World Economic Forum’s Techno-Totalitarian Roadmap

Global elite Technocrats cannot fathom how there could be any blowback against their techno-totalitarian dreams of Utopia. Those who do resist are viewed as an expendable nuisance and too ignorant to know what is good for themselves. ⁃ TN Editor

The Corona crisis is the trigger for a global coup d’état of monumental dimensions. It is the beginning of a new era, with a new international economic order that risks completely destroying human freedoms. Tyrants have now taken over to forcibly steer us into a “climate smart” and “healthy” world through the World Economic Forum’s new techno-totalitarian roadmap – “The Great Reset”.

On June 13, 2019, Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and UN Secretary-General António Guterres signed a partnership between their two organisations. This was done without any direct media attention despite the tremendous implications this poses to humanity. By and large, this means that the power over our lives with a stroke of a pen has been transferred to the big global corporations and their owners.

The agreement includes six focus areas:

  • Funding for the UN Agenda 2030
  • Climate change
  • Health
  • Digital collaboration
  • Gender equality and women’s liberation
  • Education and skills development.

The aim of the partnership is to accelerate the UN Sustainability Agenda and the 17 global targets.

“Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals is essential for the future of humanity. The World Economic Forum is committed to supporting this effort, and working with the United Nations to build a more prosperous and equitable future.”

The agreement also states that the WEF’s fourth industrial revolution is an important component in implementing the agenda. Digitisation is seen as the key.

A few months later, during the Meeting in Davos in January 2020, this was made very clear by the launch of the Unlocking Technology for the Global Goals report compiled by PWC. This means that the world’s tech giants (which are part of the WEF working groups) will solve the world’s problems through the use of AI, satellites, robotics, drones and the Internet of Things, and with synthetic food on the menu.

By declaring Covid-19 as a pandemic on March 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) opened up an opportunity window for the WEF to quickly implement its new world order. Everything was very carefully prepared.

As early as 2006, the WEF’s first report on global risks had discussed the measures to be taken in the event of a pandemic (some of the recommendations were tested in the context of Swine Flu in 2009). After that, the working groups continued to sew their network. In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, which described the scenario of a future shutdown almost prophetically:

“At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty – and their privacy – to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose orders in the ways they saw fit.”

A year before the virus began to hit the world, the WEF released the report Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy. The great preparations were getting ready.

In October 2019, a dress rehearsal was performed through the Event 201 exercise (which involved stakeholders such as the WEF, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins University). A detailed review is done among other things in my post The Corona Crisis and the Technocratic Agenda.

The Great Reset

After a few months of extreme measures in which communities were shut down and authoritarian control rules were introduced simultaneously around the world, Klaus Schwab and António Guterres, along with Prince Charles, among others, on June 3 forward and offered a solution to all problems – “The Great Reset”.

Schwab declared:

“The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not adapted for the 21st century. It has exposed a fundamental lack of social cohesion, justice, inclusion and equality. Now the historic moment has arrived, not only to fight the real virus, but also to reshape the system according to the needs of corona’s legacy. We have a choice to remain passive, which would reinforce many of the trends we see today. Polarisation, nationalism, racism and ultimately increasing social unrest with conflict. But we have a different choice, we can build a new social contract, which specifically integrates the next generation, we can change our behaviors to be in harmony with nature again, and we can ensure that the technology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is best utilized to give us better lives.”

On July 9, 2020, the WEF released the book “COVID-19: The Great Reset” in which the thoughts were developed by Schwab and co-author Thierry Malleret (director of the WEF’s Global Risk Network). The purpose of the book is to create an understanding of the future ahead and is divided into three main chapters.

  • Macro Reset – which analyzes the impact on the economy, society, geopolitics, environment and technology.
  • Micro Reset – which analyzes consequences for industries and businesses.
  • Individual Reset – which discusses consequences on an individual level.

According to the authors, we are faced with a choice. One way will take us to a better world: more inclusive, more equal, and respectful to Mother Earth. The second way will take us to a world reminiscent of the one we have left – but worse and with ever-recurring unpleasant surprises. They thus threaten to harass us until we give way and accept their techno-utopian vision for the world.

Macro reset

Geopolitical Reset: COVID-19 has reminded the world that the main problems are global in nature (climate, pandemics, terrorism, international trade). However, global organisations have not been sufficiently equipped and lacked effective leadership. According to the authors, the current system has not been able to deal with the corona crisis, but has instead been characterised by uncoordinated national measures. According to the authors, this demonstrates the need for more effective and coordinated leadership and that nationalism only leads us wrong.

“Therefore, the concern is that, without appropriate Global Governance, we will become paralysed in our attempts to address and respond to global challenges.”

This has been particularly demonstrated in Africa, Latin America and Asia, where nations are even in danger of collapsing from the pressures of the crisis.

“Any lockdown or health crisis caused by the coronavirus could rapidly create widespread desperation and disorder, potentially triggering massive unrest with global knock-out effects.”

Violence, hunger, unemployment and chaos come in its place. Famine disasters of biblical proportions can occur. This risks creating a new wave of mass migration similar to the one that occurred in 2015-2016.

The world will become a more dangerous and poorer place if we do not create global institutions, according to Schwab and Malleret. Without these, the global economy cannot be restarted. It is not so difficult to assume that the World Economic Forum is happy to contribute this management just as their partnership with the UN indicates. In any case, the next few years look to be very tough. It is the chaos that precedes the order.

Environmental Reset: According to the authors, both pandemics and climate change/ecosystem collapse show the complex interplay between man and nature. They argue that COVID-19 has given the world a taste of what a full-fledged climate crisis and ecosystem collapse means for the economy, geopolitics, social issues and technological development. The crises also share common attributes such as that they are global in their scope and can only be resolved through global coordination.

“At first glance, the pandemic and the environment seem to be only distantly related cousins, but they are much closer and more intertwined than we think.”

One difference is that pandemics require immediate action where the results are rapid, while climate change does not feel as tangible and therefore not seen as as important to address. During a pandemic, the majority agree to coercive measures while opposing limitations in their life choices if it is about climate change where scientific evidence is questionable. The book relates to studies where pandemics such as COVID-19 are considered to be related to human impact on the environment. As usual, we people are to blame and it is expressed disappointing that carbon dioxide emissions have only decreased by 8% during the shutdown. The conclusion is that a radical change in energy systems and structural changes in our consumption habits are needed. However, it is doubtful that these restrictions apply to Schwab and his friends in the Politburo.

“If, in the post-pandemic era, we decide to resume our lives just as before (by driving the same cars, by heating our homes the same way and so on), the COVID-19 crisis will have gone to waste as far as climate policies are concerned.”

The pandemic is predicted to dominate politics for several years, thus risking making climate work less urgent – COP26, for example, was cancelled. Schwab (along with his allies) wants to avoid this and instead sees how the COVID-19 crisis can open up opportunities to implement their “sustainable” environmental policies. Governments and businesses will in this scenario be encouraged to “make the right choice” by large sections of the population developing a new social conscience that a different way of life is possible. This is driven by a fortunately crafted activism.

Since governments may be tempted to return to the old order, four key areas should be used to steer development in the “right” direction:

  • Enlightened leadership – Leaders who are at the forefront of the fight against climate change (the book points out, among other things, Prince Charles).
  • Risk awareness – The attention that COVID-19 has given us about interdependence and the consequences of not listening to scientific expertise has raised awareness.
  • Behavioural change – The pandemic has forced us to change our travel and consumption patterns and through it embraced a “greener” way of life.
  • Activism – The Corona virus has inspired change and created new strategies for social activism. Climate activists who have seen air pollution reduced during the shutdown will double their pressure on businesses and investors.

