Babylon Rising – part 7  – The Biblical Perspective

Babylon Rising – part 6b Transhumanism and A.I

Babylon Rising – part 6b Transhumanism and A.I

 

Transhumanism, Artificial Intelligence and Gene Editing

Part 6b of 7

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

2Thessalonians 2:3-4

Utilising science and technological discoveries for the benefit of man is nothing new. For decades now mankind has benefitted from technological advances in the medical fields with things like hearing aids, artificial limbs, heart pacemakers and the list goes on. The problem though is that science and technology are advancing so rapidly that mankind is about to cross the line into an age of self-destruction. Most people probably believe that the advances in science as it relates to transhumanism will benefit all of mankind.

Are we moving towards a perfect ‘science-fiction’ world where in excess of seven billion people on planet earth will reap the rewards of this technological progress? I do not believe so. I believe that this progress will be reserved for the benefit of an elite minority – those who are wealthy enough to secure the benefit (if you are someone who believes this direction of progress to be beneficial that is).

It is my belief that in the very near future the scientific and technological advancements will be turned on the masses of the world as a weapon which will serve to rid the planet of the perceived useless eaters i.e. those who only consume and destroy. This is how I interpret the minds of the ‘globalist elite’ anyway. If you do not see this attitude manifesting in the world today then you have not been paying attention. The Georgia Guidestones are not some random joke or an idle threat made by a single madman. They reflect a message to mankind and represeent the will of the ‘elite’.

The science of gene editing is progressing at a tremendous pace and is probably nearing the point where there will be very little that science can not do in terms of creating customised human beings. This is a very scary science – for believers that is.

In the latter part of this post, you will find information pertaining to eugenics i.e. population control. Eugenics will not only determine the quality of the human gene pool in the near future but will also be used to reduce and limit the number of humans who inhabit the earth. Some may believe that the goal of eugenics is to create a superior race of humans. This may be true but one must understand that the goal is also to arrive at a limited number of superior humans – a drastically reduced human population with a remaining superior, elite race.

Consider these quotes:

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau

“The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” – Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”  – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96

Are these quotes just the random mumblings of a few, radical lunatics?

In my opinion, there are so many moral, ethical and Biblical reasons to resist this scientific ‘transhumanist’ progression.

The ungodly, secular masses of the world’s population are excited about the prospects of transhumanism and the reported future benefits of artificial intelligence and ‘super-humans’. Those who are familiar with Bible Prophecy and have some insight into the Devine will of our Almighty Creator will however hold to a very different view.

A world without the ‘God of Creation’ is a very dangerous place to be. A world in which I want no part other than to fulfill the purpose for which I was created and placed here for such a time as this.

There is a large amount of content in this post. Probably far too much to digest. Please make every effort though to work your way through it and follow through with your own additional research into the topics. There is tremendous amount of information online to further your understanding.

Are humans on the verge of becoming a sub-species?

Will there be a future ‘genetic upper class’ established through advanced scientific discovery and technology?

Bertrand Russel says in “The Impact of Science on Society” (1953) on pages 49-50 that,

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

 

“The GenRich–who account for 10 percent of the American population–all carry synthetic genes. Genes that were created in the laboratory….The GenRich are a modern-day hereditary class of genetic aristocrats….All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class.”

A future scenario in which humanity splits into two distinct classes, the “GenRich” and the “GenPoor.”

Lee Silver from his book “Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World”, 

What is Transhumanism?

Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase.

Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades.

Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.

