Xi Jinping’s Vision For China Is A Global Technocracy

Business Insider writer get’s it right: “President Xi Jinping’s vision of a China led by the Communist Party that he chairs is a global technocracy“. There is no other option or description of China that fits so well. Xi is exporting China’s Technocracy to the whole world. ⁃ TN Editor

After watching China’s vision of a global digital future with Huawei at its heart get torn down piece-by-piece over the last few months, Huawei has emerged from the comfort of its stronghold in Shenzhen as a wounded company.

Huawei chairman Ken Hu told reporters in Shenzhen, China’s southern tech metropolis, that the world’s biggest supplier of telecommunications equipment was a victim of “ideology and geopolitics.”

The Associated Press reported that Hu challenged governments like Australia, New Zealand and the United States — which have effectively excommunicated Huawei from engaging with their domestic communications infrastructure— to make public the security risks that the tech giant exposes.

Huawei, which overtook Apple in August to become the world’s second-largest smartphone manufacturer, has had a few good days to get its public-relations ducks in a row, but Hu knows his hands are tied.

While Hu says Huawei’s equipment has never been a security threat, the same cannot be said for its relationship with the party-state.

President Xi Jinping’s vision of a China led by the Communist Party that he chairs is a global technocracy, and one that raises valid concerns about security, espionage, and, perhaps above all, surveillance.

Read full story here…




Bank For International Settlements Declared ‘Bastion Of Global Technocracy’

Not much is written about the secretive BIS, but this article is an exception as it recognizes it as “a bastion of global technocracy.” TN would add that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund complete the Technocratic troika. ⁃ TN Editor

There’s been a changing of the guard at the Bank for International Settlements, the little-known organization that sits at the heart of the world’s financial system.

Agustín Carstens, former head of Mexico’s central bank, succeeded Jaime Caruana as general manager on Dec. 1. He’s taking charge of an institution that stands out as a bastion of global technocracy in an age of increasing transparency and growing disillusionment with elites.

The BIS headquarters, which towers over Basel like a 70-meter stack of copper coins, serves as a clubhouse for the world’s central bankers and financial rulemakers. The likes of Mario Draghi, Janet Yellen, and Mark Carney routinely hold confidential gatherings there with colleagues from around the globe. “Maybe if it didn’t exist you wouldn’t invent it now, but
it plays an important role in the central banking world,” says Charlie Bean, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, who co-authored a report on the BIS’s research in 2016. “It’s the glue that helps keep the fraternity together.”

That hasn’t stopped the BIS, which was founded in 1930 and is owned by central banks, from challenging the economic orthodoxy of its own members. By 2003, William White, then economic adviser, and colleague Claudio Borio were pushing for preemptive monetary tightening to avoid dangerous asset bubbles, a contrarian view that looked prescient later, during the financial crisis. It’s kept beating that drum even as central bankers in the U.S., Europe, and Japan slashed interest rates to record lows and launched unprecedented bond-buying programs to fend off deflation. Borio, now head of the monetary and economic department at the BIS, argued in a September speech that central bankers may be underestimating the “generally benign” effects of globalization and technology on inflation and should rethink their response to deflationary trends. He called out Larry Summers, former secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and a proponent of the “secular stagnation” theory, who argues weak U.S. growth and inflation result from a persistent shortfall in demand. Summers describes the BIS as “an important source of thinking on issues relating to financial stability and economic performance,” while adding that he frequently disagrees with its conclusions. He’s not alone in questioning the BIS’s stance. A 2016 review of the bank’s publications co-authored by Bean found the organization “doing a lot right” on the research front but expressed reservations about the BIS “generating results to support the ‘house view.’ ”

Caruna, whose tenure began during the dark days of the financial crisis in April 2009, defended the BIS. “You may agree with what we say or not, but I think there is a value to introducing these elements in the debate,” he told Bloomberg in November, referring to the bank’s preference for taking a medium-term, global perspective and highlighting financial stability risks. Research aside, the BIS has grown in prominence in the years of monetary policy experimentation and banking regulation that have followed the crisis. While some central banks made efforts to open up as their increasing powers drew scrutiny from voters and governments, in Basel they’ve rowed back. Jens Weidmann, president of Germany’s Bundesbank and chairman of the BIS board of directors, says sometimes secrecy is necessary. “Informed decisions on domestic monetary policy require a nuanced understanding of international developments,” Weidmann says. “The privacy of the meetings facilitates a frank and open exchange of views.”

