Technocracy, Elon Musk, Eugenics

[Firestarter]

There are different names for basically the same agenda, which these days is often called "the great reset", including technocracy, sustainable development and eugenics...
There are undeniable links to green technocrat Elon Musk, the so-called "richest man in the world".

British writers like H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell gave us glimpses of what this technocratic utopia would look like.
Technocracy overlaps with science fiction, and some of its stated objectives are just fiction to fool the masses (colonising Mars!).

Elon Musk's Jewish Canadian granfather, Joshua Norman Haldeman, became a director for Technocracy, Inc. of Canada.
In June 2019, the "richest man in the world" Elon Musk tweeted about his affinity with technocracy:

Accelerating Starship development to build the Martian Technocracy

.
In 1932, Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded Technocracy Incorporated. Hubbert later developed the theory of peak oil that has been both used to inflate oil prices and implement the "sustainable development" eugenics agenda.
The American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen was associated to Scott Hubbert and promoted technocracy.

The Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, to implement the New World Order based on Technocracy. Brzezinski described this in his 1970 book the “Technetronic Era”.
A 1930s movie, produced by Technocracy Inc., boasts about being backed by The Masonic Temple.

See James Corbett's video on (the evils of) technocracy (video youtube.com/watch?v=TP6v_vH-BLw was deleted).

https://silview.media/2022/04/12/el...openly-backed-by-masons-and-the-rockefellers/
(https://archive.ph/a7xPI)


Or see David Knight on technocracy.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/bUnFUILonBc8/


So naturally, Elon Musk became a WEF young global leader (but not listed on its website) in 2008 or before: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...usive-private-social-network-in-the-world-dot


In 2018, Musk was selected as a fellow of the "Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge", which aims to control and distort science for the British royals since 1660: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society

 

[Firestarter]

The following describes how the plandemic is used to implement the global technocracy, "a form of centralized, expert-led control over resource production and consumption that the Wall Street Journal has characterized as “anti-democratic rule by elites who think they know better”".

Four tech billionaires - Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg - plus Warren Buffett increased their total with an impressive 59% since the plandemic was started: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pandemic-beneficiaries-technocrats/

 

[Firestarter]

Elon Musk became a WEF young global leader (but not listed on its website) in 2008 or before

Not very surprising, technocrat Elon Musk promotes the technocratic WEF Great Reset agenda, including the DNA altering, immune destroying, infertility causing COVID vaccines...

Elon Musk has boasted about Tesla's involvement in producing these synthetic "vaccines".
On 16 November 2020 for example, Elon Musk tweeted (fyi: CureVac is a German vaccine producer).

CureVac, Moderna & a few others. Tesla makes the machine CureVac uses to go from known gene sequence to trillions of lipid-coated mRNA strands.

Creating synthetic mRNA for cures/vaccines is the future of medicine imo. Turns it (mostly) into a software & modeling problem.

Not very surprising either is that SolarCity's / Tesla's solar panels cause fires, which has been blatantly covered up.

Henkes said that Tesla 'knew about the problem well before 2017' of the solar panel fire risk.

Elon-Musk-offers-to-buy-Twitter-for-43-billion

 

[Firestarter]

To be a "technocrat" you need to have some "technical" credentials, so the official story on Elon Musk's scientific credentials is something like.
In 1990, Musk entered Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario (Canada). In 1992, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated in 1997 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the Wharton School.
In 1995, Musk started a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) program in materials science at Stanford University in California, but dropped out after only 2 days, because he found the Internet boom more appealing.

This doesn't make sense at all, for one he couldn't start his PhD studies in 1995, before he got his Bachelor of Science degree in 1995. In reality Elon Musk dropped out of university in 1995, without a degree, but then mysteriously got awarded 2 degrees in 1997. This smells like corruption.
According to John O’Reilly, who filed a lawsuit against Musk for stealing the idea for Zip2 in 2007, Musk was never admitted to Stanford in 1995. Musk has previously lied that he got his Pennsylvania bachelor degrees in 1995...
.

While playing detective, O’Reilly unearthed some information about Musk’s past that’s arguably more interesting than the allegations in the lawsuit. He found that the University of Pennsylvania granted Musk’s degrees in 1997—two years later than what Musk has cited. I called Penn’s registrar and verified these findings. Copies of Musk’s records show that he received a dual degree in economics and physics in May 1997. O’Reilly also subpoenaed the registrar’s office at Stanford to verify Musk’s admittance in 1995 for his doctorate work in physics. “Based on the information you provided, we are unable to locate a record in our office for Elon Musk,” wrote the director of graduate admissions.