– Max More (1990)

Humanity+ formally defines it based on Max More’s original definition as follows:

The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.
Transhumanism can be viewed as an extension of humanism, from which it is partially derived. Humanists believe that humans matter, that individuals matter. We might not be perfect, but we can make things better by promoting rational thinking, freedom, tolerance, democracy, and concern for our fellow human beings. Transhumanists agree with this but also emphasize what we have the potential to become. Just as we use rational means to improve the human condition and the external world, we can also use such means to improve ourselves, the human organism. In doing so, we are not limited to traditional humanistic methods, such as education and cultural development. We can also use technological means that will eventually enable us to move beyond what some would think of as “human”.

https://whatistranshumanism.org

Transhumanism is a philosophical movement that advocates for the transformation of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology.[1][2]

Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations as well as the ethical[3] limitations of using such technologies.[4] The most common transhumanist thesis is that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into different beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the current condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings.[2]

The contemporary meaning of the term “transhumanism” was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, a man who changed his name to FM-2030. In the 1960s, he taught “new concepts of the human” at The New School when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and worldviews “transitional” to posthumanity as “transhuman”.[5] The assertion would lay the intellectual groundwork for the British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futuristphilosophy in 1990, and organizing in California an intelligentsia that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.[5][6][7]

Influenced by seminal works of science fiction, the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives, including philosophy and religion.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

“It is their belief that we can and should eradicate ageing as a cause of death; that we can and should use technology to augment our bodies and our minds; that we can and should merge with machines, remaking ourselves, finally, in the image of our own higher ideals.”

Mark O’Connell from his book To Be a Machine

Transhumanism: Could we live forever?

BBC News

The Victoria Derbyshire programme’s Benjamin Zand goes on the search for immortality and meets the people who think we could live forever. This film is part of BBC’s ‘Intelligent Machines Week’

Transhumanism and You

Transhumanism promises us a fantastic future in which humans overcome disease, aging, and even death. It just requires us to take the final step and merge fully with machines. But its secret past in crypto-eugenics reveals a darker future, one in which a GenRich elite rule over the GenPoor masses. Are you ready to give up your humanity?

Dr Carrie Madej Human 2.0

Dr Carrie Madej warns about transhumanism and untested DNA vaccines. Pentagon, DARPA and European Human Brain Project advisor Dr. James Giordano discusses nano-robotic brain to computer interface and electro-magnetic manipulation of human neural circuitry. In 1991 the U.S. govt issued a patent for a device capable of manipulating brainwaves through electro-magnetic frequencies for the purpose of altering a persons state of consciousness. U.S. Patent # 5356368.

DNA Frequency Bio-weapon Links Targeted Individuals to Artificial Intelligence

The Internet of Living Things. Making humans an extension of the internet but with A.I. in control, not the human.

No death and an enhanced life:

Is the future transhuman?

The aims of the transhumanist movement are summed up by Mark O’Connell in his book To Be a Machine, which last week won the Wellcome Book prize. “It is their belief that we can and should eradicate ageing as a cause of death; that we can and should use technology to augment our bodies and our minds; that we can and should merge with machines, remaking ourselves, finally, in the image of our own higher ideals.”

The idea of technologically enhancing our bodies is not new. But the extent to which transhumanists take the concept is. In the past, we made devices such as wooden legs, hearing aids, spectacles and false teeth. In future, we might use implants to augment our senses so we can detect infrared or ultraviolet radiation directly or boost our cognitive processes by connecting ourselves to memory chips. Ultimately, by merging man and machine, science will produce humans who have vastly increased intelligence, strength, and lifespans; a near embodiment of gods.

Read the full story: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/06/no-death-and-an-enhanced-life-is-the-future-transhuman

The Age of Artificial Intelligence

The Age of A.I. is a 8 part documentary series hosted by Robert Downey Jr. covering the ways Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Neural Networks will change the world.

The Age of A.I.

How Far is Too Far? | The Age of A.I.

Can A.I. make music? Can it feel excitement and fear? Is it alive? Will.i.am and Mark Sagar push the limits of what a machine can do. How far is too far, and how much further can we go?

Healed through A.I. | The Age of A.I.

The human body is not infallible, but through the wonders of A.I. research scientists are finding ways to address those imperfections. A.I. has the potential to heal, enhance and make up for the things our bodies lack.

Using A.I. to build a better human | The Age of A.I.