The organization hosts the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which hash out the rules that govern the international financial system. There’s also the Global Economy Meeting and its sister forum, the Economic Consultative Committee, dubbed “the world’s most exclusive club” by Adam LeBor, author of a book on the BIS. These latter two groups convene once every two months, on a Sunday, for formal sessions followed by a dinner on a top floor of the BIS tower, which has 360-degree views of Basel and the mountains. They seldom open themselves to scrutiny from the press and the public.

The clubby, shrouded nature of the organization and the
committees it hosts contrasts with efforts at greater transparency elsewhere. The European Central Bank bowed to public pressure in 2015 and began publishing the minutes of its meetings, while the Federal Reserve started holding quarterly press conferences in 2011.

Read full story here…




Technocrats: Left To Their Devices, There Is No End In Sight

This is an insightful look by a doctoral candidate at the nexus of industry, Technocracy,  Christianity and Christian Humanism.  The book he cites, The Year of Our Lord 1943
Christian Humanism in an Age of Crisis,
concludes the “reign of technocracy has become so complete that none can foresee the end of it while this world lasts.”

In President Eisenhower’s farewell address, most readers stop after his warning about the military-industrial complex. If you read just a little further, you will hear, “Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Yes, Ike knew about and understood Technocracy! ⁃ TN Editor

In September 2016, literary critic Alan Jacobs published an essay in Harper’s lamenting the diminished standing of Christian intellectuals in the American public square. Some, he claimed, now found themselves too at home in the “liberal secular world,” often distancing themselves from ordinary believers and offering little to challenge mainstream views; others had self-sorted into Christian institutions, writing and speaking mostly to Christian audiences. Both tendencies, he believed, contributed to American culture’s mounting incomprehension of religion.

His timing was auspicious. Just two months before that year’s presidential election, we were only beginning to grasp the depths to which conservative evangelical leaders and intellectuals would descend in their alliance with Donald Trump, how rapidly and shamelessly they would abandon the values in defense of which the religious right had become a major political force. But Jacobs was already concerned at both the rise of populism based in part on “religious ressentiment” and the way liberals seemed utterly perplexed by it. “It would be valuable,” he wrote, “to have at our disposal some figures equipped for the task of mediation—people who understand the impulses from which these troubling movements arise, who may themselves belong in some sense to the communities driving these movements but are also a part of the liberal social order.”

Jacobs’s latest book, The Year of Our Lord 1943, seems inextricable from the problem he identified two years ago. He turns to an eclectic group of Anglo-American and French writers—W. H. Auden, T. S. Eliot, C. S. Lewis, Jacques Maritain, and Simone Weil—as figures who were, amid the dark days of World War II and its immediate aftermath, able to mediate between Christian conviction and the big questions of their historical moment. These thinkers, too, lived through a clash between liberal democracy and authoritarian nationalism, and worried that the masses of ordinary citizens in Western societies had little basis on which to resist the lure of ideologies that promised victory through sheer domination. The challenge to the survival of liberal society raised the problem of the role of the Christian intellectual—of how Christian thinkers could speak in a way that their fellow citizens found at least comprehensible, and in some cases persuasive.