When asked during the case to produce a document verifying Musk’s enrollment at Stanford, Musk’s attorney declined and called the request “unduly burdensome.” I contacted a number of Stanford physics professors who taught in 1995, and they either failed to respond or didn’t remember Musk. Doug Osheroff, a Nobel Prize winner and department chair at the time, said, “I don’t think I knew Elon, and am pretty sure that he was not in the Physics Department.”

.
Previous excerpt from Ashlee Vance - Elon Musk; Tesla, Space X, And The Quest For A Fantastic Future Rocky: http://web.archive.org/web/20201112000051/https://publicism.info/biography/elon_musk/14.html


Other than that it's interesting that Elon Musk, like Peter Thiel, appears to be launched by the CIA.
In 2002, Elon Musk took along Mike Griffin to Russia to buy an intercontinental ballistic missile (which ultimately he didn't buy). In 2002, Mike Griffin worked for the CIA’s venture capital arm – In-Q-Tel.

In February 1999, the Musks sold Zip2 to Compaq for a cool $307 million in cash and another $34 million in stock options, of which Elon received $22 million.
Elon invested $10 million from this to co-found X.com that merged with Confinity after a year, which later became PayPal. In late 2000, Elon was fired by the board that made Peter Thiel its new CEO. This was shortly before the Russia trip with Griffin.

In October 2002, PayPal was sold to eBay for $1.5 Billion in stock, of which Elon, as the largest shareholder with a 11.7% stake, received $165 million. It's strange that this goofball is now the "richest man in the world", while Peter Thiel is worth less than $5 billion.
See Peter Thiel and Elon Musk at Paypal's headquarters in Palo Alto, California, in 2000.

There are some stories on Elon Musk crashing his McLaren in 2000. It hasn't been widely reported that Peter Thiel was in the passenger seat: https://onlyfunfacts.com/fun-facts/facts-elon-musk/
(https://archive.ph/DhO66)


Peter Thiel's Palantir was (also) launched with an estimated $2 million investment from In-Q-Tel.

In 2016, Palantir sued the US Army for "improperly excluding the company" from the competition for the next stage of DCGS–A.
In a strange twist, the Biden-Trump connected law firm Boies Schiller Flexner represented Palantir in this legal affair.

Then after Donald Trump was crowned president, whose campaign had been financed with more than $1 million from Thiel, Thiel got direct access to top administration officials. In 2019, Palantir won a ten-year contract for DCGS–A worth $876 million: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/inside-palantir-technologies-peter-thiel-alex-karp.html
(https://archive.ph/E8DWs)

 

[Firestarter]

Patrick Wood has been warning about the technocratic movement for more than a decade. He tracks technocracy from its inception at Columbia University in the 1930s, through the Trilateral Commission in the 1970s, and beyond.
In 1938, they defined Technocracy with:

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

.
In the early 1930s, there was the Great Depression, and the technocrats at Columbia University decided that they had to do something about capitalism. They said there’s no reason for elections, but instead appoint technocrats to make all the decisions — unelected and unaccountable — based on “science”.
The Trilateral Commission was founded by Rockefeller to implement technocracy. They called their agenda “The New International Economic Order”. Six months later, in 1974, the United Nations passed general resolution 3201, called “Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order”.

Wood describes that when when you view society as a machine, to control it, you have to monitor everything. In a smart city sensors are embedded to control and monitor everything in the city.
The current implementation and future technocratic dictatorship includes: mass surveillance, financial technology, smart cities, social credit system and tech spirituality.
In 1992, in a marketing ploy, they rebranded the technocratic agenda as “Sustainable Development”.

China comes closest to the technocratic Utopia as already envisioned in the 1930s. So we can look to China to see where our society is headed. China already has installed 600 million cameras, equipped with facial recognition software, to monitor the herd. Their social credit scoring system uses an AI program to score every citizen.
Our silence gives them permission to continue their agenda: https://thefederalist.com/2021/05/1...-why-do-they-want-to-social-engineer-my-city/
(https://archive.ph/JUCdv)


Patrick Wood - Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015): https://pdfcoffee.com/wood-patrick-...coherent-publishing-libgenlcpdf-pdf-free.html
(https://archive.ph/Bh88A)


Here's a 2019 lecture by Patrick Wood on (the dangers of) technocracy (before the plandemic was started to implement the technocratic Great Reset).

https://www.bitchute.com/video/FucwDyJoHDEi/

 

[Working Poor]

It seems like Elon is trying to get on our side. The only side I am on is Ron Paul's. I think it is possible that Elon is a robot...

 

[osan]

Things To Come...

I've watched that film a number of times.

At first I was a mite perplexed by the seemingly mixed-messages it broadcasts, but finally twigged to the fact that what seemed contradictory, was in fact the age-old tactic of misuse of language. The talk of "freedom" in that film, of course, was no freedom at all, but a circumscribed version, just as we see today. It is the freedoms doled by the master to his chattel. So long as they are good chattel, a few good crumbs fall from his table to the floor for scavenging. Otherwise, the collar tightens most noticeably.