Through life changing accidents, and data minded through NASCAR, human beings are finding ways to rebuild one another so that we are better, faster, and stronger than ever before and all with the help of A.I.. Once nothing more than the stuff of comic books and TV shows, we truly have the technology to become modern superheroes.

Saving the world one algorithm at a time | The Age of A.I.

Many say that human beings have destroyed our planet. Because of this these people are endeavoring to save it through the help of artificial intelligence. Famine, animal extinction, and war may all be preventable one day with the help of technology.

Gene Editing

Genome Engineering and the CRISPR Revolution

It has become apparent to me, following my research into the subject, that gene editing is not a new scientific discovery. In fact, gene editing has been in existence for a few decades already and we should all be familiar with GM (genetically modified) food – or GMO (genetically modified organism). It was however the discovery of CRISPR in 2012 that provided the giant leap in understanding and potential for gene editing or gene surgery as I have heard it called.

Geneticist Jennifer Doudna was one of the co-founders of CRISPR-Cas9.

‘The tool allows scientists to make precise edits to DNA strands, which could lead to treatments for genetic diseases … but could also be used to create so-called “designer babies.”

Scientists battle for gene-editing patent
– Argument over who invented CRISPR-Cas9 method of editing genes heads to US Patent & Trademark Office –

The revolutionary gene-editing technique known as CRISPR, discussed recently in The New Economy, is thought to be potentially worth billions of dollars. Now a dispute has broken out between two sets of researchers over who was first to make the break-through with the technology that has been described as genetic scissors.

The University of California has contacted the US Patent & Trademark Office about a number of patents that were last year awarded to the Massachusetts-based MIT/Harvard Broad Institute, which it claims belong to them. It is likely that regulators will study laboratory notebooks in an effort to determine who uncovered the technology first, with potentially huge financial implications the result.

According to MIT Technology Review, CRISPR-Cas9 was first described in public by University of California biologist Jennifer Doudna and French biologist Emmanuelle Charpentier. However, MIT/Harvard Broad Institute’s Feng Zhang won a patent for the technology last year because of notebooks he submitted that he claimed proved he invented it.

Speaking to MIT Technology Review, Greg Ahoronian, director of the Centre for Global Patent Quality, said that the stakes were high for such a revolutionary technology. “Expect this battle to be very expensive, very contentious, given the stakes involved. Given the stakes with CRISPR, I can see many hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent fighting this battle.”

The technology has become hugely anticipated by the healthcare industry, with many believing it could transform the way many diseases and conditions are treated. Diseases that include cancer, diabetes, and heart disease could be treated through genetic editing, with much more tailored and specific medicines being offered to patients.

CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), has seen leading healthcare companies like AstraZeneneca invest huge amounts into furthering research earlier this year, while Swiss-based pharmaceutical firm Novartis also announced funding for two US biotechnology firms that are developing the technology. (https://www.theneweconomy.com/technology/scientists-battle-for-gene-editing-patent)

I have watched many interviews with Jennifer Doudna and I must say that she tends to steer away from discussing the possible negatives associated with gene editing and rather mentions the urgent need for guidelines and control measures. I have included some interviews below for your interest. There is a large number of resources and literature available on this subject online. What I have included below are some that I believe should provide an introductory framework.

It is clear to me that since the discovery of CRISPR in 2012 giant leaps of progress have been made in the field of gene editing. So much so that one scientist suggested in an interview that one would need to read at least sixty case documents a week to be able to stay abreast of developments.

For most people, gene editing may appear to be very exciting especially in terms of disease prevention and cure. Unfortunately, I tend to see the huge risks and the ‘ungodliness’ involved with this science. My resistance to this science is driven by my Biblical understanding and perspective – especially considering end-time prophetic warnings.

I am clearly not alone with my concerns on this science. Imagine this technology in the hands of the immoral and unethical practitioners. This science will undoubtedly be an enormous money-spinner. Look at what takes place in the narcotics underworld and the backstreet abortion clinics. In my opinion gene editing is going to present more problems than positives in the near future.

