Dr. Parag Khanna

Parag Khanna: The 21st Century Belongs To Asia

Leading global Technocrat and scholar, Dr. Parag Khanna, claims that the 21st century belongs to Asia, not to the U.S. or the West in general. He also wrote the book, Technocracy in America, calling for complete transformation of our nation.

China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and India are already well on their way to embracing Technocracy. China, in particular, is exporting its new ideology to the rest of the world. ⁃ TN Editor

In decades past, and particularly during the 20th century, the extent of Western influence on the world grew to new bounds. Thanks mostly to post–World War II economic expansion, also known as the golden age of capitalism and the postwar economic boom, the West’s influence on the world became renowned. Today, American brands are everywhere, we all speak English, and countries like the US and European nations are the biggest players on the international stage.

This, however, is changing.

According to Parag Khanna, global strategy advisor, world traveler, and best-selling author, the “Future is Asian.” That’s the title of his latest best-selling book, but also the reality we are facing today in the 21st century, which he deems the Asian century.

“I think we should realize that we are already in an Asian world,” Khanna tells AMEinfo. “This is not a future prospect: In the 21st century, it is already an Asian century.”

Named one of Esquire’s “75 Most Influential People of the 21st Century,” and featured in WIRED magazine’s “Smart List,” Khanna’s writings are hot topics of discussion around the world.

So, what exactly is the Asian century, and why is the future Asian? AMEinfo finds this out and more in this one-on-one interview.

1. Can you tell us about yourself and about some highlights from your career that helped shape who you are today? 

Major highlights include my first position on the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. That was shortly after graduating from Georgetown University, the School of Foreign Service. At that time, I became acquainted with US military officers who later recruited me to work in Special Operations Forces, during which time I was working in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 during the Surge activities. Obviously, that was a very eye-opening experience.

I also worked in the World Economic Forum both physically, living in Geneva in 2001, as well as a consultant while in Washington.

For me, a decisive moment was when I was at the Brookings Institution in 2004 and decided not to work on the presidential campaigns but rather to write [the] proposal for my first book ‘The Second World’. The book was awarded an advance by Random House, the largest publisher in the world. That allowed me to travel for three years all over the [globe]. ‘The Second World’ was published in 2008, and contained very large sections about the Middle East region.

After that, I was able to be much more independent and I’ve written 5 other books since then and also lived in New York, London and Singapore, where I live now.

2. Your book “The Future is Asian” proposes an interesting reality that we are seeing take shape today. China, Singapore, Japan and other Asian countries are often the leading countries in certain fields of innovation, and trade is increasingly centered around those nations. What made you come to this realization, and when do you think we will see it happen?  

In that first book, the second world, I had a very long section called ‘Asia for Asians.’ It was the fifth section of the book and about a hundred pages long. Nearly ten years later, I wanted to update the book and in the meantime, I had also moved to Singapore and had such intensive exposure to the Asian region to really update my knowledge.

In my first book, China was very central whereas in ‘The Future is Asian’ what I tried to do is to put China in the context of the larger Asian mega region, which is 5 billion people. China is only one third of that population, so I thought it was very important to correct many of the misperceptions that dominate our thinking about China’s role in the world in which we see it as a potential global hegemon, because it is not. It is the most powerful country in Asia, but Asia is a multipolar region which Japan and India and even Russia… are all major Asian powers. So, the Asian history and the Asian geopolitics are not a like-for-like comparison with Western history. No book had really pointed that out, so I think I’ve written the first book about Asia that is not China-centric.

You’ll note, of course, that the West Asian countries – the Gulf Region, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran – play very important roles in my book because they are in fact part of Asia. Therefore, I wanted to make arguments based on geography, demographics and economics that are much more appropriate today than the traditional work about Asia that is focused mostly on China.

Read full story here…




IMF Great Depression

IMF Chief Warns On Great Depression II

IMF Director Kristalina Georgieva addressed the Peterson Institute, founded by the late Trilateral Commission member, Peter G. Peterson (1926–2018). The Peterson board of directors is a Who’s Who of other Trilateral members.