Consider the pathetic modern-day *****/tranny: their vision of freedom has little to do with the broader philosophical sense of the term, but rather revolves around their ability to put their naughty bits anywhere they please, at any time, with anyONE regardless of consent, lest those demurring be labeled as "homophobe", and therefore be worthy of burning at the stake as a witch.

Things To Come was indeed a globalist message to the world from 1936, clarioning its intent to every soul on the planet. If one looks at the events of the intervening 86 years, it appears that they mesh with those depicted in the film with some precision that bears our attention, including the good intentions. It was not just a clarion of intent, but a message of strength and support to those who were in on the deal. Consider Marshal McLuhan's famous quip, "the medium is the message." When the members of your cadre go to the theater and see the message... THEIRE message up on the silver screen, there is a very definite and powerful mental effect to reinforce and renew and redouble one's position and determination to ACT and see that things HAPPEN in accord with the vision. It further serves to get the uninitiated on board with the idea of such a world order, the tacit assumption underlying it all being that the masters are competent and benevolent. Under those conditions, who in their right mind would not want to see such an order arise? But it is a false picture, yet the adherents refuse to see it.

In one scene John Cabal, having returned to his long-destroyed home of Anytown, quips to his old friend, Dr. harding, "But we who are all that are left of the old engineers and mechanics have pledged ourselves to salvage the world..."

This is an interesting statement, rife with latent meaning... latent to the average imbecile, anyway. But taken at face, it gives me the warm and fuzzies all over because I am an engineer and a mechanic and I can all too easily see the beauty in what is being offered. Sure, beauty for those who live through the transformation. Not so hot for those who are deemed "excess humanity". I might even get on board myself, were I guaranteed my seat on that train to the great white future. But I don't trust Themme past the end of my nose; nobody in their right mind would.

I do not doubt the sincerity of good intention in the statement. I do not for one moment believe that the globalist intent is evil - in THEIRE minds. I fully suspect that they believe themselves to be doing "God's work". Of this there can be little to no doubt. But because of the nature of the work and that which it necessitates, Theye must be cold and harsh because central to their beliefs is that the world is over-populated - and they may well be correct on that point.

Now, notice the bolded term "salvage". The line does not say "save the world", but salvage. What is salvage? It is the reclamation of that which is lost, and one of the central tenets of salvage, marine in particular, is that he who gets there first becomes the new owner. It is the law of first acquisition, in this case of that which has been abandoned by a previous owner.

In order for Themme to reclaim the world as theirs, that world must first become derelict - it must be ABANDONED. Can anyone credibly assert that this world is not fast approaching that status? To salvage the world, it must first be abandoned by its owners, which is all of us. Make conditions so dire that people will simply give up attempting to hold on to that which is their birthright, including and perhaps most significantly their freedom and all the rights that derive therefrom. Here I mean their actual freedom and not just that to choose which feminine product leaves them feeling springtime fresh, or where they may point their sad little willies.

The moment the critical mass is reached, for totality is not required, Theye will indeed salvage the world, taking ever miserable scrap for themselves and perhaps passing out enough for some of the rest of us to remain alive. But a vast plurality will have to be "processed" into oblivion by whatever means may be required or handy at the right time. My suspicion is disease will be the tactical agent because it will not be seen as having issued from Themme, but from some other source, which if it earns the ire at all of a dying species, will prove a false target for the rage of those whose time has been cut short.

Theye will smile confidently at their clever disposal of the useless eaters, and move forward from there. To what place, who can say, but Theye will have eliminated the grand nemesis: excess humanity. What happens thereafter will be none of our concern, as we will likely all have passed into the Void by then... Though it is briefly entertaining to muse about the possibilities. My suspicion is that Theye will be unable to break the ancient habits and will eventually turn on each other, especially if they are indeed as atheistic as they appear to fashion themselves to the world. At that point, the remnant of civilization collapses into itself and perhaps humanity begins again... or not. I may be mistaken there, but having themselves been marinating in their own psychological poisons with the rest, Theye may prove less able to break with habit than they had estimated. And being human, the chances of Themme falling into the same old rut as their forebears is not as far-fetched as some might deem.

In the face of all that, I say press on regardless, and may St. Jude show some pity, for nothing more piteous is there than a hopeless cause.

 

[osan]

PS: I really must repeat my emphasis on the fact that I agree with many of the ideas and assertions in the film. In the opening scene, Dr. Harding walks in on a pensive John Cabal (notice the name)...

"what's all this fuss about in the papers tonight, Mr. Cabal?"

"Wars and rumors of wars..."

"Crying wolf?"

