“The cartels of the world become the cartels of the mind.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
“If you are nothing more than a biological machine, then what you think doesn’t matter. There is no you. Confirming this, deciding this, is the technocrat’s wet dream.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)
Many independent researchers, writers, and broadcasters have exposed the operation called technocracy. I want to give particular thanks to Patrick Wood, whose investigations are essential. His most recent book is Technocracy Rising.
Consider the term “scientific humanism.” The Oxford Dictionary offers this definition: “A form of humanist theory and practice that is based on the principles and methods of science; specifically the doctrine that human beings should employ scientific methods in studying human life and behaviour, in order to direct the welfare and future of mankind in a rational and beneficial manner…Origin mid-19th century.”
Two items jump out from the page: “…in order to direct the welfare and future of mankind,” and “Origin mid-19th century.”
The first phrase obviously refers to a plan. And the plan emerges from being able to study, at a great height, populations and nations—in order to direct their behavior, in order to place them and move them on a chessboard. “Scientifically.”
Free will? Not important. Free exchange of goods and services? Not important. The unique vision and desire of the individual? Not important. Only science is important—whatever that means.
Science/rule by technology/technocracy becomes the justification for control.
For example: “We have studied the amount of energy that can be utilized by humans on planet Earth. Given the results, we will plan how to distribute it most humanely and rationally.”
That’s not science. That’s fake science. Whoever determines what is “humane” isn’t doing science. Whoever presumes to know how much usable energy exists on Earth, despite ongoing technological breakthroughs, isn’t doing science. But no matter. Pronouncements can be made to look like science. On behalf of top-down control.
As the Oxford Dictionary mentions, this kind of program had its roots in the mid-19th century.
Well, Darwin published his hypothesis about evolution in 1859. Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848.
Let me now try to summarize thousands of pages of scholarship in a few paragraphs.
Prior to Marx, Engels, and Darwin, the word “humanism” referred to a tradition of philosophy, knowledge, culture, education, and art birthed by the ancient Greeks—coming forward through Rome to the European Renaissance. It elevated human beings. It tended toward greater freedom, less Church repression.
But then, in the mid-19th century, humanism took a sharp turn. It became identified with “the march of science,” the triumph of philosophic materialism (Darwin), and the complete restructuring of nations and societies according to a social, economic, and political plan that would “benefit all” (Marx, Engels).
Humanism was stripped down to “scientific humanism.”
In succeeding generations, all the way up to today, intellectuals and scientists and technologists have adopted the viewpoint that, since they can see the whole of society from above, and since they can understand its workings in clearer and evermore specific terms, and since they understand the vast field of natural resources, they can and should, quite naturally, and as a matter of course, plan and plot the future of humanity.
Their impulse was, behind the scenes, aided and abetted by a quite different cast of characters, who wanted a new world order, a political and economic management system for the entire planet (now known as Globalism).
This is, in effect, a two-tier operation. At the top are the Rockefeller Globalists; and under them, millions of useful high-IQ idiots who love to play chess with the world population.
The propaganda wing of this operation insists, at every turn: the only “solution” for planet Earth is the group solution. The group, the mass, the collective.
It is unthinkable that The Individual would have anything to contribute.
Well, when you stop and consider it, this is the mantra of today’s collective society: the individual is extinct.