The European Commission’s massive Green Deal, with its plan to invest a trillion euros with the aim of reducing emissions and introducing a Circular Economy, is considered the most tangible example of how the authorities are not going to put the Corona crisis to waste.

Technological Reset: According to the authors, the Corona crisis has meant that digital development in a month has taken a step that would otherwise take up to two years. Everything has been largely moved online. It is the technology companies that are the winners and their merits during the crisis have been massive while all business ideas based on face-to-face meetings (such as the cultural sector and restaurants) are the losers. This is something that, according to Schwab and Malleret, will largely remain. The Corona crisis has caused a lasting impact on work, education, commerce, medicine and entertainment. In addition, it has caused a major intrusion into our privacy.

“… the pandemic will accelerate innovation even more, catalysing technological changes already under way and “turbocharging” any digital business or the digital dimension of any business.”

“We will see how contact tracing has an unequalled capacity and a quasi-essential place in the armoury needed to combat COVID-19, while at the same time being positioned to become an enabler of mass surveillance.”

This has also led governments around the world to abandon the process of lengthy investigations to regulate new technology. Instead, all inhibitions have been released. Temporary regulations that have been put in place during the crisis may, according to the authors, also continue. It is also about social distance. Societies will put emphasis on restructuring workplaces to minimise human contact. For employees in the hotel, restaurant and education sector, the future thus looks dark. The authors foresee a massive automation to manage hygiene and cleanliness, which in turn will accelerate the digital transformation. Domestic production is, however, projected to increase due to robotization.

“From the onset of the lockdowns, it became apparent that robots and AI were a natural alternative when human labour was not available.”

But it comes at a price. It makes people redundant and it is clear that it is simpler jobs that are at risk. It all gives a chilly and deeply anti-human taste. But it’s getting worse. According to the authors, the closures have a high economic price that makes other methods necessary. This opens up permanent technological solutions such as contact tracking where all our movements can be tracked (tracking) and analyzed (tracing) in order to be able to quarantine infected people.

“A tracking app gains insight in real time by, for example determine a person’s current location through geodata via GPS coordinates or radio signals.”

It is a question of keeping us apart at all costs, but also of studying all our activities back in time. Several countries, such as South Korea, China and Hong Kong, used intrusive and compelling real-time tracking methods during the pandemic. In Hong Kong, electronic bracelets were used while other countries used mobile apps to keep track of the fact that infected people did not leave their quarantine. Singapore’s TraceTogether app, which warns of infected people if they come within a two-metre radius and then sends data to the Ministry of Health, is seen as a possible intermediate route by the authors. The authors also point to the problems that arise if these monitoring systems are based on volunteerism:

“No voluntary contract-tracing app will work if people are unwilling to provide their own personal data to the governmental agency that monitors the system, if any individual refuses to download the app (and therefore to withhold information about a possible infection, movements and contacts), everyone will adversely be affected.”

Common standards for contact tracing may be adopted in the light of the different systems (in particular the EU is identified).

Schwab and Malleret write that contact tracking enables an “early intervention” against “super-spreading environments” such as family gatherings. It is not difficult to see that the tracking can easily also be used against anyone who opposes this diabolical system. It is we humans who are the contagion in the eyes of these tyrants.

They describe how companies all over the world (as countries start to open up) have started to introduce digital monitoring of their employees so as not to risk new infection. This, of course, goes against all ethical rules and human rights. The authors also point out that once the systems are in place, they are also unlikely to be removed (even if the risk of infection disappears).

The authors write that a host of analysts, policy makers and security officials predict that this will give rise to a dystopian future. The book gives a clear warning that a global techno-totalitarian surveillance state is being built with Coronan as an excuse. There is no doubt, however, that the authors believe that the benefits outweigh the downsides (as is also evident in Schwab’s two books on the Fourth Industrial Revolution).

“It is true that in the post-pandemic era, personal health will become a much greater priority for society, which is why the genie of tech-surveillance will not be put back in the bottle.”

Schwab and Malleret conclude the chapter by pointing out that “the rulers and ourselves may control and exploit the benefits of technology without sacrificing our individual and collective values and freedoms”. Schwab, which has a central role in creating and promoting the tyrannical surveillance system, thus leaves responsibility to the rest of us.

Micro Reset

For entrepreneurs, according to the authors, there is now no return to the system that existed before. COVID-19 has changed everything.

“When confronted with it, some industry leaders and senior executives may be tempted to equate reset with restart, hope to go back to the old normal and restore what worked in the past: traditions, tested procedures and familar ways of doing things – in short, a return to business as usual. This won’t happen because it can’t happen. For the most part business as usual died from (or at least was infected by) COVID-19.”

What now, according to Schwab and Malleret, applies is:

  • Teleworking
  • Virtual meetings
  • More efficient decision-making processes
  • Acceleration of digitization and digital solutions

Companies that do not follow the tyrants’ recommendations for a total digital transformation will find it difficult to survive. The winners are major e-commerce companies and streaming services such as Alibaba, Amazon, Netflix and Zoom. For example, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ already astronomical wealth is said to have increased by 60% during the crisis. The trade has in a short time been taken over by a few monopolistic parasites. The same goes for video conferencing company Zoom. Their rise in spring 2020 is exceptional. Pretty much everything is predicted to move to the cybersphere. In 2019, 1% of online consultations with doctors took place in England. During the Corona crisis, it’s been at 100%. E-commerce is also expected to grow as customers are forced online. It’s Big Tech and the health industry that are victorious.

“Three industries in particular will flourish (in aggregate) in the post-pandemic era: big tech, health and wellness.”

In the post-coronaera, governments are also expected to have greater control over entrepreneurship. The stimulus packages come with conditions for the conduct of the business. What, according to the authors, will be Stakeholder Capitalism with Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG). This means that companies should take their social responsibility and invest “sustainably”. Through activism from NGO’s like Greenpeace, companies are under pressure to make the right choice. This is strongly reminiscent of Pieter Winsemius’ sustainability formula for large companies described in his book “A Thousand Shades of Green: sustainable strategies for competitive advantage” and the Trilateral Commission’s report “Beyond Interdependence”.

Individual Reset

In the last chapter, the authors examine the individual consequences of the pandemic. They write that unlike other disasters such as earthquakes and floods, which bring sympathy and bring people closer together, the pandemic has had the opposite effect. It has been devastating for us humans. The pandemic is a protracted process that combines a strong fear of dying with uncertainty about when the danger is over. The pandemic can keep coming back. It has also been accompanied by authoritarian and erratic measures by the authorities. This results in anxiety.

The pandemic also gives rise to selfish acts because everyone around is perceived as a potential carrier. We’re not helping others because of the fear of death. It also creates guilt and shame. It is impossible to act “right”. This is also evident in the macro scale through countries that closed their borders and severely restricted travel. These measures have also given rise to racism and trigger patriotism and nationalism. The authors see this as a “toxic mixture”.

“Humans are inherently social beings. Companionship and social interactions are a vital component of our humanness. If deprived of them, we find our lives upside down. Social relations are to a significant extent, obliberated by confinement measures and physical and social distancing, and in the case of the COVID-19 lockdowns, this occured at a time of heightened anxiety when we needed them most.”

The authors show the awareness that disaster makers have about the psychological effects that social isolation has on humans. We have not been able to seek support among friends and family in the same way. We have been deprived of the closeness that we need to function. It becomes like a prolonged torture where we slowly degrade. This means that mental illness has increased dramatically during the year. They point out that:

  • Individuals with previous mental problems will have worse anxiety attacks.
  • Social distance will increase mental problems even after the measures have been withdrawn.
  • Loss of income and jobs will increase the number of deaths through suicide, overdoses and alcoholism etc.
  • Domestic violence will increase as the pandemic continues.
  • ‘Vulnerable’ people and children, carers, socially disadvantaged and disabled people, will have increased mental ill-health.