Around the year 1943, Jacobs argues, these “Christian humanists” realized that the Allies would win the war and turned their attention to the rebuilding that would follow. They saw the role that American technological might had played in turning the war’s tide, and the grand plans political and scientific elites were drawing up for the postwar world. They worried that the anthropological assumptions supporting these visions uncomfortably resembled those of liberal democracy’s “totalitarian” opponents that prized the scientific and technological organization of the whole over the individual. In response, they articulated a humanist counter-vision of “man” as a remedy to the “miseducation” that they believed had left ordinary citizens vulnerable to the appeal of authoritarian political ideologies. To challenge the materialist and technocratic vision of society, Jacobs writes, “They thought it was possible—and necessary—to restore Christianity to a central, if not the dominant, role in the shaping of Western societies.”

This project, as Jacobs understands it, had two closely related dimensions: a form and a content. The form was “Christian humane learning”: engagement with the classical and European literary tradition as a way of recovering ideas that relativized the modernist, scientistic concepts that dominated the twentieth century. Maritain found inspiration in medieval Thomism, Weil in a reconfiguration of Christian spirituality as the inheritance of the classical tradition. Lewis, himself a literary scholar, used the genre of satire as a vehicle for a theological critique of secular materialism, while Auden and Eliot, in different ways, defended poetry and humanistic education as ways of being in the world that resisted the objectifying and dominating ways modern states approached knowledge.

For the Christian humanists, the form of humanist learning produced a particular kind of content: individuals whose sensibilities and vocations were cultivated in opposition to the totalizing projects of modern political regimes. Like the Catholic “anti-totalitarian” movement of the 1930s, they associated both communism and fascism with “materialism”—that is, an understanding of human beings as biological and productive entities that could be organized and managed toward utopian ends. If such designs were primarily incarnated by the “totalitarian” Nazi and Soviet regimes, the American technocracy that developed during the war—the unaccountable authority of national-security experts, engineers, and industrialists to decide the direction of national policy—shared its faith in the power of rational organization and the manipulation of average citizens by technical experts. The answer the Christian humanists gave to the question “What is man?” was skeptical of such projects: man was a spiritual entity, an inviolable person whose individual status came before any political design. Thus Christian humanism, as Jacobs presents it, was a personalist anti-totalitarianism: an emphasis on the spiritual person as a bulwark against the designs of the state.

Read full story here…




Technocracy Rules: China Is Purging Marxists and Communists

Why is China purging Marxists and Communists from its population?

A let-the-cat-out-of-a-bag story from Time Magazine in 2001 declared that China had already flipped into a Technocracy, leaving Communism in the dust. The article, Revenge of the Nerds stated: 

The nerds are run­ning the show in today’s China. In the twenty years since Deng Xiaoping’s [Ed. Note: count back­ward to 1978 – 79] reforms kicked in, the com­po­si­tion of the Chi­nese lead­er­ship has shifted markedly in favor of tech­nocrats. …It’s no exag­ger­a­tion to describe the cur­rent regime as a tech­noc­racy.

After the Maoist mad­ness abated and Deng Xiaoping inau­gu­rated the opening and reforms that began in late 1978, sci­en­tific and tech­nical intel­lec­tuals were among the first to be reha­bil­i­tated. Real­izing that they were the key to the Four Mod­ern­iza­tions embraced by the reformers, con­certed efforts were made to bring the “experts” back into the fold.

During the 1980s, tech­noc­racy as a con­cept was much talked about, espe­cially in the con­text of so-called “Neo-Authoritarianism” — the prin­ciple at the heart of the “Asian Devel­op­mental Model” that South Korea, Sin­ga­pore, and Taiwan had pur­sued with apparent suc­cess. The basic beliefs and assump­tions of the tech­nocrats were laid out quite plainly: Social and eco­nomic prob­lems were akin to engi­neering prob­lems and could be under­stood, addressed, and even­tu­ally solved as such.

The open hos­tility to reli­gion that Bei­jing exhibits at times — most notably in its obses­sive drive to stamp out the “evil cult” of Falun Gong — has pre-Marxist roots. Sci­en­tism under­lies the post-Mao tech­noc­racy, and it is the ortho­doxy against which here­sies are mea­sured. [Emphasis added]

I have stated for several years now that China’s Communists and Marxists would end up being the “useful idiots” of Technocracy, just like they will in America. The radical Marxist left served a purpose – for a time – and now their time is running out. 

