves, of course. And in true social engineering fashion, they tell us we will be “happy” in our 24/7 enslavement to boot.
The Encroaching Dystopia
It’s important to realize that one way by which this globalist plan is being pushed forward is through the creation of new global laws. Gates already wields powerful influence over global food and agriculture policy, in addition to his influence over global health and technology (including banking and digital IDs).
The Great Reset, or the “build back better” plan, specifically calls for all nations to implement “green” regulations as part of the post-COVID recovery effort. It sounds like a worthwhile endeavor — after all, who doesn’t want to protect the environment?
But the end goal is far from what the typical person envisions when they hear these plans. The end goal is to turn us into serfs without rights to privacy, private ownership or anything else.
To get an idea of just how dystopian a future we might be looking at, consider Microsoft’s international patent14 WO/2020/060606 for a “cryptocurrency system using body activity data.” The international patent was filed June 20, 2019. The U.S. patent office application,15 16128518, was filed September 21, 2018. As explained in the abstract:16
“Human body activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system. A server may provide a task to a device of a user which is communicatively coupled to the server. A sensor communicatively coupled to or comprised in the device of the user may sense body activity of the user.
Body activity data may be generated based on the sensed body activity of the user. The cryptocurrency system communicatively coupled to the device of the user may verify if the body activity data satisfies one or more conditions set by the cryptocurrency system, and award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity data is verified.”
The U.S. patent application includes the following flow chart summary of the process:17
This patent, if implemented, would essentially turn human beings into robots. If you’ve ever wondered how the average person will make a living in the AI tech-driven world of the future, this may be part of your answer.
People will be brought down to the level of mindless drones, spending their days carrying out tasks automatically handed out by, say a cellphone app, in return for a cryptocurrency “award.” I don’t know about you, but I can think of better, more enjoyable ways to spend my time here on Earth.
Flashback 2012: ‘Facebook Is The Perfect Technocracy’
This 2002 article that appeared in The Atlantic describes Facebook as a Technocracy in proper context with the original 1930s Technocracy movement: people-centered government is out and “developer-king” rule is in. This ideology is spreading like wildfire throughout the world. ⁃ TN Editor
Let’s stipulate that Facebook is not a country, that real governments fulfill many more functions, and that people are not citizens of their social networks.
Nonetheless, 900 million human beings do something like live in the blue-and-white virtual space of the world’s largest structured web of people. And those people get into disputes that they expect to be adjudicated. They have this expectation in part because Facebook has long said it wants to create a safe environment for connecting with other people. (How else can you get people to be “more open and connected“?) But people also want someone to be in charge, they want an authority to whom they can appeal if some other person is being a jerk.
The original technocrats were a group of thinkers and engineers in the 1930s who revived Plato’s dream of the philosopher-king, but with a machine-age spin. Led by Thorstein Veblen, Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert, they advocated not rule by the people or the monarchy or the dictator, but by the engineers. The engineers and scientists would rule rationally and impartially. They would create a Technocracy that functioned like clockwork and ensured the productivity of all was efficiently distributed. They worked out a whole system by which the North American continent would be ruled with functional sequences that would allow the Continental Director to get things done.
Technate org chart, Technocracy Study Course, 1934.
Technocracy, as originally conceived, was explicitly not democratic. Its proponents did not want popular rule; they wanted rule by a knowledgeable elite who would make good decisions. And maybe they would have, but there was one big problem. Few people found the general vision of surrendering their political power to engineers all that appealing.With Facebook, people seem to care much more about individual decisions that Facebook makes than the existence of the ultraefficient technocratic system. They are not challenging the principles or values of the system, so much as wanting them to be applied quickly to resolve their particular dispute. And desire for speed, of course, drives the efficiency-first mindset that makes it hard to deal with nuanced problems. None of the accusations leveled at Facebook’s administrative system read to me like criticisms of its core structure.