VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Print This Article Print This Article Email This Article Email This Article

Findings & Forecasts 04/24/2013: Technocracy

Share

Tech­noc­racy is Economics

Some people wonder why I write about Tech­noc­racy when the main focus of Find­ings & Fore­casts is the economy. Let me be clear about this: Tech­noc­racy is an eco­nomic system (with polit­ical and social over­tones) that is being increas­ingly imple­mented in the United States and around the world. It demands our atten­tion and scrutiny, espe­cially since there has been no public policy or eco­nomic debate what­so­ever. It cannot be debated if there is no iden­ti­fi­ca­tion or larger recognition.

Tech­noc­racy as an eco­nomic theory was for­mal­ized in the 1930’s by a group known as Tech­noc­racy, Inc. Founded by M. King Hub­bard (the Peak Oil Theory guy in the 1950’s) and Howard Scott (a pseudo-engineer and pro­moter), Tech­noc­racy was care­fully defined in a widely pub­lished work, Tech­noc­racy Study Course. Designed to be admin­is­trated by sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians, Tech­noc­racy insisted that politi­cians were not capable of making good deci­sions about tech­nology they knew nothing about.

When Technocracy called for Roosevelt to be dictatorFranklin Delano Roo­sevelt was elected in 1933 on his “New Deal” plat­form, the only other likely plat­form would have been Tech­noc­racy. It was lucky for us that FDR rejected the utopian goals of Tech­noc­racy for a greatly watered down ver­sion in his so-called New Deal.

Henry Porter, author of Roo­sevelt and Tech­noc­racy in 1932, declared “Just as the Ref­or­ma­tion estab­lished Reli­gious Freedom, just as the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence brought about our Polit­ical Freedom, Tech­noc­racy promises Eco­nomic Freedom.” [Fore­ward, iii]  Among other things, Porter pro­posed to abolish the gold stan­dard, sus­pend the stock exchanges, and nation­alize public util­i­ties, after which he concluded,

“And then, a national awak­ening which, overnight, may well be expected to herald the news to every corner of the nation of the inau­gu­ra­tion of the ‘new deal’ by FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT — DICTATOR. Drastic as these changes from the present order of things may be, they will serve their pur­pose if only to pave the way for the Eco­nomic Rev­o­lu­tion — and TECHNOCRACY.” [caps in original]

In this writer’s con­sid­ered opinion, Porter’s envi­sioned “Eco­nomic Rev­o­lu­tion” fore­shad­owed the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s self-imposed man­date to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” in 1973.  Tri­lat­eral co-founder Brzezinski’s sem­inal work, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era, was little more than a para­phrased ver­sion of 1930’s Technocracy.

If Tech­noc­racy is indeed asserting itself on today’s eco­nomic affairs, then it should become the hottest and most debated topic of the day — but it is not! That’s why this writer con­tinues to present evi­dence that shows it is not only asserting itself, but it is rapidly coming to dom­i­nate the entire glob­al­ized eco­nomic system.

H.R. 624 — Cyber Intel­li­gence Sharing and Pro­tec­tion Act (CISPA)

CISPA passed in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives by a vote of 227 – 192 on April 17, and has now moved on to the Senate. The leg­is­la­tion was co-authored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and “Dutch” Rup­pers­berger (D-MD), and osten­sibly came from almost iden­tical leg­is­la­tion that was rejected in April 2012. There were 37 co-sponsors.

The essence of CISPA is that it gives blanket per­mis­sion to pri­vate com­pa­nies to share cus­tomers’ pri­vate data with the gov­ern­ment. The pri­vate com­pany cannot be legally com­pelled by the gov­ern­ment to pro­vide data if it chooses to not to. The biggest obstacle now removed is “exemp­tion from lia­bility,” where a com­pany can be sued blind for revealing secret and pri­vate data to anyone, including the gov­ern­ment. On page 20, the bill states,

(3) EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY

       “(A) EXEMPTION. — No civil or crim­inal cause of action shall lie or be main­tained in Fed­eral or State court against a pro­tected entity, self-protected entity, cyber­se­cu­rity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a pro­tected entity, self-protected entity, or cyber­se­cu­rity provider, acting in good faith…”

Given that cyber­se­cu­rity events are hap­pening on a 24x7 basis, once the gov­ern­ment is tapped into a pri­vate data pool, it could main­tain a con­tin­uous and real-time transfer of data to gov­ern­ment super-computers, such as the new NSA data center cur­rently nearing com­ple­tion in Utah. This new com­puter center is report­edly capable of storing 5 zettabytes of data, where one zettabyte is defined as 10 to the 21st power. As of 2012, no com­puter in the world had yet achieved even one zettabyte of storage.