The authors point out that this will reflect the need for mental health care in the years following to deal with the trauma. The area will thus have a major priority for decision-makers in the aftermath of the Corona crisis.

This shows how chilly and ruthless these tyrants are. They know very well what they have caused. This is the effect they sought and that will make us make the “right” choice. As a flock of sheep, we shall be driven into their technological dictatorship.

The chapter on entrepreneurship presents how future care will take shape:

“Like for any other industry, digital will play a significant role in shaping the future of wellness. The combination of AI, the IoT and sensors and wearable technology will produce new insights into personal well-being. They will monitor how we are and feel, and will progressively blur the boundaries between public healthcare systems and personalized health creation systems…”

The technology should also be able to measure our carbon footprint, our impact on biodiversity and toxicity in everything that we put in us! The control needs of the technocrats seem to be insatiable.

According to the authors, the pandemic has also given us time to reflect on what we value in life, the time in isolation provides insight into our previously unsustainable lifestyle as neglected climate and environment. According to Schwab, this can now be corrected:

“The pandemic gives us this chance: it represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world.”

The conclusions discuss the somewhat surprising death rate of the pandemic. It is pointed out that COVID-19 until the end of June only killed 0.006% of the world’s population. It should be put in relation to the Black Death (30-40% of the population) and Spanish Disease (2.7% of the population). Coronan’s death toll is thus not exactly something that justifies the total shutdown of the world.

We have paid and will have to pay a high price for something that has been exaggerated beyond all proportions and which has been used as a trigger to introduce a new techno-totalitarian order. The tyrants have operated according to the principle of ‘crises open up to business opportunities’ and have been able to effectively capitalise on the suffering they have caused us humans. They also threaten us to come back with their terror if we do not accept their plans to govern and regulate our lives in detail. These are purely mafia-like methods. None of us have chosen Schwab and his friends within the billionaire club to dictate our lives. It is high time to depose the tyrants. Their rightful place is behind bars.

Read full story here…

Jacob Nordangård is a PhD and author of the books “Rockefeller – Controlling the Game”, “An Inconvenient Journey”, “Ordo Ab Chao” and “The Doomsday Clock”. Since March 2016, he has also been chairman of the Pharos Foundation, which promotes free debate and research. Rockefeller – Controlling the Game can be ordered from Pharos.




‘The Great Reset’: A Breakdown Of The Global Elite’s Master Plan

The World Economic Forum has defined and is leading the global stampede into “The Great Reset” that would kill Capitalism and Free Enterprise, while establishing Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

The WEF is arguably steeped in Sustainable Development. In September, it will host the Sustainable Development Impact Summit in Switzerland. It’s website clearly links “The Great Reset” to Sustainable Development:

The COVID-19 crisis wreaked havoc on societies and economies and dealt a major setback to achieving the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement. Putting the world back on a path of sustainable, equitable, and inclusive growth will require more than a global recovery; it will require a Great Reset of social and economic systems. (emphasis added)

This is Technocracy’s coup d’etat.

In my book, Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, I dedicated an entire chapter to this titled Technocracy is Sustainable Development. The chapter concludes,

After an exhaustive historical inquiry, I can confidently state that the only specifically-designed replacement economic model created in the history of the world was: Technocracy!

Thus, it is clear that Sustainable Development is Technocracy.

Making this connection now will help the reader to understand the balance of this book in its proper context. The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense. (emphasis added)

What people most commonly fail to see is that if the economic system is radically changed, then everything changes. Technocracy’s coup d’etat is not political – it is economic! ⁃ TN Editor

Last month I posted an article that looked at the World Economic Forum as the institution behind ‘The Great Reset‘ agenda that was launched in June. One of the main themes of the article was the WEF’s ‘Strategic Intelligence platform’, which the organisation describe as ‘a dynamic system of contextual intelligence that enables users to trace relationships and interdependencies between issues, supporting more informed decision-making‘.

As I made reference to, Strategic Intelligence is the mechanism which brings all the interests that the WEF focus on together. This includes specific countries and industries, as well as global issues like Covid-19 and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

When you look into Strategic Intelligence, one aspect to it that quickly becomes apparent is how each global issue and industry intertwines with one another. For instance, Covid-19 is a strand of ‘The Great Reset‘ and vice versa. What this does is create the impression that only a collectivised approach incorporating all ‘stakeholders‘ has the capacity to deal with crises on a global scale. The WEF is built upon the belief that nations and corporations must be interdependent and seek to remedy the world’s problems through the medium of global institutions.

So it is little surprise then that the WEF have devised through their Strategic Intelligence platform ‘The Great Reset‘. What this entails can be catagorised into two parts. First are the seven leading objectives for achieving the reset. In no particular order these are:

  1. Shaping the Economic Recovery
  2. Harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution
  3. Strengthening Regional Development
  4. Revitalizing Global Cooperation
  5. Developing Sustainable Business Models
  6. Restoring the Health of the Environment
  7. Redesigning Social Contracts, Skills and Jobs

Next comes a mix of global issues and industries woven into ‘The Great Reset‘ agenda. At last count there were over fifty areas that make up the reset. These include:

Blockchain; Digital Identity; Internet Governance; Development Finance; Sustainable Development; Future of Health and Healthcare; Global Governance; Financial and Monetary Systems; Public Finance and Social Protection; Climate Change; Drones; 5G; The Ocean; Banking and Capital Markets; Aviation, Travel and Tourism; International Trade and Investment; Covid-19; Biodiversity; Cities and Urbanization; Leadership in the 4IR; Geo-economics; Global Health; International Security; Geopolitics; Future of Food; Air Pollution; 3D Printing; Batteries; Circular Economy; Future of Mobility; Human Rights; Gender Parity; Taxation; Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture; Digital Economy and New Value Creation; Fourth Industrial Revolution; Future of Economic Progress; Workforce and Employment; Agile Governance; Global Risks; Advanced Manufacturing and Production; Environment and Natural Resource Security; Plastics and the Environment; Corporate Governance; Forests; Justice and Law; Civic Participation; LGBTI Inclusion; Inclusive Design; Future of Computing; Artificial Intelligence and Robotics; Systemic Racism

As mentioned, all these subjects intermix throughout Strategic Intelligence. The distinction comes in the fact that the World Economic Forum have identified ‘The Great Reset‘ as the one issue that can bind all these other areas of concern together to try and bring about an economic and societal ‘new world order‘. So much so that when announcing the initiative in June, the WEF confirmed that the reset will be the theme of its annual Davos meeting in Switzerland come January 2021. In previous years the WEF have only published details of an upcoming theme a few weeks before the meeting takes place. This time, however, they have given over six months notice, which suggests the level of significance that the WEF have placed on ‘The Great Reset‘.

Having ascertained the seven main objectives and the plethora of industries and issues tied to them, let’s now get a sense of the motivations behind the reset from those who are calling for it.

The Founder and Executive Chairman of the institution, Klaus Schwab, and the IMF Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, are two of the most prominent voices.

Beginning with Schwab, in articles posted on the WEF website (Now is the time for a ‘great reset’ and COVID-19’s legacy: This is how to get the Great Reset right) and during several interviews that can be found on the WEF’s Youtube channel, Schwab summarises why he considers an economic, societal, geopolitical, environmental and technological reset to be essential.