"Some day a wolf will come. These fools are capable of anything."

Could any statement about the political class be more true?

Then shortly thereafter: "my God if war gets loose again..."

Would anyone with a lick of sense disagree with this?

But war has been Their means of reducing humanity to the point of relinquishment. And so in the wake shall come the salvage, but no salvation.

The future is indeed grim. If God has any hand in this, he'd better get his ass in gear if we are not to be relegated to the dust of death before our times, or to an existence unworthy of the moniker of "life".

 

[Firestarter]

PS: I really must repeat my emphasis on the fact that I agree with many of the ideas and assertions in the film. In the opening scene, Dr. Harding walks in on a pensive John Cabal (notice the name)...

I'm surprised that you agree with much of the movie (which I haven't seen and don't intend to).
According to some "conspiracy theorists" Wells outlined a blueprint of a socialist one world government, for which WW II HAD to be started.

.

Things To Come was indeed a globalist message to the world from 1936, clarioning its intent to every soul on the planet. If one looks at the events of the intervening 86 years, it appears that they mesh with those depicted in the film with some precision that bears our attention, including the good intentions. It was not just a clarion of intent, but a message of strength and support to those who were in on the deal. Consider Marshal McLuhan's famous quip, "the medium is the message." When the members of your cadre go to the theater and see the message...

According to Wiki (about the movie)...

H. G. Wells conceived his treatment as "a new story" meant to display the "social and political forces and possibilities" that he had outlined in his 1933 book The Shape of Things to Come

.
I've previously posted about H.G. Wells - "The Shape of Things to Come" (1933)...

Wells described in Book 2, Chapter 5 “THE FADING VISION OF A WORLD PAX: JAPAN REVERTS TO WARFARE”:
1) a war in Asia;
2) Japan would invade China;
3) the US army would fight against Japan.

And in Book 2, Chapter 9 “THE LAST WAR CYCLONE, 1940-50”:
4) in Europe the war between Nazi Germany and Poland would start in January 1940 (instead of September 1939);
5) with on one side (the Axis) Germany, Austria and fascist Italy fighting.

So it looks like they simply used Wells' scenario (mixed with some Napoleon).
In an earlier book, The world set free, Wells "predicted" a World War that would be fought with atomic bombs to install a One World Government (kind of like the UN): https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5517#p5517

 

[osan]

I'm surprised that you agree with much of the movie (which I haven't seen and don't intend to).
According to some "conspiracy theorists" Wells outlined a blueprint of a socialist one world government, for which WW II HAD to be started.

What's to disagree with? Would you prefer war or peace? In vacuo, I prefer peace. Sadly, Theye who are the purveyors of war now for centuries, allow peace only on their terms. So in the real world, make mine war if that is the only way to retain freedom.

You should see the film. It is worth watching. Besides, how can you be surprised with my agreement if you've not seen it?

.

According to Wiki (about the movie)...

I've often wondered about the book. I downloaded it from Gutenberg long ago and just could not get past the first few pages. It was so tedious, and I am the world's worst reader. It takes me forever to get through even a single page at times and I often have to go several times over the same one to extract meaning. I suck at reading... which is ironic for an engineer, but there you have me. The book and movie seem utterly alien to each other, which is why I wonder whether what I downloaded was the right tome.

The tenets of TTC sound nice, again in vacuo. In the real world, they fail utterly.

 

[osan]

OK - I think I finally got my hands on a proper copy of Shape of Things to Come. Interesting ideas therein, yet Wells makes the same grave errors every other collectivist/globalist appears to make, and there are several. Firstly, they assume the clean hands of those in central control, vis-à-vis the actual, filth-tainted hands of people who gain seats of power. Secondly, he assumes that the elimination of sovereign "governments" will concomitantly eliminate "nationalism", which is just another way of saying that it would eliminate human nature. FAIL.

There is nothing to suggest that placing the right goals into the hands of all men and allowing them to work things out amongst themselves in liberty would face lesser prospects of success, than by imposing those notions upon the world by a central power. Indeed, the likelihood is far better for success in the hands of more creative imaginations, than in fewer. Furthermore, the fostering and reinforcement of the principles of proper human relations would go long ways as countervailing forces to the usual corruptions and their consequent bad behaviors.

Wells had many things right, but also many very central and essential ideas bass-ackwards wrong. It is interesting to see how one's wanting something too much can lead them to the worst of conclusions. I will continue reading, even though my eyeballs feel like they will explode any minute now...

 

[osan]

Some interesting bits:

That belief in some underlying benevolence in uncontrolled events was a common error, one might almost say THE common error, of the time.