How big is a zettabyte? A tech­nology reporter sug­gested that one zettabyte is the equiv­a­lent of 62 mil­lion stacked iPhone 5’s that would stretch past the moon. Inter­na­tional Data Cor­po­ra­tion esti­mates that all cur­rent global data grew to 2.7 zettabytes in 2012, so the NSA center will lit­er­ally be able to hold all existing dig­ital infor­ma­tion in the world, with years of room to grow.

If this leg­is­la­tion even­tu­ally passes in the Senate, the skids are greased to aggre­gate all data on every person in the United States. In spite of claims por­tending to fight ter­rorism or cyber­crime, CISPA is the largest data grab in the his­tory of the world.

How will data be col­lected? The feeder system is already in place.

Between 2003 – 2007, the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity, in coop­er­a­tion with the FBI and CIA, have already estab­lished a net­work of 53 pri­mary “fusion cen­ters” around the nation. According to the DHS website,

“Pri­mary fusion cen­ters serve as the focal points within the state and local envi­ron­ment for the receipt, analysis, gath­ering, and sharing of threat-related infor­ma­tion and have addi­tional respon­si­bil­i­ties related to the coor­di­na­tion of crit­ical oper­a­tional capa­bil­i­ties across the statewide fusion process with other rec­og­nized fusion cen­ters. Fur­ther­more, pri­mary cen­ters are the highest pri­ority for the allo­ca­tion of avail­able fed­eral resources, including the deploy­ment of per­sonnel and con­nec­tivity with fed­eral data sys­tems. [emphasis added]

These fusion cen­ters cul­ti­vate rela­tion­ships with pri­vate enter­prises in order to shovel infor­ma­tion to and between fed­eral, state and local law enforce­ment agen­cies. While some defend the exis­tence of these fusion cen­ters, the Senate Home­land Secu­rity and Gov­ern­mental Affairs per­ma­nent sub­com­mittee on inves­ti­ga­tions released a scathing 141 page report that stated, “In reality, the Sub­com­mittee inves­ti­ga­tion found that the fusion cen­ters often pro­duced irrel­e­vant, use­less or inap­pro­priate intel­li­gence reporting to DHS, and many pro­duced no intel­li­gence reporting whatsoever.”

If fusion cen­ters do nothing useful to combat ter­rorism, then why are they allowed to con­tinue and what are they really doing? Simply put, they are the feeder points for the mas­sive data col­lec­tion effort being pushed by the Fed­eral government.

You may wonder, what does this have to do with Tech­noc­racy? Well, every­thing. Three of the core require­ments that are nec­es­sary to imple­ment Tech­noc­racy are found in that 1932 doc­u­ment, Tech­noc­racy Study Course:

  • “Pro­vide a con­tin­uous inven­tory of all pro­duc­tion and consumption
  • “Pro­vide a spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and ser­vices, where pro­duced and where used
  • “Pro­vide spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the con­sump­tion of each indi­vidual, plus a record and descrip­tion of the indi­vidual.” [Scott, Howard et al, Tech­noc­racy Study Source, p. 232]

These require­ments are about to be met in full for the first time in his­tory: Full, unim­peded flow of all per­sonal data and com­mu­ni­ca­tions to a cen­tral pro­cessing authority.

This is Tech­noc­racy. It is not cap­i­talism, com­mu­nism or fas­cism even though it has some resem­blance to each. It is total­i­tarian. It is not run by elected politi­cians or rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the people of the nation, but rather by sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians who have their own agenda for soci­etal engineering.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.

One Response to “Findings & Forecasts 04/24/2013: Technocracy”


Premium Subscriber Access

Email:
Password:
Remember   

Forgot Password

People want to know…

faq

What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

Posted in: faq

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

Posted in: faq

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

Posted in: faq

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

Posted in: faq

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

Posted in: faq

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

Posted in: faq

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

Posted in: faq