Trilateral Commission members (past or present) include Alan Greenspan, Frank Loy, George Shultz, Ernesto Zedillo, Robert Zoellick, Stanley Fischer, Richard N. Cooper, C. Fred Bergsten, Larry Summers, among others.

Georgieva lays much of the future blame on global warming. The moral hazard is enormous because the IMF wants to kill Capitalism and Free Enterprise, and moreover, has the power and influence to do it. The mal-investment of trillions of dollars into futile and unproductive green investments breeds a self-fulfilling prophecy. ⁃ TN Editor

The head of the International Monetary Fund has warned that the global economy risks a return of the Great Depression, driven by inequality and financial sector instability.

Speaking at the Peterson Institute of International Economics in Washington, Kristalina Georgieva said new IMF research, which compares the current economy to the “roaring 1920s” that culminated in the great market crash of 1929, revealed that a similar trend was already under way.

While the inequality gap between countries had closed in the last two decades, it had increased within countries, she said, singling out the UK for particular criticism.

In the UK, for example, the top 10% now control nearly as much wealth as the bottom 50%. This situation is mirrored across much of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), where income and wealth inequality have reached, or are near, record highs.”

She added: “In some ways, this troubling trend is reminiscent of the early part of the 20th century – when the twin forces of technology and integration led to the first gilded age, the roaring 20s, and, ultimately, financial disaster.”

She warned that fresh issues such as the climate emergency and increased trade protectionism meant the next 10 years were likely to be characterised by social unrest and financial market volatility.

“If I had to identify a theme at the outset of the new decade, it would be increasing uncertainty,” she said.

With disputes still raging between the US and Europe, she said “the global trading system is in need of a significant upgrade”.

Georgieva said uncertainty affects not only businesses but individuals, especially given the rising inequality within many countries.

She said that “excessive inequality hinders growth and … can fuel populism and political upheaval”.

Eric LeCompte, the head of debt charity Jubilee USA, said: “The IMF delivered a stark message about the potential for another massive financial disaster that we last experienced during the Great Depression.

“With inequality on the rise and concerns of stability in the markets, we need to take this warning seriously.”

Read full story here…




New Lebanon PM Seeks To Install 18-Member ‘Technocrat Cabinet’

Technocrat rule is not just seen in Europe, China and India: The Islamic world is also strongly attracted to Techno-populism and Technocrat governance. In Lebanon’s case, even Hezbollah approves. ⁃ TN Editor

Informed ministerial sources told Asharq Al-Awsat on Friday that Lebanon’s Prime Minister-designate Hassan Diab is about to form an 18-member cabinet, free of politicians, and capable to meet the demands of the popular movement.

On Friday, Diab held his second meeting this week with President Michel Aoun to discuss the form and content of his next government.

Observers consider the announcement as a “drawback” from the techno-political cabinet that Aoun and his two Shiite allies, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, were attached to form.

“The Aoun-Diab meeting was good. The two men discussed the distribution of ministerial portfolios and the names of some suggested figures to be appointed ministers,” the sources explained.

They denied reports saying that Diab plans to announce his cabinet in the next hours.

Earlier on Friday, Aoun hoped that with the new government, the situation will gradually start to improve and overcome the crisis, and Lebanon will return to its prosperity.

During a meeting with Commander of the Lebanese Army, General Joseph Aoun, accompanied by a delegation from the leadership, the President said, “Today, we live in a period of austerity at the individual level and on the level of the state and its institutions, but this is required at present to help overcome the current crisis.”

Meanwhile, Hezbollah also commented on the developments.

“Hezbollah supports a government comprised of competent specialist candidates who enjoy integrity and loyalty to the nation and whose concern is to save the country and its economy,” Hezbollah’s Mount Lebanon and North representative Sheikh Mohammed Amro said after visiting Maronite Patriarch Bechara Rai to extend greetings on the holy season.

Read full story here…




Communitarianism

Leading Communitarian Takes Shot At Technocrats

Amitai Etzioni is the modern academic father of Communitarianism, which elevates the ‘common good’ over individual rights. It stands diametrically opposed to liberalism and libertarianism.

Etzioni does not grasp that Technocracy also preaches the same common good, except that it is Technocrats who decide what is good for the majority of society. Communitarianism was first used in 1841 by John Goodwin Barmby who led the Chartist movement; it referred to utopian socialists and those who were experimenting with communal lifestyles. Communitarianism is also used to describe authoritarian societies like Malaysia, Singapore and China.