The following broadcaster really gets that China is not Communist, but has no knowledge of Technocracy. TN Readers will clearly see Technocracy for what it is. ⁃ TN Editor
 

China is finally starting its purge of Marxists and Communists, as evidenced by the recent headlines in major publications:

All of these journalists scratch their head as to how strange this seems, but if they understood anything about Technocracy, they would know that Technocracy and Communism have always been natural enemies. They are oil and water or matter and anti-mater to each other. In the end, Technocrats have absolutely no use for anything Marxian. 

If you are a Communist, Marxist, Socialist, Leftist, etc., I suggest that you watch your back. Although you have helped them to deconstruct Capitalism and Free Enterprise, the Technocrats will throw you all under the bus when they feel you are not needed any longer. China has already reached that point, and America isn’t far behind. 




State Of The Union 2019: Why America Is Suffering Gridlock At Every Level

As I was talking with a friend the other day, she expressed that she wanted get involved in her local community but didn’t know how to go about it. Because she was new to the concepts of Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Technocracy, Agenda 21, etc., she felt overwhelmed by ignorance and was insecure in her ability to explain it to anybody else. 

Since she had been also listening to various alternative media-induced conspiracy theories, she found herself spending a lot of time spinning the wheels of her mind trying to sort it all out but unable to figure out an action plan to do anything about it. 

So, I am going to relate to you some of what I said to her. Just so you know, she received it with grace and we are still friends. Some readers, however, are likely going to take offense at this, but if you wish to rescue America, I sincerely hope you will take it to heart. 

Where’s your evidence?

First, I told her that I spend zero time listening to other people’s unprovable conspiracy theories, and I suggested that she do the same. 

Some synonyms for “theory” are hypothesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation and assumption. Every time some ill event occurs, be it fires in California or some rumor in Washington, the rumor mill gins out explanations based on circumstantial evidence at best and pure speculation at worst. The easiest way to spot a conspiracy theory is its total lack of concrete evidence. Evidence is always suggested but it is never forthcoming.

Conspiracy theories are a complete waste of everyone’s time but that’s the enemy’s exact point. For every hour, day, week, month, year and decade that is wasted in unproductive activity, the enemy gets a free pass to move ahead unopposed. 

So, I told my friend to never lead into any discussion with a conspiracy theory that cannot be proven with hard evidence, in which case it isn’t a theory. Beyond being a waste of time, you will likely get into an argument and both of you will leave with bitter feelings.

Some will protest that evidence is too hard to find in the current sea of confusion and conflict. Point taken. I have given several decades of my life to give America enough hard evidence to literally kickstart a revolution of epic proportions. Between my latest two books, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, there are over 500 footnotes plus an extensive Bibliography. Be my guest to use anything I have presented – all you have to do is read it!

Why Evidence Matters

If you are arrested and charged with a crime, the first thing you want to know is what evidence they have against you. Do they have a video tape or an eye-witness of you committing the offense? How about other things like financial records or written statements from others?

Let’s say you are now in court listening to the prosecutor’s complaint against you and he reveals that the crime took place on Christmas day at 7:30pm Eastern. However, you know that you were on a cruise with your spouse in the Caribbean over Christmas and you pull out a time-stamped picture of yourself, taken by the ship’s photographer, showing you eating dinner at the Captain’s table. Furthermore, the Captain himself wrote a personal note on the picture saying how glad he was to have you at his table on Christmas day! 

Now, that is hard EVIDENCE. It’s irrefutable. It’s effective. It’s life saving. 

This isn’t hard to understand: Evidence matters, speculations don’t. Can you apply the old adage “Don’t take a knife to a gun fight”?

Let me make this practical to our discussion. When you want to make a case to a local official about Agenda 21 but he believes it is a conspiracy theory, don’t even bother to project yourself into the discussion. Rather, try this: get a copy of the original Agenda 21 book from the United Nations (it’s available on Amazon for about $40) and take it to him as evidence. Make him address the evidence and not merely your arguments about it. 