From Schwab’s perspective, there are numerous reasons why a Great Reset should be pursued, but Covid-19 is the most urgent of them all. Not only has the virus demonstrated that existing systems are no longer fit for purpose, it has also ‘accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution‘. For those unfamiliar with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, this was a concept that the World Economic Forum led with for their 2016 Davos meeting. Back in 2018 I published a brief overview of 4IR which can be found here.

With systems not suited to the 21st century, Schwab spoke of the urgency to ‘restore a functioning system of smart global cooperation structured to address the challenges of the next 50 years.’ To achieve this, all stakeholders of global society will have to be integrated into a ‘community of common interest, purpose and action‘. No one, it seems, is permitted to be left behind. We go as one, as a collective, whether an individual likes it or not. Every country will need to take part. Every industry must be transformed. This, according to Schwab, will signify a Great Reset of capitalism and a new era of prosperity.

But what if all stakeholders don’t band together behind the initiative? In Schwab’s view, to be dis-united ‘will lead to more polarisation, nationalism, racism, increased social unrest and conflicts‘. In short, a greater level of chaos and degradation of systems, leaving the world more fragile and less sustainable.

Schwab has insisted that to avoid this scenario, minor changes will not suffice. Instead, ‘entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems‘ must be built. Covid-19, therefore, is an ‘historical moment to shape the system for a post Corona era.’ It is an opportunity that Schwab says must not be missed.

Schwab went further a few weeks after the Great Reset was launched. As many are aware, using crisis as an opportunity to bring about major economic and societal change is a notorious strategy of global planners. And every so often some of those planners suggest as much.  According to Schwab, ‘acute crises favour introspection and foster the potential for transformation‘. The Prince of Wales, who fully endorses the Great Reset, said something similar in that ‘unprecedented shockwaves of crisis may make people more receptive to bigger visions of change‘.

This begs the question – does the same level of potential for change exist without the onset of crises? To a small extent, perhaps, but more likely is that until a population is faced with a threat or danger that they believe risks being detrimental to them personally, the motivation to act and call for reform is not as urgent. Minds need to be concentrated on the seeming disaster at hand before sufficient support can be gained for the policies that global planners seek.

And if minds can be concentrated, then as Schwab points out, ‘a new world could emerge, the contours of which it is incumbent on us to re-imagine and to re-draw‘.

Many of the policies that global figureheads desire are within the purview of the the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which Schwab and his ilk have been promoting as essential since the back end of 2015. Now a global crisis of sufficient magnitude has presented an opening to further the goals of the global elite. Did this happen by coincidence or by design? Truthfully, no one can say for sure. Whilst the World Economic Forum were part of a pandemic simulation exercise a few months before the world entered into a live pandemic, this is not incontrovertible evidence of what some are now referring to as a ‘plandemic‘.

When the Great Reset agenda was unveiled, one of the other leading proponents was IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva. She declared it of ‘paramount importance‘ that a future return to economic growth must encompass a ‘greener, smarter and fairer world‘. There is no need to wait, said Georgieva. The world must act now.

One of the most important takeaways from Georgieva’s intervention was her admission that ‘the digital economy is the big winner of this crisis‘. We have seen this already through the exponential growth in central banks discussing the issuance of their own digital currencies and using Covid-19 as a reason to reinforce calls for a new global economic ‘architecture‘.

In a speech to Italy’s National Consultation in June (Italy, Europe and the Global Recovery in 2021), Georgieva said that Covid-19 ‘may have accelerated the digital transformation by two or three years‘. The unproven fear of cash being a transmitter of the virus, along with people relying on contactless payments and online transactions, have no doubt contributed to her outlook.

Georgieva’s focus is on ‘the economy of tomorrow‘, which is reason enough for her that the ‘economy of yesterday‘ should be consigned to history. Entirely new foundations are required, not a rework of the failed systems of old. If it sounds like Georgieva and Schwab are reading from the same script, I would suggest that they are.

Georgieva believes that 2021 is a make or break year for the Great Reset. Either the world chooses more cooperation or more fragmentation.  According to her, ‘this is the moment to decide that history will look back on this as the Great Reset, not the Great Reversal‘.

As you might have guessed, ‘the most important anchor of recovery‘ is for a Covid-19 vaccination, which Georgieva hopes will be available at scale by 2021. The implication is that without a vaccine the world will be unable to return to any sense of normality, particularly in terms of open interaction with your fellow man. Only with a vaccine and supplementary treatments can there be a ‘fully fledged recovery‘.

To support the drive for a Great Reset, in July Klaus Schwab co-wrote a book with Thierry Malleret (who founded the Global Risk Network at the World Economic Forum) called ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset‘. In a follow up article I will be looking at some aspects to the book, and also will make an argument for why the idea of a ‘Great Reversal‘ might not be as detrimental to global planners as the likes of Kristalina Georgieva make out.

Read full story here…




feudalism

Technocracy, Monopoly And The Pretense Of Capitalism

Charles Hugh Smith describes the Big Tech monopolies perfectly, except for relating it to the larger view of global Technocracy. Big Tech has indeed brainwashed society into thinking that it is OK to let them run amok and that they are now “to big to fail”. If left alone, an inescapable Scientific Dictatorship is straight ahead. ⁃ TN Editor

All those who believe the ‘privatized totalitarianism’ of Big Tech ‘platform plantations’ are ‘capitalism’ have been brainwashed into servitude by Big Tech’s pretense of capitalism.

What do you call an economy of monopolies without competition or any regulatory restraints? An economy of monopolies that control both the buying and selling in the markets they control? Monopolies with the power to commit legalized fraud and the profits to buy political influence? Monopolies whose black box algorithms are all-powerful but completely opaque to public scrutiny?

Call it whatever you want, but it certainly isn’t Capitalism, which requires competition and market transparency to price capital, labor, risk, credit, goods, services, etc.

Black Box Monopoly is the death of Capitalism as it eliminates competition and market transparency.

The American economy is now dominated by Big Tech Black Box Monopolies, and thus what we have isn’t a “free market” system (a.k.a. capitalism), it’s the pretense of capitalism, a slick PR cover for the most rapacious form of exploitation.
The SillyCon Valley model is simple: achieve monopoly power by scaling the network effect and buying up hundreds of potential competitors with stock “printed” out of thin air. Once monopoly is achieved, buyers and sellers are both captive to the Big Tech monopoly: both buyers and sellers of apps, for example, must submit to the profiteering and control of the Big Tech monopoly.

Once the profits flowing from monopoly pile up, buy back the shares you “printed” to eliminate competition, boosting the wealth of insiders to the moon. Since share buybacks were once illegal, this is nothing but legalized fraud.
Despite the immense destruction these Big Tech monopolies wreak on society, the political power they purchase protects them from any limits. That their platforms now control the flow of data, including political content and adverts, is brushed aside with the usual paradoxical claims of “free markets.”

Ironic, isn’t it? Big Tech Black Box Monopolies claim they shouldn’t be exposed to any regulation because they’ve destroyed competition and transparency within the letter of the law. Monopoly platforms that control the flow of data, news and narratives are privatized totalitarianism, cloaked by the pretense of capitalism.

Like all totalitarian monopolies, Big Tech now claims “you can’t limit us because now you depend on us.” In other words, Big Tech is now too centralized and powerful to submit to any socio-political controls.

It’s a neat trick, isn’t it? Enrich the super-wealthy “investor class” with your buyback-juiced stock valuations, “buying” their loyalty and political pull with these outsized gains to keep your monopoly out of reach of any public scrutiny or limits on your profiteering and privatized totalitarianism.