Just as Communism has been a natural enemy of Technocracy since the 1930s, Communitarianism likewise opposes Technocracy for the same  reason, ie, how will the common good be determined and by whom? ⁃ TN Editor

Speech is too important for technocrats to control. Elected officials and the courts should be the main controllers—and they should control only when there is a clear and present danger to our security and to our democratic process.

Strong voices from both ends of the political spectrum have called on tech companies to be more responsible, to remove from their platforms any material that offends community mores and that manipulates elections. Actually, as I see it, over the last few years the tech corporations have blocked or deleted staggering amounts of messages and ads, including material which, if removed from offline publication, would lead even moderate defenders of free speech to go ballistic. Moreover, each tech corporation is making its own rules about which speech it allows and which it blocks. These are not subject to public review and often impossible to figure out. Protecting speech—and figuring out the rare occasions people should be denied voice, should be censored—is too important to leave to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his fellow tech tycoons.

Some argue that because tech corporations are private companies, they cannot censor, only the government can. Some who are legally-minded hold that the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, not that private companies cannot control messages. Also, given the differences in policies among the various companies, if one closes a door, there is likely another that leaves that door open. Only the government can prevent access to all mediums and thus truly censor.

One must note, though, that these companies control a very large amount of the communication space and that exercise control over many subjects. Hence, if they restrict someone’s access, that person’s speech is greatly limited. Anyone denied a voice by Google, Facebook, and Twitter will find it very difficult to reach the masses through social media.

For many years, the tech companies avoided responsibility for the content that people posted on their social media sites, claiming that they are merely platforms, not publishers. However, more and more public leaders have begun to argue that tech companies should control content. These views reached a high point following the revelations about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections and its drive to sow social discord through coordinated social media misinformation campaigns. The tech companies responded by hiring tens of thousands of moderators to review posts and remove material they consider too violent, lewd, hateful, or misleading. Typically, moderators have as little as ten seconds to review a post. They can hardly take much longer, given the astronomical number of posts that must be reviewed. No wonder their judgment is often highly arbitrary and always rushed. The companies are also increasingly using artificial intelligence algorithms to deny speech. Artificial Intelligence seems to incorporate the biases implicit in the mass media, for instance favoring men over women in gaining access to ads about high-paying jobs.

While conducting research on the misuse of social media platforms for a journal of the National Academy of Sciences, I was stunned at the sheer amounts and the wide range of grounds that the tech companies can use to justify removing social media posts. For example, in three months, between July and September of 2019, YouTube removed over 8.75 million videos. Of the videos removed, over 4.75 million were removed for being spam or misleading. Well, by this standard, I would block one news network and its followers would likely block the news network I am following. Over 1.35 million videos were removed for violent or graphic content and over 1.25 million were removed for nudity or sexual content, however, what is considered graphic and sexual varies a great deal from one community to another. Hence, the courts by and large have allowed such speech to be made offline. Why are tech companies being more pious?

One must note, though, that these companies control a very large amount of the communication space and that exercise control over many subjects. Hence, if they restrict someone’s access, that person’s speech is greatly limited. Anyone denied a voice by Google, Facebook, and Twitter will find it very difficult to reach the masses through social media.

For many years, the tech companies avoided responsibility for the content that people posted on their social media sites, claiming that they are merely platforms, not publishers. However, more and more public leaders have begun to argue that tech companies should control content. These views reached a high point following the revelations about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections and its drive to sow social discord through coordinated social media misinformation campaigns. The tech companies responded by hiring tens of thousands of moderators to review posts and remove material they consider too violent, lewd, hateful, or misleading. Typically, moderators have as little as ten seconds to review a post. They can hardly take much longer, given the astronomical number of posts that must be reviewed. No wonder their judgment is often highly arbitrary and always rushed. The companies are also increasingly using artificial intelligence algorithms to deny speech. Artificial Intelligence seems to incorporate the biases implicit in the mass media, for instance favoring men over women in gaining access to ads about high-paying jobs.