 

The U.S. Intelligence has even gone so far as to include ‘gene editing’ onto the list of threats posed by ‘weapons of mass destruction and proliferation’:

 

……………………..

 Top U.S. Intelligence Official Calls Gene Editing a WMD Threat

Easy to use. Hard to control. The intelligence community now sees CRISPR as a threat to national safety.

Antonio Regalado  February 9, 2016

Genome editing is a weapon of mass destruction.

That’s according to James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, who on Tuesday, in the annual worldwide threat assessment report of the U.S. intelligence community, added gene editing to a list of threats posed by “weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.”

Gene editing refers to several novel ways to alter the DNA inside living cells. The most popular method, CRISPR, has been revolutionizing scientific research, leading to novel animals and crops, and is likely to power a new generation of gene treatments for serious diseases (see “Everything You Need to Know About CRISPR’s Monster Year”).

It is gene editing’s relative ease of use that worries the U.S. intelligence community, according to the assessment. “Given the broad distribution, low cost, and accelerated pace of development of this dual-use technology, its deliberate or unintentional misuse might lead to far-reaching economic and national security implications,” the report said.

The choice by the U.S. spy chief to call out gene editing as a potential weapon of mass destruction, or WMD, surprised some experts. It was the only biotechnology appearing in a tally of six more conventional threats, like North Korea’s suspected nuclear detonation on January 6, Syria’s undeclared chemical weapons, and new Russian cruise missiles that might violate an international treaty.

The report is an unclassified version of the “collective insights” of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and half a dozen other U.S. spy and fact-gathering operations.

Although the report doesn’t mention CRISPR by name, Clapper clearly had the newest and the most versatile of the gene-editing systems in mind. The CRISPR technique’s low cost and relative ease of use—the basic ingredients can be bought online for $60—seems to have spooked intelligence agencies.

“Research in genome editing conducted by countries with different regulatory or ethical standards than those of Western countries probably increases the risk of the creation of potentially harmful biological agents or products,” the report said.

The concern is that biotechnology is a “dual use” technology—meaning normal scientific developments could also be harnessed as weapons. The report noted that new discoveries “move easily in the globalized economy, as do personnel with the scientific expertise to design and use them.”

Clapper didn’t lay out any particular bioweapons scenarios, but scientists have previously speculated about whether CRISPR could be used to make “killer mosquitoes,” plagues that wipe out staple crops, or even a virus that snips at people’s DNA.

“Biotechnology, more than any other domain, has great potential for human good, but also has the possibility to be misused,” says Daniel Gerstein, a senior policy analyst at RAND and a former under secretary at the Department of Homeland Defense. “We are worried about people developing some sort of pathogen with robust capabilities, but we are also concerned about the chance of misutilization. We could have an accident occur with gene editing that is catastrophic, since the genome is the very essence of life.”

Piers Millet, an expert on bioweapons at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., says Clapper’s singling out of gene editing on the WMD list was “a surprise,” since making a bioweapon—say, an extra-virulent form of anthrax—still requires mastery of a “wide raft of technologies.”

Development of bioweapons is banned by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, a Cold War–era treaty that outlawed biological warfare programs. The U.S., China, Russia, and 172 other countries have signed it. Millet says that experts who met in Warsaw last September to discuss the treaty felt a threat from terrorist groups was still remote, given the complexity of producing a bioweapon. Millet says the group concluded that “for the foreseeable future, such applications are only within the grasp of states.”

The intelligence assessment drew specific attention to the possibility of using CRISPR to edit the DNA of human embryos to produce genetic changes in the next generation of people—for example, to remove disease risks. It noted that fast advances in genome editing in 2015 compelled “groups of high-profile U.S. and European biologists to question unregulated editing of the human germ line (cells that are relevant for reproduction), which might create inheritable genetic changes.”