That our society and economy are now in thrall to privatized totalitarian Big Tech monopolies is straight out of a Philip K. Dick story in which what’s perceived as real has been manipulated by those who own the means of manipulation.

We’re not just debt-serfs in central-bank feudalism, we’re all serfs on Big Tech’s platform plantations. If you don’t love your servitude with sufficient enthusiasm, Big Tech has a special place for you: the Village of the Deplatformed, a village of ghosts who have disappeared from the platform plantations and who no longer show up in search, social media, app stores, etc.

Just as the Soviets snipped those sent to the gulag out of photos, the privatized totalitarian Big Tech monopolies cut out your selfhood and your income: Deplatformed doesn’t just mean you disappear from view, it also means you’ve been demonetized– your ability to earn money from your own content has been eliminated.

In effect, your labor, content and selfhood have been expropriated by Big Tech’s totalitarian platforms. Big Tech monopolies don’t just “own” the plantation of the mind, they own the platform plantations that control what we see, buy and sell, and what the algorithms collect and sell to everyone who wants to influence what we see, buy and sell.

All those who believe the privatized totalitarianism of Big Tech platform plantations are “capitalism” have been brainwashed into servitude by Big Tech’s pretense of capitalism. Just because totalitarianism and fraud are now “legal” doesn’t mean they’re not evil.

Read full story here…




The Siamese Twins Of Technocracy And Transhumanism

Technocracy and Transhumanism have always been joined at the hip. Technocracy uses its “science of social engineering” to merge technology and society. Transhumanism uses its field of NBIC to merge technology directly into humans.

To put it another way, Technocracy is to society what Transhumanism is to the humans that live in it.

Transhumanism as a philosophy has been growing for centuries, but only in the metaphysical realm. Its ultimate goal is for humans to escape death and live forever in a state of immortality. With the advancement of science in the last 30 years, Transhumans naturally migrated from the metaphysical to the physical in order to convert their beliefs into reality.

Crackpot, you say? Be careful what you ridicule because both Technocracy and Transhumanism are in control of the course of human history at this very moment. As I have written extensively about both for many years, this has been brewing for a very long time.

NBIC stands for Nano (nano-technology), Bio (bio-technology), Info (information technology) and Cogno (cognitive sciences). These four scientific disciplines remained separate avenues of study in Universities around the world until the early 1970s. Today, NBIC has become an established discipline of its own in most major universities with personnel contributed from each separate department.

Why NBIC? Because the underlying language of each field is digital in nature. Genetics (DNA, RNA) is expressed in digital terms. The brain (Cogno) is considered digital, like a biological supercomputer. Nanotechnology is digital as scientists discover how to manipulate matter itself with computer technology.

All together, NBIC offers a scientific cauldron to Transhumans in their quest to create Humans 2.0.

When NBIC is understood, it is no surprise that Technocrat Elon Musk founded Neuralink. Musk’s reality is to connect computing technology (Info) directly into the brain (Bio) using microscopic threads (Nano) that are sewn into the skull. This is technology that grew out of the science of NBIC.

It’s also no wonder that the upcoming vaccine for COVID-19 being produced by Moderna is also using NBIC science to accomplish a merging of the human body with advanced technology. The Trump Administration has contracted with Moderna to deliver 100 million doses of its investigational vaccine, ostensibly to be kitted and transported to the nation by the U.S. Military.

Moderna’s vaccine has modified RNA (Bio), the precursor to the formation of DNA, to be delivered with micro-needles (Nano) in order place the vaccine plus permanent digital markers into the skin that are encoded with digital information (Info). According to its website,

Messenger RNA, or mRNA, plays a fundamental role in human biology, transferring the instructions stored in DNA to make the proteins required in every living cell. Our approach is to use mRNA medicines to instruct a patient’s own cells to produce proteins that could prevent, treat, or cure disease.

In the video below, Dr. Carrie Madej gives a medical perspective on Moderna’s upcoming vaccine and the fact that it is Transhuman agenda driving it. Note that the name Moderna is a contraction of “Mod” and “RNA”.

According to Time Magazine,

Researchers at Moderna hot wired this process by packing their vaccine with mRNA, the genetic material that comes from DNA and makes proteins. Moderna’s idea is to load its coronavirus vaccine with mRNA that codes for the right coronavirus proteins and then inject that into the body. Immune cells in the lymph can process that mRNA and start making the protein in just the right way for other immune cells to recognize them so they can mount a response against an actual viral infection. Dr. Stephen Hoge, president of Moderna, explains that “mRNA is really like a software molecule in biology.” “So our vaccine is like the software program to the body, which then goes and makes the [viral] proteins that can generate an immune response.” (emphasis added)

It is also noteworthy that Moderna’s “Strategic Collaborators” include the Pentagon’s DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), its civilian counterpart, BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development) and the non-governmental Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Independently, the Gates Foundation funded the development of the so-called “Quantum Dot Tattoo” technology at MIT that could track who had received the vaccination or not.

Conclusion

The point of this article is to raise awareness of the joint goals of Technocracy and Transhumanism, and to show the connections between both. Technocrats are driving the pandemic as the “Great Panic of 2020” to shut down the global economy to make way for the Great Reset into Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. Transhumans are piggybacking their own goals on to the pandemic to trigger Humans 2.0.

To repeat my statement above, “Technocracy is to society what Transhumanism is to the humans that live in it.” Both are extremely dangerous for all of humankind and must be rejected before it is too late to stop them.




Are Technocrats The Quiet Revolutionaries In Government?

Technocracy is forcefully asserting itself throughout the world and it’s no surprise that Technocrats have been laying this trap for decades. Started in the 1930s, the ideology grew as technology advanced to achieve its goal of total control over society.

In Australia, the Technocracy revolution is highly visible and citizens are feeling the pressure as they slip into scientific tyranny and dictatorship.⁃ TN Editor

The familiar sight on television screens over the past few months of the prime minister and the state and territory leaders flanked by, and often deferring to, their senior health experts, suggests a comfortable, and wholly workable, relationship between those elected to govern and those with particular expertise to contribute.

There is little in what we have been watching to indicate tensions – yet, the ongoing debate about the appropriate role of experts in a democracy reveals tensions aplenty. Indeed, it might be argued that there is no more pressing problem in both public policy and democratic thought than this relationship between the rulers and the experts, and by implication, between what people want and what experts agree to.

It is not just a dry academic argument. The highly contested role of experts in government is now widely seen as a major contributing factor to the global surge in populism as populist leaders urge people to “take back their lives”. It is a significant factor in the current rise of nationalism in Europe, with populists leading the charge against the “undemocratic technocracy” of the European Union; it played a crucial role in the Brexit debate that led Britain out of the EU; and it is very much a part of Donald Trump’s America.

The parameters of the discussion are broad in the extreme. They range from zealots at one end of the spectrum arguing for the replacement of politicians by experts in a system in which leaders are chosen for their relevant skills and proven performance, as opposed to whether or not they fit the majority interests of a population, to the other end of the spectrum represented by Donald Trump who, according to Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig in their book, A Very Stable Genius, repeatedly told his chief of staff John Kelly when lining up experts to brief him: “I don’t want to talk to anyone. I know more than they do. I know better than anybody else.”

The idea of technocracy began to develop in the early 20th century as a public policy concept designed to advocate the application of the scientific method to solving social problems. The term was coined by the American engineer William Henry Smyth in 1919, and adopted as a key theme by the sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen in his influential book, Engineers and the Price System (1921).