Whenever you put hard evidence in front of a protagonist, you force them to respond to it, rather than respond to you. He might grind his teeth at your evidence, but it immediately puts him on the defensive and you on the offensive. 

Rule 1: Always lead with hard evidence

Bring Solutions, Not Problems

Let’s say that you presented the evidence as above. If you don’t have a solution to the problem you are really concerned about, you accomplish nothing except angering the official. If that is your only intent (to make him angry) then you aren’t serious about change but only about stirring up a good fight. 

Rule 2: Always present a solution that links to the evidence.

Let’s say your underlying issue concerns economic harm being done to your city because of policies derived from Agenda 21. You would explain the harm, relate it to your hard evidence and make an appeal to change the harmful policies to favor the citizens and the economic health of your city.

Let’s face it, who likes to listen to someone who is only interested in throwing criticism at you? Nobody! If you insist on being critical without bringing solutions, then you are part of the larger problem that is ripping America apart at the seams. 

The Political Circus is an Addictive Diversion 

I will be first to admit that I follow the news to a certain extent, but I recognize it for what it is: a diversion from focusing on the people who are really shredding our nation. 

The fact is, many Americans are addicted to the anger generated by obsessing over the intense divisions in Washington, DC. Constantly watching television or videos, listening to talk radio, arguing on social media, etc., gets the old adrenalin flowing, but it has also been shown to release dopamine and serotonin into the brain, both of which are highly addictive. These are the same hormones that hold drug addicts in bondage even to their own self-destruction.

Americans who have become addicted to the news cycle (via anger and frustration) also exhibit typical addictive behavior. They can’t stop participating, it affects sleep patterns, family relationships, causes withdrawal and personality changes, etc. Worse, addicts will use any justification to continue their addictive behavior. 

The only way out of addiction is to a) recognize it for what it is and b) stop it. Most addiction counselors will tell you to replace the destructive habit with something positive so you don’t slide back to old habits. So, how about gathering up some hard evidence, creating some solutions and mixing is up with your local elected officials? At the very least, this will channel your anger into constructive behaviors!

Rule 3: Stop any activity that promotes or enables addiction

The Value of Civility

Bitter anger and hostility are the hallmarks of political interaction throughout America. Tolerance, compassion and empathy have been killed off. Listening has been replaced with shouting and name-calling. 

Why would any sane person think this is the way to help our nation? Of course, it cannot. Such a culture is self-destructing and indeed, we are self-destructing, aren’t we? 

Rule 4: Be civil or be quiet

When I was growing up, my grandmother used to tell me that it is easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar. Little kids that stomp their feet and demand to get their way will never succeed in getting it. This lesson is not lost on adults, either. If you want results, and I hope you do, then keep a civil tongue in your mouth.  

Expend Energy on Actionable Items Only

It is an exercise in futility to waste energy on anything where you cannot control or influence the outcome. This includes almost all national debates where you cannot and will never have a seat at the table. 

In the case of following after conspiracy theories, just remember that you don’t know what you do not know. If new hard evidence is discovered, a theory might become fact, but that alone still doesn’t mean you can do anything about it. 

The bottom line is, pick your battles carefully and pursue the ones where you can make a substantive difference. Imagine what would happen if every citizen in America practiced this for even 30 days in a row.

Rule 5: Choose your battles carefully and wisely

Seeking Remedies

Here is a solution that you can participate in right now: Join Citizens for Free Speech (CFFS) and learn how to make a difference.  I created CFFS in 2018 as a tax-exempt non-profit organization to support and defend the proper application of the First Amendment. It’s about engagement and taking considered action to effect change.

Secondly, CFFS launched LocalActivist.org as a private social network for engaged activists in their local communities. Not everyone is accepted into LocalActivist, but if you want a seat at the table in your own locale, then come network with us to craft solutions that work.