While conducting research on the misuse of social media platforms for a journal of the National Academy of Sciences, I was stunned at the sheer amounts and the wide range of grounds that the tech companies can use to justify removing social media posts. For example, in three months, between July and September of 2019, YouTube removed over 8.75 million videos. Of the videos removed, over 4.75 million were removed for being spam or misleading. Well, by this standard, I would block one news network and its followers would likely block the news network I am following. Over 1.35 million videos were removed for violent or graphic content and over 1.25 million were removed for nudity or sexual content, however, what is considered graphic and sexual varies a great deal from one community to another. Hence, the courts by and large have allowed such speech to be made offline. Why are tech companies being more pious?

Read full story here…




CFR Pushes Central Planning to Fuse Education With Economy

The CFR’s education policies are virtually identical to historic Technocracy that wanted to develop education as a “continental system of human conditioning.” This is the same mentality that produced Alphas, Betas and Deltas in Huxley’s Brave New World. ⁃ TN Editor

The globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations is urging state and local officials, as well as other leaders, to transform the education system, claiming that looming changes in the economy and the workplace will require workers who are properly “educated” and “trained” for the new paradigm. The effort seeks to “reverse-engineer” every part of the education and workforce training system, and ensure that components are “all walking in lockstep.” In interviews with The New American, two of the CFR task force members involved in developing the recommendations warned of major problems ahead for America if the organization’s ideas were not acted upon — and soon.

However, also in interviews with The New American, education experts, critics of technocratic governance, and leading lawmakers all sounded the alarm about the CFR’s proposed schemes. One expert argued that the educational policies advanced by the task force resemble the tools used by totalitarian regimes such as the communist dictatorships of the Soviet Union and China. Another expert condemned the ideas as moving America toward technocracy. A prominent educator expressed shock that the report made no mention of the very real and very serious problems with the current education system. And considering the CFR membership’s long history of betraying America and liberty around the world to advance globalism and tyranny, lawmakers warned that there are very good reasons to be concerned.

According to the CFR’s Task Force report, dubbed “The Work Ahead: Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century,” America will be facing massive changes in the years ahead. Especially concerning to the CFR’s panel behind the report is the growth of automation and technology, which will displace large numbers of American workers across a broad range of industries. All of that is true, of course. But any effort to sell drastic changes including even bigger Big Government and an enormous array of new unconstitutional policies must have at least a kernel of truth to sound palatable. This effort is no exception.

The plot is audacious and comprehensive. In the article entitled “CFR: U.S. Needs More Mass Migration, Bigger Welfare State,” The New American explored the enormous transformations that the powerful CFR is pursuing relating to social-welfare programs and immigration. In short, under the guise of preparing America for the future, the CFR argued that the U.S. government must massively expand the size and scope of government, ranging from healthcare and retirement to increased immigration. Sweden and Denmark, two of the nations with the most bloated governments on Earth, are praised as successful models. Interestingly, even while warning of huge looming job losses for American workers, the CFR report advocated a surge in immigration.

The other key component of the CFR’s “Work Ahead” agenda deals with “education.” Indeed, the CFR report claims America needs “dramatic” so-called transformations in the education system. Much of this must be driven by government, the globalist group argued. Simply “waiting and hoping that the market will sort out the challenges,” according to the CFR report, “is not an adequate response.” It was not made clear why. Rather, the CFR claimed only that failure to provide “the education” that apparently helpless Americans supposedly “need” for the future would be dangerous. It was also not clear why Americans could not take responsibility themselves for their education.

In a phone interview with The New American, CFR task force project director Ted Alden said the goal of the effort was to “make it a top national priority to prepare the American workforce for the changes that are coming.” According to Alden, the thing that the United States did “better than any other country” was pushing ahead with tax-funded education for everyone. “In the early 20th century, the U.S. led every country in terms of moving Americans into secondary education, then into post-secondary education with the G.I. Bill,” he said when asked why the market system could not deal with the coming changes. “A lot of this came from state and local government. This is a familiar history that we handled well in the 20th century.”

CFR Recommendations

Among the various changes and recommendations that the CFR is peddling:

• Ensure that college and university are “within the reach of all Americans,” presumably by either forcing taxpayers to pay for it all or by shackling young Americans to ever-greater levels of debt they cannot pay.