It was further popularised by James Burnham in his widely read The Managerial Revolution (1941). The term has come to mean “government by technical decision making.” As a social movement, technocracy gained prominence, predominantly in the United States and Canada (but also in Germany and the Soviet Union) briefly in the 1930s, advocating the replacement of elected politicians and business people with scientists, engineers and economists who had the technical expertise to manage the economy and address the problems of the Great Depression.

The movement was inspired by Howard Scott, an American engineer who regarded government and industry as wasteful and unfair and argued that an economy run by engineers would be both efficient and equitable. The movement lost momentum with the outbreak of World War II but underwent a revival later in the century, notably in France in the 1960s where it became identified with the earlier theories of Henry de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) who had predicted a society ruled by scientists and engineers. Its current revival owes much to the work of the American public policy expert Frank Fischer, who, in his 1990 book, Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise, argued that democracy was “simply incompatible with the realities of a complex post-industrial society.”

To Fischer, technocracy was a “system of governance in which technically trained experts rule by virtue of their specialised knowledge and position in dominant political and economic institutions”. Fischer argued that it was not so much an idea for the future but was actually already happening, describing a shift towards a “quiet” and “faceless” technocratic “revolution” as new technocrats emerged in a different guise.

No longer posing as the “new men” of the future with grand pronouncements about technological and scientific progress and blunt rejections of conventional politics, these current technocrats “modestly step forward” as organisational “servants” in a subdued and pragmatic language addressed to organisational and technical “imperatives.”

This quiet revolution, according to Fischer, was not so much a break with the past but rather served as a “striking continuity of basic technocratic ideas”, echoing the notion that technocracy was simply an “ever-recurring intellectual doctrine”.

Is growing technocratic influence on decision making necessarily subversive of democracy? Looking back on the three decades since Fischer wrote those words, Anders Esmark of the University of Copenhagen, in a 2017 paper, substituted the idea of a quiet revolution for a more specific claim: what we have witnessed since the 1980s is a technocratic revolution carried through primarily by the governance paradigm of public policy and public sector reform.

Read full story here…




Mercola: Technocracy Is The Masterplan For The ‘Great Reset’

Dr. Mercola’s far-reaching interview with expert Patrick Wood is one of the best ever conducted. Not only does Mercola fully understand Technocracy, but he is unafraid to stand up to it and help America reject it. Dr. Mercola is the number one web site on the Internet for alternative health. ⁃ TN Editor

So, what is “technocracy”? As explained by Wood, technocracy is a movement that got started in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems. It looked like capitalism and free enterprise was going to die, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch.

They called this system “technocracy.” It was to be a resource-based economic system. Rather than basing the economic system on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, this system is instead based on energy resources and social engineering. In a nutshell, under this system, companies would be told what resources they’re allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.

“They actually proposed to use an energy script instead of money, and let energy be the determining factor on what was produced, bought and sold, and consumed, and so on. But being engineers and scientists, in 1938 when this definition came out, which I’m going to read, they had capsulized what they viewed as the scientific method and the scientific approach.

It’s important to see that today, because we see the same subtleties, the same mindsets, the same thinking processes that they had back then. I will contend that’s a very dangerous thing. It’s a dangerous thinking process. But here’s what they concluded in 1938:

‘Technocracy is the science of social engineering. The scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.’

First off, you’ll see that it’s the science of social engineering. That ought to be enough to make the hair stand up on the back of your head, because who wants to be scientifically engineered by somebody that you don’t know, somebody that doesn’t know you, but rather has this idea that they can reform you, remake you?

But most importantly, you see the economic aspect that they had in mind, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism — that’s all the people in society — to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.

This was an economic system from the get go, not a political system. And what’s really important to see in that — the big takeaway here — is that technocracy viewed politics and politicians as an unnecessary, irrelevant, and even just a stumbling block to getting on down the road with society.

They proposed to get rid of all the politicians. Just dismiss them. Dismiss the Senate, the Congress, all the elected officials. They basically wanted to set up an organization chart, like a corporation would have today, where you have the president and you have vice-presidents doing different things. Then you have directors over certain departments and so on.

And they would just disappear the political system per se, leaving no citizen representation of government. Of course, that means the Constitution [is] immaterial, too, because that defines the political structure.

In fact, they openly called on FDR to declare himself dictator, so that he could just implement technocracy. He didn’t take them up on it. We can thank God for that. We only got the New Deal instead. By comparison, it’s much better … So, this was the genesis of technocracy and technocrats.”

Scientists Stand Above All Other Individuals

As explained by Wood, the technocrats “had this crazy idea that they were better than everybody else.” This philosophy and mindset can be traced back to Henri de Saint-Simon, a French philosopher from around 1800. Saint-Simon is considered the father of scientism, social sciences, transhumanism and technocracy.

He said in one of his essays, “A scientist … is a man who foresees. It is because science provides the means to predict, that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.” This was the mindset of technocrats in the 1930s, and it’s the same today. In essence, science is used to manipulate society and keep the economic engine running.

Top Technocrats Rescued Through Operation Paperclip

While technocracy began in the U.S., the first country to ever implement it was Nazi Germany under Hitler. However, it’s important to realize that technocracy is not Republican or Democrat. It’s not Marxist or Capitalist. It’s not a Nazi philosophy. It’s an independent ideology.

When technocracy first began in the U.S., it was a membership organization. At its peak, there were more than 500,000 card-carrying, dues-paying members in the United States and Canada. Incidentally, the head of technocracy in Canada was the grandfather of Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX. Around the same time, a technocratic organization also got started in Germany.

“As Hitler rose to power, he realized that the technocrats, as an organization, would be competitive with him becoming a dictator. So, he outlawed the Technocratic party in Germany. At about the same time, technocracy was outlawed in Canada [for two years]. For a number of reasons, they thought that somehow the two were connected and that technocracy in Canada would be supporting Hitler …

It was discovered later by historians that these technocrats, who were banned from meeting, were actually very active during the course of World War II, during Hitler’s reign. They were the statisticians, the mathematicians, the physicists, the engineers for business and so on; that really enabled Hitler’s expansion and dictatorship.

That’s not to say that they were all in lockstep with his goals, but they had a good time supporting all those things, because they were highly prized by Hitler and his leadership.

During the war, they found out also that these technocrats were communicating between the columns of power in Nazi, Germany. Hitler was rather paranoid about keeping all of those different areas separate so they would not communicate, but they did communicate during the war.

After the war … a top-secret operation [took place] in the United States … called Operation Paperclip, which brought some 1,200 of these top scientists and engineers from Germany to the United States. They sanitized their resumes and installed them into positions of scientific prowess in the United States, like at the national technology agencies.

So, the very same people that were helping Hitler do what he did, completely bypassed the Nuremberg trial. Some of them should have been there, I’m sure. But they were brought to the United States and given high positions of prestige, to continue to practice their science and engineering.”

Beauty and the Beast

The Trilateral Commission’s co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Columbia University professor, brought the concept of technocracy into the Commission in 1973, with the financial support of David Rockefeller.

“Brzezinski wrote this book called ‘Between Two Ages — America’s Role in the Technetronic Era.’ It caught Rockefeller’s eye. And so, Rockefeller and Brzezinski became like the beauty and the beast. They went on to form the Trilateral Commission, which declared, from Day 1, that they wanted to foster a new international economic order.

They said that repeatedly in their literature, and this is what got Sutton excited, and me too. What is this new international economic order you’re talking about? What do you mean? We have an economic order. It seems to be working. Why do you want to change everything? What is your idea here?”

The Trilateral Commission more or less took over the Jimmy Carter administration, and has dominated the political structure ever since. Regardless of their party affiliations, U.S. presidents have been members of the Trilateral Commission.

Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were all members. Within two weeks of his inauguration, Barack Obama appointed 11 Trilateral Commission members to top-level positions in his administration, equivalent to 12% of the Commission’s entire U.S. membership.1 The ramifications of this are described in Wood’s article,2 “Obama: Trilateral Commission Endgame.”

“What happened here is that they were after the mechanism, because America was the greatest economic engine in the world at that time,” Wood explains. “They wanted to get control of the economic engine of the world so that they could manipulate it for their own benefit and convert it, transform it if you will, into technocracy …”

Read full story here…




CovidPass: Technocrats’ Lust For Mass Submission

More journalists are openly writing about Technocracy, thanks to many excellent and recent interviews with your Technocracy News & Trends editor, Patrick Wood. Furthermore, additional research is now being conducted across a wider range of investigative journalists and writers. ⁃ TN Editor

Here we go again.

After I have extensively documented the numerous ‘Immunity Passport’ schemes (including ID0202, COVI-PASS, and many more) that were in the works in my long series on this whole Plandemic agenda to vaccinate/chip us all, it seems that the powers-that-really-shouldn’t-be technocrats are at it again.

This time, the flavor of the day is: CovidPass. You know, typical run-of-the-mill ‘Solution’ in the Problem-Reaction-Solution technique they love to employ.

It is already being touted as the panacea that will magically put an end to all the Covid-19 disruptions that have [supposedly] ruined our entire way of life and removed all that is “normal”.

We all know that this has been a highly-coordinated plan to further entrap and enslave us all; the ultimate goal being total control of our lives in terms of movement, health, and financial freedom.

So, what is CovidPass and what is the WEF (World Economic Forum) scheming?

Before looking at this development in their own words, we first need to look at who exactly makes up the WEF.

If you don’t know who the WEF (World Economic Forum) are, you better become familiar with them, for they are comprised of some of the most powerful players that shape financial, political, and societal norms that affect you.

In a nutshell, they are the “power elite” that work trough various means to implement their plans for greater control. The best term that has been used to describe this group is: technocrats.

They wish to impose a worldwide system of technocracy in which everything is controlled by systems that they have devised in order to control and enslave us all.

While people fear socialism, communism, or fascism coming to their shores, the real, highly underestimated, threat is that of a technocracy which is unmistakably supported by Big Tech outfits like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as well as the International Banking Cabal.

I won’t go into a lengthy description of what a technocracy entails and how the mindset of technocrats work, but if you want to learn more about this system look no further than the leading expert on the matter, namely Patrick Wood. The following two sources are also excellent ways to brush up on the threat:

With that important backdrop out of the way, let’s return to the subject at hand, the CovidPass.

Here are a few highlights directly from the WEF’s own report entitled Could this COVID-19 ‘health passport’ be the future of travel and events? (July 2020) starting with their selling points [emphasis added]:

    • Rising COVID-19 infection rates pose a threat to global tourism.
    • A new app acts as a health passport for travellers (sic) who are virus-free.
    • Using blockchain technology, it provides an encrypted record of test results.
    • Its creators say it could allow healthy travellers (sic) to avoid quarantine.
    • The app could also allow sports and entertainment venues to reopen safely, as well as the global conference and exhibition industry.

Thousands of summer holidays are now up in the air, following a series of COVID-19 flare-ups around the world, with trips cancelled and travellers (sic) forced to quarantine when they return home.

Once again, typical Problem-Solution they present as per the Problem-Reaction-Solution manifesto.

First phase complete. Check.

Continuing…

Now, a new health passport app promises to restore confidence to the travel industry, which has been badly hit by the pandemic. Global tourism shrank by 97% in April, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization.

A possible solution
CovidPass is the brainchild of one of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders, Mustapha Mokass. It also involves other YGLs across 5 continents, including Muna AbuSulayman and Peggy Liu. CovidPass uses blockchain technology to store encrypted data from individual blood tests, allowing users to prove that they have tested negative for COVID-19.

I’ve warned about this before. They wish to store your personal health and medical information on blockchain on a centralized database. And they wish to make it mandatory, for without it you won’t be able to travel internationally. That is the plan these technocrats have in mind.

Meanwhile, governments are faced with a variety of different testing regimes to validate the health of travellers. “This isn’t enough to reassure tourists or health authorities”, says Mokass.

They are also [conveniently] positioning their sought scheme by pointing to inefficient and uncoordinated testing regimes employed by various governments; all with the intent of coordinating/standardizing these into one seamless system. This is the form of mind control ploys they use on useful idiot politicians who become all to pliant to their demands. They have been using such tactics for decades to great effect (and detriment to populations).

Mokass hopes his app, which is launching in September, will become a standardized solution for airlines, airports and border agencies, and eliminate quarantine for healthy travellers. CovidPass could also allow hotels, cinemas, theatres, sporting and concert venues to reopen safely.

Again, I warned about how they would use such kinds of ‘Immunity Passports’ to force us all to submit, for if we don’t we won’t be able to travel, book hotels, go to sporting events, the cinema, etc.

I think what these technocratic idiots don’t realize is that the masses will not stand for this. But their arrogance and hubris certainly won’t stop them from trying. They do have this ‘God complex’ and think they are the masters of the universe and are the only ones who can dictate viable solutions to complex problems.

Read full story here…




John Podesta Plays Biden In ‘Doomsday’ Plan If Trump Is Re-Elected

John Podesta, a consummate Technocrat and former member of the Trilateral Commission, played the role of Joe Biden in a strategy exercise to determine what leftists will do if Trump is re-elected. The outcome resembles a scorched-earth policy. ⁃ TN Editor

Democrats are prepared to burn the country to the ground rather than accept another loss to President Trump in November and are war-gaming doomsday scenarios in advance of the most important election in American history.

The party is already laying the groundwork with media and operatives spreading the idea that the winner will not be known on election night or possibly for months as their army of ruthless lawyers will challenge votes in any state won by Trump.

Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is “warning” voters not to expect to know who will occupy the White House on November 3rd due to mail-in voting but a New York Times story is much more ominous.

The bulk of the story by former BuzzFeed reporter Ben Smith who is notorious for being the first one to publish the lurid Steele dossier lays out the rationale for delayed results but also reveals that a group of influential Dems have been wargaming scenarios for what comes after.

The group of which creepy former Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta is a member (he role-played Joe Biden) is preparing for outcomes that would end America as it has existed and include civil war and the secession of the entire west coast from the U.S.

Democrats are contemplating secession and potential civil war as they game out possible scenarios for a closely contested election, according to a report by Ben Smith in a New York Times column Sunday.

The bulk of Smith’s column is devoted to the question of how the media will handle Election Night coverage, given that the result may not be known for weeks. Vote-by-mail, which many states have only recently adopted — ostensibly, to prevent the spread of coronavirus in polling places — could lead to an uncertain result.

However, buried near the end of Smith’s column is a report that Democrats have participated in a “war game” in which they considered several possible outcomes of the election.

In one scenario, John Podesta — the former chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and a leading figure in party circles — played former Vice President Joe Biden, and refused to concede the election.

The result: the threat of secession by the entire West Coast, followed by the possible intervention of the U.S. armed forces:

But conveniently, a group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat, presumably reached after weeks of counting the votes in Pennsylvania. For their war game, they cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede, just as Mrs. Clinton had.

But Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College.

In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned. The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do.

Read full story here…




Mises Institute: The ‘Great Reset’ Calls For Technocracy

A German professor currently teaching in Brazil has independently confirmed TN’s long-held assessment that the “Great Reset” is being staged “with the intent of creating a global technocracy.” This is a critical, must read article for all TN readers. ⁃ TN Editor

The lockdown in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the implementation of long-held plans to establish a so-called new world order. Under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF), global policymakers are advocating for a “Great Reset” with the intent of creating a global technocracy. It is not by coincidence that on October 18, 2019, in New York City the WEF participated in “Event 201” at the “high-level” pandemic exercise organized by the John Hopkins Center for Health Security.