I’m banking on the hope that there are still enough reachable Americans who really to want to make a difference and turn the destruction of America around. 

Conclusion

There are some difficult realities here. In lieu of a balanced and rational citizenry, America is slouching toward armed rebellion where people are going to get hurt. God forbid!

Personally, I am done with rabbit holes and Alice in Wonderland fairy tales. America needs statesmen-warriors who know how to effect change in every community across our nation. 

Be one of them. Start today.




Jon Rappoport: A Deeper Understanding Of Technocracy

This seasoned journalist presents a clear case against Technocracy. My latest book, Technocracy: The Hard Road World Order, takes it all a step further by exposing many of the supporting roles seen to be achieving Technocracy in our modern world. ⁃ TN Editor

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable.

On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.

When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.

And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications.

Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion? And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?

Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.

But engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Hunger, disease, and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the uncompromising blueprint.

This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.

Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.

Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives. Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.

The individual would be inserted into a pre-ordained slot. He would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.

Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization. What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.

Among sincere technocrats, the overall vision superseded the glaring problems.

But…other people entered the game.

High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population. Control was their goal. Period. What happened to the individual in the process was of no concern to them. The individual had freedom or he didn’t have freedom, and the Globalists overtly intended to wipe out that freedom.

Erasing hunger, poverty, illness? Nonsense. For the Globalists, those realities would be exacerbated. Sick, weak, and debilitated people were easier to rule and control and manage.

Essentially, a vastly misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.

In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy.

A locomotive is a society? No. That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly psychotic.

Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief. They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories—greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; engineering production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guides.

If you track down the specifics that sit under these pronouncements, you discover a warped system of planning that delivers misery and de facto slavery to the global population.

The collective utopia turns out to be a sham.

Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.

A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.

Read full story here…




True Technocrat: Elon Musk Pushes Self To Brink To Save World From Global Warming

The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree when you consider that Elon Musk’s grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was head of Technocracy, Inc. in Canada during the 1930s. Technocracy is just as radical today as it was in the 1930s and 40s. ⁃ TN Editor

Elon Musk has become infamous for his extreme work schedule.

When he was ramping up production of the Model 3 Tesla, he put in as many as 120 hours in a week. He slept at the factory because he had no time to go home. He called 2018 “the most difficult and painful year of my career.” “[I]t was excruciating,” he told The New York Times.

In late October Musk finally said he was working a much more manageable schedule of 80 to 90 hours a week.

This from a man who is already worth more than $20 billion, according to Forbes.

So why does Musk push himself? To hear Musk tell it, he is trying to save planet Earth. Literally. Musk wants Tesla to be successful so the world moves away from driving cars that run on petroleum-derived fuel.

“Tesla is incredibly important for the future of sustainable transport and energy generation. The fundamental purpose, the fundamental good that Tesla provides is accelerating the advent of sustainable transport and energy production,” Musk said told Recode’s Kara Swisher. “The success of Tesla is, by far, the biggest forcing function for the other car makers to get into … electric cars.”

Providing alternative methods for mass transportation that do not depend on petroleum-derived fuel is key to slowing global warming.

“Yes. It’s very important for the future of the world. It’s very important for all life on Earth. This supersedes political parties, race, creed, religion, it doesn’t matter. If we do not solve the environment, we’re all damned,” Musk told Swisher.

Building an electric car company that will one day mass produce electric vehicles is not easy, even for an entrepreneur like Musk.

“It’s trivial to start a car company,” Musk tells Swisher. “It is insanely difficult to make it successful. … So as a startup, a car company, it is far more difficult to be successful than if you’re an established, entrenched brand. It is absurd that Tesla is alive. Absurd! Absurd.”

Musk attributes Tesla’s survival to this point to “excruciating effort” and “hundred-hour weeks by everyone,” he told Swisher.

“There wasn’t some other way to do this, Kara,” Musk insisted.