Here Wells advances the clapped out notion that seminal events/developments must be controlled by the wise overlords because the seeley little people are incapable of controlling themselves in the wakes of such events and the changes that those occurrences bring, the implication there being new inventions, for example. This is utter FAIL in that he assumes that those wise men actually exist. They do not, as such. But imbue people with a broadly held sense of the Sacred, and all good things as the average condition become possible. Wells' heart seems in the right place, but his conclusions here are not sound, IMO.

It affected every school of thought. In exactly the same fashion the followers of Marx (before the invigorating advent of Lenin and the Bolshevist reconstruction of Communism) regarded their dream of world communism as inevitable, and the disciples of Herbert Spencer found a benevolent Providence in "free competition". "Trust Evolution", said the extreme Socialist and the extreme Individualist, as piously as the Christians put their trust in God. It was the Bolshevik movement in the twentieth century which put will into Communism. The thought of the nineteenth century revolutionary and reactionary alike was saturated with that confident irresponsible laziness. As Professor K. Chandra Sen has remarked, hope in the Victorian period was not a stimulant but an opiate.

I must credit Wells for honesty here. He seems not to have kowtowed to the "left", which I find unusual... but it somewhat reinforces my suspicion that Theye are well beyond the petty philosophies that have contaminated the minds of the world majority. Oh to be a fly on Theire wall...

We who live in a disciplined order...

Back to error, assuming the super-human quality of the "elite". Be still my rolling eyes.

The great processes of mechanical invention, which have been described in our general account of the release of experimental science from deductive intellectualism, were increasing the power and range of every operating material force quite irrespective of its fitness or unfitness for the new occasions of mankind. With an equal impartiality they were bringing world-wide understanding and world-wide massacre into the range of human possibility.

This is a grand and deep truth to which I myself have made mention here in the past - how rapidly we have advanced in some ways without making the least headway in others. It is this precise reality that leads men like Wells to affect the kamikaze death-grip reaction of stern authoritarianism out of the sheer terror that this truth rightfully inspires. Ill-bred toddlers with nuclear weapons should give even the bravest and most devil-may-care among us great pause. Consider the idiot Biden with one hand on his tiny willie, the other on the football. Yikes, indeed.

And yet, that visceral reflex to become the wise tyrant is precisely the last thing that people need, for they instinctively react against such things, not to mention the fact that those approaches have thousands of years of history that demonstrate how they do not work, save perhaps in very short terms.

It was through no fault of these inventors and investigators that the new opportunities they created were misused.

Bingo, and give the man a cigar. But the misuse was mostly at the hands of the very sorts he would have seen put into central control of the entire planet.

What could possibly go wrong?

That was outside their range.

As is always the case. The man who invented the first hammer may well have failed to see the future use as a means of stoving in the skulls of a man's victims. All swords have at least two edges.

They had as yet no common culture of their own

I agree with this strongly, but the question arises: what is that common culture? For me, it is the principles of proper human relations. Teach this to people and let them live it, and the world's problems would all but disappear along very broad and long pathways.

Nor, since each worked in his own field, were they responsible for the fragmentary irregularity of their discoveries. Biological and especially social invention were lagging far behind the practical advances of the exacter, simpler sciences. Their application was more difficult; the matters they affected were so much more deeply embedded in ordinary use and wont, variation was more intimate, novelties could not be inserted with the same freedom. It was easy to supplant the coach and horses on the macadamized road by the steam-engine or the railway, because it was not necessary to do anything to the road or the coach and horses to bring about the change. They were just left alone to run themselves out as the railroad (and later the automobile on the rubber-glass track) superseded them. But men cannot set up new social institutions, new social and political and industrial relationships, side by side with the old in that fashion. It must be an altogether tougher and slower job. It is a question not of ousting but of reconstruction. The old must be converted into the new without ceasing for a moment to be a going concern. The over-running of the biologically old by the mechanically new, due to these differences in timing, was inevitable, and it reached its maximum in the twentieth century.

This is really quite brilliant, especially for 1933 where he had no benefit of hindsight. His imagination was on the money in this, and yet he thus far misses one of the central notions and problems that we also saw with the Roman church against which he holds obvious complaint. There has been, and remains, the ongoing OPPORTUNITY to teach the seeley masses the right ways of thinking, and yet neither have Theye done so in modern times any more than did the Roman church in eras past. The Roman church did, in fact, endeavor to keep the vulgar people as ignorant and "common" as possible... as dirt itself. Similarly have Theye, for all their talk of awakening the masses, not just failed to bring to common light the principles of proper human relations, they have actively endeavored to turn the mind of the common man to utter mush. This fact alone impeaches Themme utterly, for regardless of how noble their goals may in fact be for the "edification" of humanity, it is clear that it is to be done on Theire terms and with Themme in complete charge. There are several layers to this that I can readily see, but will not into here as it's essentially irrelevant and I have a migraine coming on.