So far, the debate over changing the next generation’s genes has been mostly an ethical question, and the report didn’t say how such a development would be considered a WMD, although it’s possible to imagine a virus designed to kill or injure people by altering their genomes.

source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/02/09/71575/top-us-intelligence-official-calls-gene-editing-a-wmd-threat

You won’t be able to blame it on your genetics anymore: with CRISPR, it’s so easy to hacn into your DNA. CRISPR technology is our future, and experiments with DNA hacking are booming. CRISPR biotechnology is not science fiction anymore, it is our very near future. Would you hack and reprogram your own DNA with CRISPR? Breaking the code of life, hacking DNA at home. Welcome to the world of a new nature. We can now literally cut and paste DNA with the new CRISPR technology. There is a revolutionary development going on that will have major consequences for humans, plants and animals. The new biotechnology is here. ‘Bio is the New Digital’. We are able to accurately reprogram the genetic code of our body cells, embryos, bacteria, viruses and plants. With the CRISPR technology we can adjust the characteristics of each organism to our needs. This allows us to permanently ban diseases, improve our body conditions and adapt plants to our food needs. The special feature of CRISPR technology is that it is relatively simple. In the past year, the number of experiments and applications has exploded. Around the world, people have been tinkering with CRISPR: experimenting at home with the ‘Do it Yourself CRISPR kits’. Scientists call for new ethical frameworks. The demand for the (un)desirable so-called designer babies is imminent. Although this is not yet the case, we can put an end to hereditary diseases in the short term. We may also want to make bacteria that can eat oil or plastic, pigs in which human organs can grow or bring extinct animals back to life. It looks like science fiction but it is now closer to our reality than ever. (VPRO Documentary)

 

DNA Opening Pandora’s Box Documentary

Jim Watson was asked to give a tour of the future. He believes that DNA science should be used to change the human race. His views are both extraordinary and extremely controversial. Watson argues for a new kind of eugenics — where parents are allowed to choose the DNA of their children — to make them healthier, more intelligent, even better looking. His vision may be disagreeable, yet it’s a natural consequence of the decades of scientific exploration launched by his and Francis Crick’s discovery of the double helix. It’s worth considering what effect the advancements in genetic science may have on our future.

CRISPR Technology and Gene Drives

As you watch the following presentation imagine the potential impact on humanity of vaccines in the hands of deceitful and wicked  individuals who’s goal is to reduce the worlds population.

Gene editing can now change an entire species — forever

CRISPR gene drives allow scientists to change sequences of DNA and guarantee that the resulting edited genetic trait is inherited by future generations, opening up the possibility of altering entire species forever. More than anything, this technology has led to questions: How will this new power affect humanity? What are we going to use it to change? Are we gods now? Join journalist Jennifer Kahn as she ponders these questions and shares a potentially powerful application of gene drives: the development of disease-resistant mosquitoes that could knock out malaria and Zika.

How CRISPR lets us edit our DNA | Jennifer Doudna

Geneticist Jennifer Doudna co-invented a groundbreaking new technology for editing genes, called CRISPR-Cas9. The tool allows scientists to make precise edits to DNA strands, which could lead to treatments for genetic diseases … but could also be used to create so-called “designer babies.” Doudna reviews how CRISPR-Cas9 works — and asks the scientific community to pause and discuss the ethics of this new tool.

HARDtalk Jennifer Doudna

Sarah Montague speaks to biochemist Jennifer Doudna. Crispr-Cas9 is a gene editing tool that has been described as the greatest biological breakthrough in decades. The hopes that rest on it are immense: that it can be used to cure cancer and other intractable diseases, stop mosquitoes carrying malaria, create drought-resistant crops and food that does not rot – even that it can recreate extinct animals. What does Jennifer make of the breathtaking pace of innovation since her discovery and does she fear where it may lead?

Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever – CRISPR

Designer babies, the end of diseases, genetically modified humans that never age. Outrageous things that used to be science fiction are suddenly becoming reality. The only thing we know for sure is that things will change irreversibly.

Transhumanism or Eugenics?