• Link “education more closely to employment outcomes.” “A change in thinking is needed, from seeing education and work as distinct and separate activities to considering them as closely linked,” the report continues.

• Provide “expanded counseling for students to set them on successful education-to-work paths,” since apparently government knows best what “path” those children should be on. The government schools should also lay out “guided pathways” to direct students toward what the central planners believe will be needed in the future.

• Collect more data on students to be disseminated by government, on everything from education to career, to make all the central planning work. “Washington should expand and improve its own data gathering and dissemination,” the report says, adding that the private sector must also be conscripted into this Big Data scheme.

• Concentrate greater emphasis on “lifelong learning,” which will “require changes in behavior” by employees. This means adults need to be constantly ready and willing to go back to the government for more so-called education to keep up with changes in society and the economy.

• Insist state and local governments do a better job of central planning and incorporating their ideas about what society and the economy need into the education system. Among other policies, taking a page out of the Soviet playbook, authorities must “undertake detailed skills assessments of the population and the workforce needs of local employers,” the CFR task force argued. “Devising and implementing appropriate educational options depends on a solid assessment of the workforce needs of local employers and the education and skills level of the state workforce.” Also required: “close collaboration among state governments, educational institutions, and employers.”

• Include new “workplace readiness standards” in middle- and high-school curricula, requiring the education establishment to predict the future of the economy and prepare all children accordingly. “Skills readiness standards would be aligned with skills that are or will be in demand for quality jobs in the future or present,” the report added, noting that the standards would be continually revisited by “standard setters.” These standards should include “habits of the mind,” the CFR said cryptically, without elaborating.

• Have the federal government create “lifelong learning accounts” to provide money for everyone to pursue “lifelong learning.” This would be “a national program to help finance mid-career retraining,” the CFR said without citing any provision in the U.S. Constitution that would authorize such a program.

• Have the federal government develop a national ranking system for schools, building on the Obama administration’s efforts. While this would ostensibly help students decide which colleges offer the best value, it would also help the federal government demonize and marginalize educational institutions such as Christian colleges that resist the growing extremism that has infected higher education.

• Launch propaganda campaigns through the federal government and state governments involving public figures from sports and entertainment to “encourage young people to make the best possible educational-to-work choices.” It was not immediately clear how authorities would determine what the best possible education and work choices would be. Social media and other tools should be used, the report said.

Read full story here…




Policy Society: Is Technocracy The Solution Or The Problem?

The Asia & Pacific Policy Society notes that there is a strong temptation in policy circles to rely on Technocracy and that it is here to stay. The author asks, “Can we nameplate every new innovation as ‘smart’ while expecting it to redeem outdated policy thinking?” ⁃ TN Editor

The occasion of Policy Forum’s fifth anniversary is an opportunity to reflect on policy-making over the last five years and to indulge in a discussion about current and imminent policy crises – about which there is still much to consider.

How states govern is changing. Early in the post-war period, state-driven interventionist policy laid the foundation for decades of economic growth and structural transformation, particularly in the miracle moment of the post-war west and the more recent rise of Asia.

Within that model, the direct involvement of government in funding research and development proved to be a crucial catalyst for innovation, from America’s tech sector – through military spending – to South Korea’s chaebol.

In both cases, a targeted version of state-driven shock therapy jump-started innovation, with private investment and entrepreneurship chasing the consequent market opportunities. This set into motion a development process that could largely sustain itself in the long run without as much direct intervention.

Common in the modern era are more indirect policy tools for fostering innovation. These include education and training, market-making and platform hosting – civic tech is one example – and participatory policy-making that brings together insights from multiple sectors.

At the precipice of the new millennium’s third decade, it is fitting to consider whether public policy models can keep pace with what appears to be an unfettered transformation in industry, particularly innovation-intensive sectors like technology, sustainability, and biomedical sciences.

When considering this question, the pendulum effect – the idea that movement in one political or policy direction will eventually ‘swing back’ in a dichotomous system – is a well-worn but relevant analogy.

The post-war era saw the creation of government programs and multilateral institutions to facilitate development. However, decades of such efforts eventually elicited howls of protest from market fundamentalists and small-government scolds.