Read full story here…




Chinese ‘Princess’ Arrest Exposes China’s World Domination Plot

Most journalists don’t recognize China as a Technocracy, but readers of TN will easily identify the issue presented in this article. Meng Wanzhou is a link to the past of Communist China, but she is at the forefront of the Technocrat regime. ⁃ TN Editor

Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou’s arrest in Vancouver on Dec. 6 led to immediate blowback.

Furious Chinese Communists have begun arresting innocent Canadians in retaliation. So far, three of these “revenge hostages” have been taken and are being held in secret jails on vague charges. Beijing hints that the hostage count may grow if Meng is not freed and fast.

Even for a thuggish regime like China’s, this kind of action is almost unprecedented.

So who is Meng Wanzhou?

Currently under house arrest and awaiting extradition to the US, she will face charges that her company violated US sanctions by doing business with Iran and committed bank fraud by disguising the payments it received in return.

But to say that she is the CFO of Huawei doesn’t begin to explain her importance — or China’s reaction.

It turns out that “Princess” Meng, as she is called, is Communist royalty. Her grandfather was a close comrade of Chairman Mao during the Chinese Civil War, who went on to become vice governor of China’s largest province.

She is also the daughter of Huawei’s Founder and Chairman, Ren Zhengfei. Daddy is grooming her to succeed him when he retires.

In other words, Meng is the heiress apparent of China’s largest and most advanced hi-tech company, and one which plays a key role in China’s grand strategy of global domination.

Huawei is a leader in 5G technology and, earlier this year, surpassed Apple to become the second largest smartphone maker in the world behind Samsung.

But Huawei is much more than an innocent manufacturer of smartphones.

It is a spy agency of the Chinese Communist Party.

How do we know?

Because the party has repeatedly said so.

First in 2015 and then again in June 2017, the party declared that all Chinese companies must collaborate in gathering intelligence.

“All organizations and citizens,” reads Article 7 of China’s National Intelligence Law, “must support, assist with, and collaborate in national intelligence work, and guard the national intelligence work secrets they are privy to.”

All Chinese companies, whether they are private or owned by the state, are now part and parcel of the party’s massive overseas espionage campaign.

Huawei is a key part of this aggressive effort to spy on the rest of the world. The company’s smartphones, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray, can be used to “maliciously modify or steal information,” as well as “conduct undetected espionage.” Earlier this year the Pentagon banned the devices from all US military bases worldwide.

But Huawei, which has been specially designated as a “national champion,” has an even more important assignment from the Communist Party than simply listening in on phone conversations.

As a global leader in 5G technology, it has been tasked with installing 5G “fiber to the phone” networks in countries around the world.

In fact, “Made in China 2025” — the party’s aggressive plan to dominate the cutting-edge technologies of the 21st century — singles out Huawei as the key to achieving global 5G dominance.

Any network system installed by a company working hand-in-glove with China’s intelligence services raises the danger of not only cyber espionage, but also cyber-enabled technology theft.

And the danger doesn’t stop there.

The new superfast 5G networks, which are 100 times faster than 4G, will literally run the world of the future. Everything from smartphones to smart cities, from self-driving vehicles to, yes, even weapons systems, will be under their control.

In other words, whoever controls the 5G networks will control the world — or at least large parts of it.

Read full story here…




Technocracy: A Clear And Present Danger Of Epic Magnitude

Since the release of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, I have been doing quite a few radio interviews and more are scheduled for the near future. In the process, something has dawned on me that needs to be addressed.

Many people breeze across Technocracy.News and completely misinterpret what it is here for. It is NOT to bash technology, engineers or scientists. It is NOT to scare you with “truth is stranger than fiction” memes.

The chief and only purpose of Technocracy.News is to demonstrate the tentacles of Technocracy around the world in THEIR words, not mine.

There are now over 2,800 categorized and indexed articles posted, which has become a research treasure trove for many. I have included my own comments at the top of each article, in order to provide context.

Let me be very clear about this: I am totally opposed to Technocracy. I support the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and promote them as the best form of citizen-involved government in the history of the world. As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity and dignity of man having been created in the image of God; to put this another way, I do not believe that you are an animal equivalent to a steer in a feed lot.