Eugenics Moves to the Twenty-First Century

From the elimination of undesirables from the human race; mass culling in the name of saving the earth; to altering the genetic code of humanity with advanced technology; eugenics has moved into a new era.

Old-thinker news | August 27, 2007

By Daniel Taylor

This report is not meant to be a comprehensive history of eugenics. The initial article that I was going to write was less than half of what you will read here, but as I investigated this area I discovered how ignorant I was as to how expansive this topic is. Initially researching John D. Rockefeller, a Pandora’s box of information opened up, inevitably leading to the topic of this article. I hope that this information will help you come to a greater understanding of this subject, and to warn others of its grave dangers.

From the elimination of undesirables from the human race; mass culling in the name of saving the earth; to altering the genetic code of humanity with advanced technology: Eugenics has moved into a new era.

What is eugenics?

The word eugenics comes from the Greek words eus (good or well) and genēs (born) meaning “well born”. The American Heritage dictionary of the English language describes eugenics as, “The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.” Sir Francis Galton was the man who coined the term, and developed the first eugenic policies. Galton expressed distress at the lack of emphasis on the betterment of the human race during his time, comparing men and women of his day to “pariah dogs”. In 1864, Galton wrote in an article titled “Hereditary Character and Talent,” published in two parts in MacMillan’s Magazine,

“If a twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create! We might introduce prophets and high priests of civilization into the world, as surely as we can propagate idiots by mating cretins. Men and women of the present day are, to those we might hope to bring into existence, what the pariah dogs of the streets of an Eastern town are to our own highly-bred varieties.”

The history of eugenics in America is filled with controversy and harrowing stories of forced sterilization throughout many U.S. states. In 2002 Mark R. Warner, the governor of Virginia issued an apology for the thousands of individuals that the state had sterilized from 1924 to 1979. USA Today reported on the governors statement,

“With the governor’s statement Thursday, Virginia becomes the only of the 30 states that conducted eugenics sterilizations to apologize. There are believed to be more than 60,000 eugenics victims nationwide.

‘Today, I offer the commonwealth’s sincere apology for Virginia’s participation in eugenics,’ Warner said.

‘As I have previously noted, the eugenics movement was a shameful effort in which state government never should have been involved,” he said. ‘We must remember the commonwealth’s past mistakes in order to prevent them from recurring.’”

The aristocratic, wealthy elite of America played a central role in the development of eugenics in America and abroad. Two such elite families are the Rockefellers and the Carnegies.

In 1902, Andrew Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institute which among other things, funded the Eugenics Record Office in America. The ERO (1910-1944) operated from Cold Spring Harbor in New York. Eugenics policies, which led to the sterilization of thousands of Americans, were developed in this office.

The Rockefellers, perhaps more so, were also heavily involved with eugenics. Rockefeller influence in American eugenics can be traced to the beginnings of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. John D. Rockefeller, along with Averell Harriman gave $11 million to create the facility in the early 1900’s. Rockefeller influence also spread overseas to Germany, where the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry, and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics, Anthropology and Human Heredity resided. Much of the money used to run these facilities came from Rockefeller. These weren’t just average scientific institutes; the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes would become the center for Nazi eugenics programs.

As documented by Gary Allen in “The Rockefeller File” the Rockefellers continue to give money to eugenics and population control related organizations,

“In 1970, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $500,000 to the Population Council. The Rockefeller Foundation gave ecology grants of $10,000 to the New School for Social Research, and $10,000 to the Population Reference Bureau.”

In 1973, the Rockefeller Foundation again gave $500,000 to the Population Council and $25,000 to the Population Crisis Committee, while the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $250,000 to the Population Council, and $250,000 to the Population Institute.

The Population Council was founded by John D. Rockefeller the 3rd in 1952. The first president of the Council, Frederick Osborn, was appointed by Rockefeller. Osborn was the leader of the American Eugenics Society, and member of the Galton Society, founded in 1918.