By the 1980s, governments had internalised these criticisms and the pendulum swung away from state interventionism. As privatisation and public sector derivatives of neoliberalism emerged, institutions as the ‘rules of the game’ became an essential tool of governance. They provided guardrails where the state withdrew and steered the private sector to operate within certain bounds of political acceptability.

By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the pendulum seemed due for a swing back, but instead, it settled in the centre, with hybrid models like public-private partnerships and collaborative governance dominating the policy-making landscape.

Can we apply these old models to the new mandates of governance? There is rarely a revolutionary idea regarding economic governance models anymore – the boundaries are etched on one side by central planning and the other by laissez-faire capitalism, with nearly every point on the pendulum having been tried somewhere.

Read full story here…




Escape Hell

Utopia? 75% Of Young Want To Escape South Korean ‘Hell’

The social outcome of Technocracy in South Korea is pretty clear and young people are sounding off: “Escape Hell”. They are highly educated but increasingly limited in life options. ⁃ TN Editor

From afar, South Koreans might appear to be blessed among East Asians.

Citizens of a prosperous democracy that has birthed a hero-to-zero national success story, world-beating corporate brands, a futuristic infrastructure and the glitzy K-pop universe that is beloved across the region, they boast enviable looks, lifestyles and quality of life.

Up close, things look different. According to a recent survey of 5,000 persons, 75% of 19-34 year old natives of the world’s 11th richest nation want out.

The shock finding, reported in the popular Hankyoreh newspaper on December 29, was revealed at Korea Women’s Development Institute’s 119th Gender Equality Policy Forum, in a presentation titled “Diagnosis of Gender Conflicts from a Youth Standpoint and Suggested Policy Responses for an Inclusive State: A Gender Analysis of Fairness Perceptions.”

The survey found that 79.1% of young women and 72.1% of young men want to leave Korea, that 83.1% of young women and 78.4% of young men consider Korea “hell” and that 29.8% of young women and 34.1% of young men consider themselves “losers.”

Beyond gender differences, the survey suggests massive popular dissatisfaction with local life.

But does it demand that Seoul’s elite sit down and seriously ponder the Korean Dream? Or does it merely reflect superficial talk among youth who live decent lives and have no real intention of leaving?

‘Hell Joseon’

A catchphrase has become current among young Koreans in recent years to describe their country: “Hell Joseon” – “Joseon” being the name of a long-dead Korean kingdom. That phrase is being superseded by a new term, “Tal-Jo” – a pormanteau comprising “leave” and “Joseon,” which, vernacularly, might be best be translated as “Escape Hell.”

“As a joke, we call Korea ‘Hell Joseon,’ but there is another term called ‘Tal-Jo’ which we use a lot more than ‘Hell Joseon’ nowadays,” Park Ji-na, a 20-something Seoul undergraduate, told Asia Times. “Me and my friends just use this in conversation as joke, but if I had a good opportunity to go abroad and work, I would.”

Some say it is far from unique to Korea. “I think there is a middle class crisis in all wealthy countries,” Pae Hee-kyung, who runs an educational institute near Seoul, told Asia Times.

Across the developed, post-industrial world, middle classes are under perceived siege from falling living standards, evaporating opportunities and rising wealth inequality. These trends have arisen against the backdrop of a globalizing world that distributes capital and jobs away from customary centers of investment, manufacturing and related prosperities.

Some pundits posit that these issues explain Brexit in the UK, the election of Donald Trump in the US and the protests of young Hong Kongers.

Are South Koreans different?

For Korea, the transition from poverty to prosperity and the rise of the bourgeoisie has been shockingly fast: The country morphed from little-known agricultural backwater to global industrial powerhouse in just three decades. While Koreans from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s could anticipate decent jobs and rising standards of living as growth rates surged, this is no longer the case.

“Here, if you look at your father’s generation, they had less in material terms but they had hopes that, every year, they would be paid more, that they could buy an apartment, and that the price would go up and they would feel a sense of achievement and wealth,” Daniel Tudor, author of Korea: The Impossible Country, told Asia Times.