It is quite disingenuous to my eyes to see people speaking of such new orders of utopian paradise... so long as it's THEIR version with THEM in charge. There is no freedom there, despite the common talk of it. It is an abridged and narrowly circumscribed freedom that betrays, insults, and besmirches actual freedom. Wells writes about goals being "too big/grand", and yet his apparent vision is the product of admitting defeat in the face of such a large endeavor. And so the grand vision of the great global community is once again tainted with the hand of the tyrant that shows its true opinion of mean humanity by retaining himself as effective-god over the little people. Pardon my Frog, but fuck that noise.

I, too, have a grand and global vision, but it is one of education and freedom, rather than the destructive neurosis of central, global micromanaging tyrants whose terror of the common man is such that he'd rather enact genocide than cede power to those whom he deems lesser than himself.

Imagine teaching people to live without gratuitous fear; to respect themselves and by extension their fellows; to understand the value of both individual rights and that of consenting cooperation, what I call "superorganization". Imagine people free to engage in commerce as they may find amenable between voluntary parties. Imagine there being no safety nets such that people are given every reason to think before they make significant moves that might result in bad things happening. The average man is a functional idiot today only because the various institutions not only tolerate it, but openly foster it. Remove those poisonous elements and people will come to proper sense in no time at all. And I say bring back the art of dueling for those cases where one man flings his feces just a little too far for tolerance by others, wherein he either admits his error and makes amends, or faces literal, physical death as a consequence of his ill tempered acts. I am dead-serious when I say that the elimination of dueling was one of the worst tyrannies ever foisted upon the world, for the prospects kept people polite, for the most part.

The potentials of my world outstrip anything the globalist foobs may have vomited forth from Theire imaginations... unless of course they came to my precise solutions, but that seems not to be the case, given current realities and the trends as we so readily see them.

To my view, the apparent globalist solution represents a grand failure in creative thought, which is what leaves me to suspect that Theye are not quite benevolent.

Interesting times.

 

[osan]

From the film, another interesting truth with which I fully agree:

"You haven't got things right, Passworthy. Our fathers and our fathers' fathers cleaned up the old order of things because it killed children. It killed those who were unprepared for death. Because it tormented people in vain. Because it outraged human pride and dignity. Because it was an ugly spectacle of waste."

Here he is describing the sins of every tyrant since we began writing things down, and it is correct to rail and act against them. Which man, regardless of title and his fancy hat, holds innate authority to commit such acts; to level entire cities and murdering those residing therein? And yet, here we remain in feces up to our necks. One needs to ask the question: How, with all the veritable genius of the human world, can it be that no viable solutions have arisen to the attention of humanity? How is this even remotely possible? I contend that it is not, which leaves but one answer: suppression. And why? Because Theye do not want any solution that is truly equitable, but what would leave Themme out in the cold in terms of political power. Theye want it all and the rest can screw off.

I am 100% in favor of war... so long as every single last soul involved has explicitly consented to participation. In "The Overlords of War", the author (Klein) described an entire planet that was reserved for parties choosing to war with each other. There were no accidental, innocent victims because the home worlds of the warring parties were not subjected to the criminal outrages of such conflicts. All who wished to war were welcome to do so, as long as not even a single innocent individual was forced to participate, or was made victim. And for the record, I find there to be nothing more cynical and deserving of a good beating with a soft iron wire whip than the man who openly conends that there is no such thing as an "innocent" human being. When I hear such rubbish, it comes home to me just how fortunate such corrupted imbeciles are, that "law" protects them from the wild whipping they so richly earn when they run their yaps in that manner. Otherwise, I'd be a force striking terror in the hearts and souls of the intolerably stupid and corrupt... and I would not be alone.

But here we stand, humanity as an out-of-control train running amok down the rails toward a trestle that is collapsed into a chasm thousands of feet deep.

Consider this monkey pox development. As I recall, I predicted the possibility that a series of pathogens would make their debuts in succession after the appearance of covid in 2019. No sooner do we get a halting green light, than does this monkey pox suddenly appear in the wings. That is beginning to smell like a possible pattern. May I prove the village idiot, but my suspicion is that this may be similarly blown out of proportion in some manner such that it gets the common man rolling his eyes. If this comes to pass, and let us hope it does not, then peel your eyes for yet another, and perhaps even another or two, each with the same treatment; each met with the growing dismissal of the populace as all trust in "government" vanishes. It would be at that point I would expect Themme to sock it to us with the real pathogen, fully engineered to have long latency/incubation, sudden onset of symptoms, and the characteristic that once symptoms manifest, it is too late to save the victim.