Osborn stated in the 1956 edition of “The Eugenics Review” that,

“…the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let’s stop telling anyone that they have a genetically inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let’s base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted. It seems to me that if it is to progress as it should, eugenics must follow new policies and state its case anew, and that from this rebirth we may, even in our own lifetime, see it moving at last towards the high goals which Galton set for it.”

Killing to save the earth

Since the early days of eugenics, a new “brand” of this science has emerged in modern times. The environmental branch of eugenics believes that, due to overpopulation, measures must be taken to either impede population growth through various eugenic policies, or take drastic measures to eliminate living human beings from the earth. Unlike those who advocate eugenics to strictly rid humanity of “undesirables,” some advocate the culling of humanity in general in order to save planet earth. Many globalist initiatives surround environmental issues, one of which has been population control and reduction.

John Glad, a professor of Russian studies who has taught at several universities and worked for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, wrote a book titled “Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century.” In the introduction, Glad writes,

“Eugenics views itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b) mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part and parcel of the environmental movement.”

Notable quotes:

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau

“The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” – Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation

“…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” – Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”  – Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”  – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96

“Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” – Sir Julian Huxley, first director general of UNESCO (1946-1948)

 

News articles regarding sterilization:

UNICEF Nigerian Polio Vaccine Contaminated with Sterilizing Agents Scientist Finds
KADUNA, Nigeria, March 11, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A UNICEF campaign to vaccinate Nigeria’s youth against polio may have been a front for sterilizing the nation.

U.N. Complicit in Forced Sterilizations
There is compelling evidence that the United Nations collaborated in the forced sterilization of poor, rural women in Peru from 1995 to 1997.

Video presentation by David Ayoub, M.D.: Mercury, Autism and the Global Vaccine Agenda

In 2004 the publication World Watch published an article titled, “Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable,” by Ken Smail, a professor in the Anthropology department of Kenyon College in Ohio. In this article, Smail proposes that the earth’s carrying capacity will reach, or has reached already, its limit. In what Smail calls a modern day “Malthusian dilemma”, he cites measures to merely slow population growth as being inefficient, stating that,

“Looking past the near-term concerns that have plagued population policy at the political level, it is increasingly apparent that the long-term sustainability of civilization will require not just a leveling-off of human numbers as projected over the coming half-century, but a colossal reduction in both population and consumption.” [emphasis added]

Smail says that a large scale global population reduction is inevitable, but that there are two possible ways for this to happen,

“That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries
appears to be inevitable. The primary issue seems to be whether this process will be under conscious human control and (hopefully) relatively benign, or whether it will turn out to be unpredictably chaotic and (perhaps) catastrophic.”

The new eugenics

“Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics.” – Frederick Osborn

Since the founding of eugenics, the movement has changed, but it has retained its core goals over the years. Thomas H. Campbell of the University of California believes that the eugenics model of Galton is outdated and impractical, as do many other scientists. Instead of relying on breeding “better humans,” without the intervention of technology, many scientists believe that technological means should be employed to further our “evolution.” With the rise of advanced scientific technologies, the ability to alter the genetic code of living organisms, and the augmentation of human bodies has become a reality. Some individuals who are involved with the modern eugenics movement see the rise of these capabilities as an opportunity to create or alter human beings to acquire the most “desirable traits” and rid humanity of traits deemed “undesirable”.

Is there a link between eugenics and the Human Genome Project? If so, what does this mean for future generations?

During the 34 years (1910-1944) the Eugenics Records Office was active, it collected information on specific human traits in what was called The Trait Book. Also collected was information on “Pedigree” families and their specific traits. Today, the Human Genome project is in effect carrying on what the Eugenics Records Office could only dream of.

James Watson, who began the initial research for the Human Genome Project, directed the operation from 1988-1992. Watson then served as director at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and would eventually become president of the Laboratory in 1994. Watson’s beliefs about the betterment of mankind mirror those of past eugenics leaders.