Read full story here…




Technocracy

Spiked On Climate: The UK Solution Cannot Be Technocracy

The UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is run by Technocrats bent on social engineering while using faulty science to gain leverage over society. In that humans are carbon-based life forms, it is logically impossible to be zero-carbon without wiping out humanity. ⁃ TN Editor

Ask people what the UK’s biggest housing problems are, and most will tell you, rightly, that there aren’t enough homes, and that prices and rents are far too high. But UK policymakers are preoccupied by something else and have been for a long time: that our homes contribute to, and are at risk from, global warming.

So it was that a non-departmental public body, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), announced last week that ‘UK homes are not fit for the future’, and that tough new building standards and enforcement will be necessary. Most shocking of all, the CCC said ‘no new homes should be connected to the gas grid’, and that gas central heating and plumbing should therefore be phased out.

Saving the planet, and homes, from the ravages of climate change is a good idea. But the CCC’s claims are questionable. As I reported here during last Summer’s heatwave, the CCC, like many climate alarmists, has a tendency to exaggerate risk and lose historical perspective. In truth, homes are actually better protected from the slightly warmer, slightly wetter and slightly windier weather that scientists predict might be our future than they were even a generation ago.

The CCC argues that UK emissions-reduction targets cannot be met ‘without near complete decarbonisation of the housing stock’. Gas boilers should therefore be banned in new (and then older) homes, because ‘energy use in homes accounts for about 14 per cent of UK greenhouse gas emissions’. In their place will be more energy-efficient systems, such as ground- and air-source heat pumps, and greater levels of insulation.

The problem with this is that if economic alternatives to gas-fired central heating and hot water existed, there would be no need for standards and their enforcement. But they don’t exist. Zero-carbon homes are the stuff of Grand Designs – a nice idea, but more a fashion accessory for the wealthy than a design principle that will improve lives. Lower-cost experiments with low-carbon construction have resulted in complaints of homes becoming too hot in the summer; having poor ventilation and, therefore, damp and mould; and of requiring their inhabitants to sacrifice comfort. Most notably, and most tragically, the incautious application of energy-efficiency standards as dictated by remote technocrats – rather than consumers, according to their own needs – contributed to the Grenfell disaster.

All of which should provoke debate about the UK’s climate-change policy. UK political parties all make the same bland promises to ‘tackle climate change’, but the devil is in the platitudes. That is to say, they rarely explain costs or consequences. It seems clear that climate-change and energy policies have not been constructed in the voter’s interest, and certainly without his or her consent. And the climate establishment’s contempt runs deep. Ten years ago, I interviewed CCC member Julia King (aka Baroness Brown of Cambridge), after a public talk on UK climate policy. She told me that the problem for politicians is that the population is ‘extremely selfish’, and the main objective of the CCC was ‘behaviour change’. There has been no public debate about the principles underpinning the shift to a lower carbon economy – including banning gas boilers – because members of the climate-change establishment do not believe they are answerable to the public.

The CCC was established by the Climate Change Act (2008) to give ‘independent advice’ to parliament on what its climate targets should be and how they can be achieved. But this act was passed at one of the lowest points in UK democracy, in which a cross-party consensus on climate change, and the endless spawning of quangos, epitomised the lack of political diversity and accountability in Westminster. Accordingly, far from being ‘independent’, the CCC was populated by crony capitalists and green zealots. The result has been a single-minded body that has ignored criticism and dodged debate because, like all unaccountable, undemocratic technocracies, it can.

For people with the means to afford ever-increasing energy bills and higher-cost transport, the CCC’s latest wheeze may seem trivial. But a proposed ban on gas boilers is merely one part of a broader technocratic project that further disempowers the public. So, regardless of whether you think climate change is the huge problem the CCC claims it is, the solution to it cannot be technocracy.