Combine that with an absolutely Orwellian response policy toward even the least release of unapproved information regarding the outbreak, where the sources disappear, only to become part of someone's bag of dog food, and Theye would have their Final Solution. If in a month or three, 80% of the global population were dead, there would be no effective response possible against such tactics. The remaining survivors will have been blitzkrieged into utter submission. Any stragglers clinging to the outmoded notions of being free would either be actively hunted, or simply left to die from inevitable exposure to the bug. Either way, the compliant survivors, being compliant, would most likely cheer the elimination of the trouble-makers. At worst, they'd respond in blasé fashion to the last murder spree. The wise tyrant would have on hand his miracle "vaccine" for all who got on bended knee, kissed the ring†, and explicitly waived for all time every claim they ever held, as well as every future claim they might conceive to make. They would concede their status as chattel of the "state", of this I hold slim doubt.

It is interesting to observe and note the progression... utter destruction of most, ostensibly in order to save the species/planet, and then to build the new order from the ashes where everyone who was not murdered get to be happy, happy, happy. Once again, I find this approach representative of a monumental failure of creative thought. I find it a repulsively disingenuous tack to justify mass murder pursuant to a purportedly noble, big-picture goal that just happens to ever so coincidentally leave Themme in charge of everything and effectively WITH everything the world has to offer. Huh... funny, that.

So at the end of it, the globalist vision appears a hackneyed view of how to correct a problem that has not even been established as fact, but only assumed. I find it all just a little too convenient to accept all of it as innocent ignorance, accident, misplaced good intention, miscalculation, what have you. I think this is a cadre of mad bastards who want the world for themselves, and have convinced themselves that the baloney Theye've peddled to the world is actually true in order to justify in their thoughts and the courses of action that they have seemingly chosen for the world, which currently appears to be leaning toward a true genocide. This self-delusion is necessary because even those corrupt filth understand that what Theye are doing is felonious to so grave an extent that even those scurrilous vermin might not be able to carry it forward without a justification better than "because we want to".

We are in the hands of devils and it surely feels as if something big is in the works.

Press on, no matter how hopeless, for there are fates far worse than death.

† I have long suspected that the act of kissing the ring of an authority has been symbolic of kissing his anus. What greater show of submission and self-degradation/deprecation could one manifest, than to smooch someone else's krackenhole in this manner? And just to be clear, it ain't the same as visiting that spot on your girlfriend. ARF ARF ARF...

 

[Firestarter]

Here Wells advances the clapped out notion that seminal events/developments must be controlled by the wise overlords because the seeley little people are incapable of controlling themselves in the wakes of such events and the changes that those occurrences bring, the implication there being new inventions, for example. This is utter FAIL in that he assumes that those wise men actually exist.

I conclude that technocracy is both a good explanation for many of the most important world events of the last 90 years or so and the writings of HG Wells.
Because this type of orchestrating wars (and other events) was nothing new in the 1910s (when HG Wells started writing about how to implement the one world dictatorship), we cannot really give him credit (or blame) for that. This has been done for centuries (even before Napoleon was financed from Amsterdam and London to wage war on Europe).


.

This is really quite brilliant, especially for 1933 where he had no benefit of hindsight. His imagination was on the money in this, and yet he thus far misses one of the central notions and problems that we also saw with the Roman church against which he holds obvious complaint.

I consider Wells more of psychopath helping his masters to enslave the masses for centuries than "brilliant".


.

Press on, no matter how hopeless, for there are fates far worse than death.

The problem is however that there isn't much you can really do about the tyranny as an individual, while all groups (preaching revolution) are controlled/inflitrated by the authorities. But ultimately if millions of people do "little" things as a personal protest against the technocratical tyranny, the slavery would end (or wouldn't be as bad as it is right now).

 

[osan]

I consider Wells more of psychopath helping his masters to enslave the masses for centuries than "brilliant".

Oh, it's plenty brilliant. Credit where due. Hitler was brilliant in many ways, and an oaf in many others. None of that has anything to do with the moral value he represented, which is something his greatest detractors are unwilling to acknowledge. For them, everything he did was wrong, third-rate, and so on... as if posthumous hurls of invective make the least difference to whatever remains of the man.

Abandonment of objectivity in the face of one's emotions running wild is by no means a sound approach to such highly charged matters.

The problem is however that there isn't much you can really do about the tyranny as an individual,

That is mostly the case. Superorganisms are very difficult to kill. Look at the troubles we had dispatching the Japs and Germans. They posed very tough nuts.

But ultimately if millions of people do "little" things as a personal protest against the technocratical tyranny, the slavery would end (or wouldn't be as bad as it is right now).

That may or may not be the case today. Twenty or thirty years ago, I would have agreed. Today... I'm not so certain. Theye have lots of tech behind them, much of it very dangerous. If people were to start in on a campaign of mass-disobedience, I suspect that Theye would simply introduce yet another pathogen into the environment. But under those circumstances, I'm thinking Theye'd release something that would stop us dead in our tracks. The corner in which we now find ourselves is a position most unenviable.