Many readers don’t have a clue as to what Technocracy is or how it will affect all Americans. This is why I posted a link to my QUICK START GUIDE in plain view on the Home Page, where everyone can find explanations, videos, interviews other links. This is also why there is a big graphic image on the Home Page with pictures of the books I have written on the topic. I have spent thousands of hours researching and writing about Globalization and Technocracy, and published these books for your education.

However, how many people actually read the Quick Start Guide or purchase Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation or Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order? Well, not nearly enough.

For anyone who takes shots at me for just “hocking books for my own profit”, get over it. You can join the ignorant masses if you wish, but you will be back some day after the manacle of Scientific Dictatorship clamps around your neck, and you realize that you missed the chance to do anything about it.

For everyone else that takes Technocracy seriously, I salute you and encourage you to keep spilling the beans on it to everyone who will listen.

Here are equivalent concepts: Technocracy, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Natural Capitalism. All of this is a grand deception, as I explain in Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.

Was Sustainable Development disingenuous or was it for real? Pratap Chatterjee and Matthias Finger, authors of The Earth Brokers in 1994, were direct participants in the UN meetings leading up to the Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992. They were environmentalists of the original order that preceded globalization, and they were deeply disappointed in the entire process and outcome. They concluded that “as a result of the whole UNCED20 process, the planet was going to be worse off, not better.” In further opposition, they wrote,

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

Toward the end of the Earth Summit, youth representatives were allowed to give their impressions of the process and proceedings, and they selected a young lady from Kenya, Wagaki Mwangi, who worked for the International Youth Environment and Development Network in Nairobi. Her short, pointed and shocking statement left many attendees in dead silence:

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

While this may seem to be a harsh assessment to some readers, I am only setting up to ask this question: If Sustainable Development is not really about saving the planet, then what is it?

Here is the short answer: It is a scam to twist the economic resources of the world out of your hands and give them to the global elite. It is a power grab to take over all means of production while dictating to you what you are allowed to consume. It is a Scientific Dictatorship designed to control you, your thoughts, your behavior, your consumption and your family from cradle to cradle. Property rights, wealth, savings and the right of inheritance will be tossed out the window. Welcome back to the Dark Ages!

If this is true, then it represents nothing less than the biggest heist in the history of man on earth, and there is an abundance of evidence to prove that it is already well underway. It might be stopped before our nation is ravaged, but not while so many Americans still have their head still planted firmly in the sand.

That is why Technocracy.News is here and why I have now published two books on Technocracy to explain the whole picture.




Chinese Scientists Searching For The Human Soul Via State-Of-The-Art Brain Scanner

Technocrat scientists believe that humans are just like any other animal which are products of random evolution. Therefore, they fully expect to be able to use science to find the human soul. As atheists, they do not believe man was created by God with body, soul and spirit.  ⁃ TN Editor

Chinese scientists are developing a £100m state-of-the-art brain scanner to try and find the human soul.

They will use powerful magnetic forces to observe the structure and activities of every neuron in a living brain.

The aim is to build the world’s most powerful MRI device – which may one day be able to help answer one of life’s big questions.

The mystical soul, according to many religious, philosophical, and mythological traditions, is the true essence of a living being.

Simply stated, it is said to be the part of a person that is not physical and lives on long after the body experiences death.

The scanner “will revolutionise brain studies”, said a senior scientist working on the top secret project in Shenzhen.

The total budget for the state-backed facility will even exceed that of FAST, the world’s largest telescope in Pingtan.

“It will show us a different world with phenomenon unseen before … maybe even the soul,” one scientist told the SCMP.

“We may for the first time capture a full picture of human consciousness or even the essence of life itself,” said another physicist.

“Then we can define them and explain how they work in precise physical terms – just like Newton and Einstein defined and explained the universe,” he said.

The Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology revealed the first phase of the project has been given the green light .

Read full story here…