Read full story here…




Technocracy

Rappoport: A Deeper Understanding Of Technocracy

Investigative journalist Jon Rappoport has a clear understanding of modern and historic Technocracy, and is able to paint a crystal-clear word picture on where it is taking us in the near future. Read this! ⁃ 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 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…




The Technocratic State Is The Mortal Enemy Of The Individual

Here is a writer who understands Technocracy and applies it in the right context to the current state of the world: Technocracy hates individualism and is all about the “common good” and total control over society. ⁃ TN Editor

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” ~Friedrich Nietzsche

The idea of the “group” is the scourge of mankind, for when crowds gather, the individual disappears. When groups form, insanity is the result. This is the reason that the tyrannical state continually supports the group over the individual. This is the reason that the state promotes divisiveness, and pits group against group. This strategy weakens the whole of the masses, as all the strength of liberty resides in the individual and individual critical thought. Should the individual be marginalized, freedom will disappear.

With this in mind, is it any wonder that the information age, the age of state-sponsored propaganda, the age of spying on the individual, the age of data mining and data storage, have all been accomplished by government/private collusion? Is it any wonder that those like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are partners of the state, and were and are funded by the U.S. government and the CIA? Is it any wonder that the age of Technocracy was spawned with the knowledge that controlling information was the foundation needed to control the people? Is it any surprise then that any technocratic takeover relies upon the destruction of the individual?

Due to this massive change in how government views and manipulates the general population, and because this change and the politics of division are now common, people across the country are at each other’s throats. While one may view this phenomenon as simply a current trend of idiocy, which is not far wrong, it is a purposeful outside-orchestrated type of chaos. With all pitted against all, the individual is left in total isolation, and the elite’s task of gaining control over the masses is now being accomplished to a much greater degree.

The more division that is evident in the general population, the more confusion that will exist. When the “public” is infighting and confused, the ruling class has literal Carte blanch to advance its political agenda, whether war, monetary and economic control, or any favored liberty destruction stratagem. As stated by Max Stirner in The Ego and His Own [1845]:

“The object of the state is always the same; to limit the individual, to tame him, to subordinate him, to subjugate him.”

Government and its corporate partners have mastered deceit, in that this partnership has been able to purposely diminish the importance of the individual by exposing our differences instead of promoting our common human desires. Those long-standing common desires include love, family, peace and harmony, non-aggression, community, freedom, mutual respect, and caring for one another. By pitting us against each other through political means and fear, an almost uncontrolled opposition amongst us has emerged. There is nothing of value to be gained from this behavior, and only harm can result from such a detachment from common cooperation.

In this current world of Artificial Intelligence, smart phones, and social media, the need for each other is being replaced by the need for machines and for instant acceptance and gratification. This leads to isolation. One look around is enough to see the damaging effects of this behavior, as many can no longer function normally one on one because they are forever involved in what could be described as an addiction to surreal nothingness. Couples, families, and friends will sit for hours ignoring each other, rarely escaping their mesmerized state of screen watching. Personal human communication and contact is disappearing from view, and without a personal connection, emptiness will follow.

The finality of this detachment from reality will be slavery to the state. This will be accomplished due to the brainwashed public’s voluntary acceptance of its own servitude. No thoughts or actions will be private, and nothing will be sacred. Independence will first be scorned and then squelched, and individual thought and action will be rejected in favor of mass obedience.

The elite’s idea of a technocratic system controlled by the few, a eugenics based movement developed during the Progressive era in the 1930s, is getting closer and closer to fruition. A technocratic society would be cold and dark, one without emotion and passion, and one that would eliminate the individual. Without the individual, a lifeless society will exist, and freedom will be forever lost.

These ideas are not fringe, and have been actively pursued in the past by the presidents of MIT, Stanford University, Cornell and Harvard, and courses on this subject have been taught at Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Brown, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Clark, and MIT. Today, much of this teaching is guised under the label of scientific genetics, and the grand scheme of a planned and controlled society is not dead, but is being pursued under the new language of human genetics.

With the rollout of 5G technologies, which are not any real improvements in communication, an ‘Internet of Things’ will be structured to tie everything together. This is the basis necessary for the physical takeover of all systems, which when implemented, will allow for a completely controlled society. Humans will become simply economic units, and therefore expendable. This dystopian nightmare is just around the corner, maybe only a few years away, and must be stopped before it is too late.

This is not “conspiracy theory” or science fiction. It is now a fact of life. It is being pursued aggressively, and is being accepted more and more by an ignorant and comatose public. If mass resistance is not soon forthcoming, we will risk being doomed to a life of total control in a society consumed by worthlessness.

Read full story here…