 

[Firestarter]

James Corbett interviews Iain Davis on the New World Order enabled by technocracy.

https://www.corbettreport.com/davis-newworldorder/

 

[Firestarter]

In 2013, a European Union briefing referred to the European Commission as a "technocratic authority" with "legislative monopoly" over EU lawmaking.

According to Martin Selmayr:

The Commission has always been a body between technocracy and politics. Since the beginning, there were the federalists who wanted the Commission to turn into a European government and the sovereignists, who wanted to keep the Commission as a technocratic organisation. Many of the debates today go back to this tension.

https://geopolitique.eu/en/2021/04/...egration-in-conversation-with-martin-selmayr/

 

[Firestarter]

It certainly is strange that governments worldwide have been taking away the last of our freedoms to implement the technocratic Great Reset, after the WHO (with only an advisory role) declared a "pandemic" in March 2020...
.

Technocratic legitimacy and political legitimacy seem to be intertwined in the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. For the world’s leading authority over global health issues, the importance of the WHO’s technocratic legitimacy is that “decision-makers consider the scientific nature of some problems to be beyond” political discussions. But if a decision that is supposed to be grounded in scientific evidence is susceptible to political pressure, then the expert-based legitimacy would necessarily be discounted.

https://www.californialawreview.org/weakened-authority-who/

 

[Firestarter]

At the WEF they're talking about introducing the technocratic carbon footprint tracker.
According to the Davos crowd, the pain the poor suffer from inflation is "worth it"...
Senator Rand Paul argues that there is something wrong with these "elitists" flying to Davos in their private jets while the plebs have to worry about their carbon footprint.



WEF overlord Klaus Schwab warned (or boasted?) at the opening of the 2022 annual WEF meeting (he also talked millions of people dying from hunger).

Our global economy is out of balance. There is too much debt, too much inflation, too much inequality, and not enough growth. Particularly worrisome, is that ever-larger parts of the global population are confronted with existential choices, or even fall back into extreme poverty or hunger. Those issues must be confronted in Davos and the global food crisis in particular needs all our immediate attention.

.
Giving "attention" to the "global food crisis" could very well mean exploit the situation (never let a good crisis go to waste) to implement the green climate crisis program...
But what if those "stakeholders" decide that they don't mind poor people suffering, while working together?!?
.

A Forum partner is asked to value the contributions not just of shareholders, but of all those other stakeholders who are essential for business to succeed. As I wrote in my book Stakeholder Capitalism, Davos stands for a global economy that works for prosperity, people, and the planet.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022...-trust-based-and-action-oriented-cooperation/

 

[Firestarter]

The following paper is an interesting discussion on technocracy (as opposed to democracy) during the plandemic...

One of the most prevalent misunderstandings is considering technocracy in opposition to politics: a widespread attitude initially supported by Habermas (1971) and other scholars such as Putnam (1977), Fischer (1990) and Esmark (2017). According to Habermas, the Second World War period saw a “new or second phase in the rationalization process” which Max Weber had already comprehended as the basis for bureaucratic domination, defined by the “scientization of politics”. In this technocratic model, the relationship between the professional expert and the politician appears to have effectively “reversed itself”, making the latter «a mere agent of a scientific intelligentsia, which, in concrete circumstances, elaborates the objective implications and requirements of available techniques and resources as well as optimal strategies and rules of control» (Habermas, 1971, p. 63).
(...)

At the top level, starting with the World Health Organization (WHO), such structures have just had an advisory role: “suggesting” and “monitoring”, rather than deciding, are their responsibilities. Different from structures like the ECB, they are weak technocratic institutions, depending on politics and its discretionary power. Nevertheless, their role has been fundamental in pushing governments towards stronger containment measures, including lockdown strategies and, at the same time, justifying them to the public on behalf of the science community.
(...)

If we consider the whole complex of socio-political effects emerging due to the lockdown situation and, in general, the way of managing the struggle against the virus, it is possible to identify some similarities between the traditional police state and current political configuration; particularly the relationship between the state and its citizens:
1. The re-organisation of the whole state activity towards the aim of protecting citizens and to directly assure their well-being,
2. The need to regulate every aspect of social life, including social, informal relationships,
3. The reduction of many civil rights, particularly the right of freedom of movement,
4. The need for discipline and self-discipline as well as a more cogent informal social control to implement the rule of law as well as to protect public and individual health,
5. A massive use of law enforcement agencies to control citizens’ behaviour.

http://rtsa.eu/RTSA_2_2020_Antonelli.pdf
(https://archive.ph/kb6SC)