This coming technocracy involves close cooperation between the heads of the digital industry and of governments. With programs such as guaranteed minimum income and healthcare for all, the new kind of governance combines strict societal control with the promise of comprehensive social justice.

The truth, however, is that this new world order of digital tyranny comes with a comprehensive social credit system. The People’s Republic of China is the pioneer of this method of surveillance and control of individuals, corporations, and sociopolitical entities.

For the individual, one’s identity is reduced to an app or chip that registers almost any personal activity. In order to gain a few individual rights, and be it only to travel to a certain place, a person must balance such apparent privileges with his submission to a web of regulations that define in detail what is “good behavior” and deemed as beneficial to humankind and the environment. For example, during a pandemic, this sort of control would extend from the obligation of wearing a mask and practicing social distancing to having specific vaccinations in order to apply for a job or to travel.

It is, in short, a type of social engineering which is the opposite of a spontaneous order or of development. Like the mechanical engineer with a machine, the social engineer—or technocrat—treats society as an object. Different from the brutal suppressions by the totalitarianism of earlier times, the modern social engineer will try to make the social machine work on its own according to the design. For this purpose, the social engineer must apply the laws of society the way the mechanical engineer follows the laws of nature. Behavioral theory has reached a stage of knowledge that makes the dreams of social engineering possible. The machinations of social engineering operate not through brute force, but subtly by nudge.

Under the order envisioned by the Great Reset, the advancement of technology is not meant to serve the improvement of the conditions of the people but to submit the individual to the tyranny of a technocratic state. “The experts know better” is the justification.

The Agenda

The plan for an overhaul of the world is the brainchild of an elite group of businessmen, politicians, and their intellectual entourage that used to meet in Davos, Switzerland, in January each year. Brought into existence in 1971, the World Economic Forum has become a megaglobal event since then. More than three thousand leaders from all over the world attended the meeting in 2020.

Under the guidance of the WEF, the agenda of the Great Reset says that the completion of the current industrial transformation requires a thorough overhaul of the economy, politics, and society. Such a comprehensive transformation requires the alteration of human behavior, and thus “transhumanism” is part of the program.

The Great Reset will be the theme of the fifty-first meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2021. Its agenda is the commitment to move the world economy toward “a more fair, sustainable and resilient future.” The program calls for “a new social contract” that is centered on racial equality, social justice, and the protection of the nature. Climate change requires us “to decarbonize the economy” and to bring human thinking and behavior “into harmony with nature.” The aim is to build “more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies.” This new world order must be “urgently” implemented, the promotors of the WEF claim, and they point out that the pandemic “has laid bare the unsustainability of our system,” which lacks “social cohesion.”

The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030—because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.

Social Engineering

The ideology of the World Economic Forum is neither left nor right, nor progressive or conservative, it is also not fascist or communist, but outright technocratic. As such, it includes many elements of earlier collectivist ideologies.

In recent decades, the consensus has emerged at the annual Davos meetings that the world needs a revolution, and that reforms have taken too long. The members of the WEF envision a profound upheaval at short notice. The time span should be so brief that most people will hardly realize that a revolution is going on. The change must be so swift and dramatic that those who recognize that a revolution is happening do not have the time to mobilize against it.

The basic idea of the Great Reset is the same principle that guided the radical transformations from the French to the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. It is the idea of constructivist rationalism incorporated in the state. But projects like the Great Reset leave unanswered the question of who rules the state. The state itself does not rule. It is an instrument of power. It is not the abstract state that decides, but the leaders of specific political parties and of certain social groups.

Earlier totalitarian regimes needed mass executions and concentration camps to maintain their power. Now, with the help of new technologies, it is believed, dissenters can easily be identified and marginalized. The nonconformists will be silenced by disqualifying divergent opinions as morally despicable.

The 2020 lockdowns possibly offer a preview of how this system works. The lockdown worked as if it had been orchestrated—and perhaps it was. As if following a single command, the leaders of big and small nations—and of different stages of economic development—implemented almost identical measures. Not only did many governments act in unison, they also applied these measures with little regard for the horrific consequences of a global lockdown.

Months of economic stillstand have destroyed the economic basis of millions of families. Together with social distancing, the lockdown has produced a mass of people unable to care for themselves. First, governments destroyed the livelihood, then the politicians showed up as the savior. The demand for social assistance is no longer limited to specific groups, but has become a need of the masses.

Once, war was the health of the state. Now it is fear of disease. What lies ahead is not the apparent coziness of a benevolent comprehensive welfare state with a guaranteed minimum income and healthcare and education for all. The lockdown and its consequences have brought a foretaste what is to come: a permanent state of fear, strict behavioral control, massive loss of jobs, and growing dependence on the state.

With the measures taken in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, a big step to reset the global economy has been made. Without popular resistance, the end of the pandemic will not mean the end of the lockdown and social distancing. At the moment, however, the opponents of the new world order of digital tyranny still have access to the media and platforms to dissent. Yet the time is running out. The perpetrators of the new world order have smelled blood. Declaring the coronavirus a pandemic has come in handy to promote the agenda of their Great Reset. Only massive opposition can slow down and finally stop the extension of the power grip of the tyrannical technocracy that is on the rise.

Read full story here…




Elon Musk

Elon Musk Praises China’s Technocracy, Badmouths America

Musk, whose grandfather was head of the Canadian Technocracy movement, is increasingly in love with China for its business and social engineering prowess. As a Technocrat, he also disavows Karl Marx and Das Capital. ⁃ TN Editor

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk lamented the “entitled” and “complacent” character of people in the United States, and lauded the “smart” and “hard working people” of China, in the first installment of a three-part interview with Automotive News’ “Daily Drive” podcast published Friday.

Specifically, Musk criticized New York and California — states that have supported his businesses, especially Tesla, with considerable tax breaks, regulatory credits and other government help.

Automotive News publisher Jason Stein, who conducted the interview, asked Musk, “How about China as an EV strategy leader in the world?”

Musk replied: “China rocks in my opinion. The energy in China is great. People there – there’s like a lot of smart, hard working people. And they’re really — they’re not entitled, they’re not complacent, whereas I see in the United States increasingly much more complacency and entitlement especially in places like the Bay Area, and L.A. and New York.”

Last year, Chinese government officials helped Tesla secure loans worth around $1.6 billion to construct and begin manufacturing vehicles at the company’s relatively new Shanghai factory. This year, the Shanghai government helped Tesla get back to normal operations quickly, at its new plant, after the region was struck by a Covid-19 outbreak and issued widespread quarantines that temporarily suspended manufacturing there.

Musk pointed out, Telsa has not received as much assistance from the government in China as domestic companies. “They have been supportive. But it would be weird if they were more supportive to a non-Chinese company. They’re not,” he said.

The enthusiasm the mercurial Musk expressed for China contrasted with his previously stated disdain for communism. In a tweet on Monday this week, Musk mocked social welfare programs in general, and Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital.”

During the Automotive News podcast, Musk also compared the U.S., California and New York to sports teams about to lose their winning status.

He said:

“When you’ve been winning for too long you sort of take things for granted. The United States, and especially like California and New York, you’ve been winning for too long. When you’ve been winning too long you take things for granted. So, just like some pro sports team they win a championship you know a bunch of times in a row, they get complacent and they start losing.”

Read full story here…