Watson is quoted as saying at a 1998 UCLA conference that,

“I mean, sure, we have great respect for the human species …. But evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we’ve got a perfect genome and there’s some sanctity to it, I’d just like to know where that idea comes from. It’s utter silliness. And the other thing, because no one really has the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we do it?”

Celera Genomics

Craig Venter caused many to question his ethics when he moved to found Celera Genomics in 1998, carrying the study of the human genome into the private sector, using the “shotgun strategy” to sequence the human genome at a faster clip than the public project.

In a press release dated March 1, 2001, Celera Genomics announced that it signed a “multi-year agreement” with AMDeC LLC to “allow member institutions to access Celera’s database information [Human Genome data] through its Celera Discovery System.” Some of those member institutions included Rockefeller University, and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Interestingly, Rockefeller University was founded by John D. Rockefeller in 1901 with a dedication to biomedical research. Today, David Rockefeller, grandson to John D. Rockefeller Jr., is the Chairman of the Rockefeller University Council.

Venter further maddened fellow scientists when he moved to patent human genes. Serious ethical discussions took place after the first attempts to patent human genes, but ultimately the decision stood to allow patenting. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued guidelines on patenting. The American Medical Association describes the guidelines,

“The rules are intended to help end a bitter debate on gene patenting. These regulations have put to rest any question about whether genes can be patented at all — making it clear that companies may indeed patent both whole genes as well as pieces of genes…”

The guidelines allow patenting when the those applying for a patent on a gene show a “utility” for the gene. The AMA goes on to state that arguments were heard opposing the decision based on the fact that these genes were not created by anyone, and thus could not be patented. The AMA describes how the Patent office rejected these ideas,

“The PTO firmly rejected this notion based upon the fact that a gene may be removed from a person, then a clone of that gene may be made in a machine, which is then not a part of nature, but a product of the lab.”

A search in the online patent database for “human genes” yields an astonishing 159021 results as of August 2007.

Designer babies

The apex of a futuristic eugenics program comes with the advent of designer babies, embryos that are genetically enhanced through various methods. The knowledge gathered through the study of the human genome will, according to some, lead to the ability to create such designer babies.

In 2000, the BBC aired a documentary called “Who’s Afraid of Designer Babies?” Featured in this clip is Lee M. Silver, professor at Princeton University and former investigator for Cold Spring Harbor (1980-1984).

There is still doubt among scholars and scientists that the Human Genome Project will lead to a new eugenics program, such as designer babies. They cite limitations on current technology and the need for further research as reasons for this position. However, unknown to many, genetically altered babies have already been born. The implications of this development are immense, but it has received little attention. Because these babies were “created” in the private sector and the lab did not receive government funding, there were no governmental restrictions on what could be done. As Wired magazine reported in 2001,

“Researchers have genetically-altered humans for the first time, but experts question the moral implications of tinkering with the unborn.

The scientists weren’t looking to create genetically-enhanced Michael Jordans or Anna Kournikovas. Rather, they repaired the defective eggs of prospective mothers by injecting them with DNA from the eggs of healthy donors.

But regardless of the scientists’ intentions, they’ve created the first human offspring with changes to their “germline,” or the genes they’ll pass on to future generations. In this case, the babies’ genes contain DNA from two women instead of just one.

Researchers at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of Saint Barnabas in West Orange, New Jersey, have achieved 15 births using the technique. In their paper, published in the March 2001 issue of the Human Reproduction journal, they say at least 15 additional healthy babies have been born as a result of this technique in other labs.

The researchers performed the fertilizations in 1997 and 1998. In March, they published data on the results of DNA fingerprint tests on two of the children, each one year old, confirming that they contain a small quantity of additional genes not inherited from either parent.

Most scientists consider altering the germline unethical, since no one knows what the long-term effects might be. The researchers, however, are confident the technique is safe.”

What will the future look like?

What will the future hold in a world in which eugenics, utilizing advanced technology, has become a reality?

Lee Silver describes in his book “Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World”, a future scenario in which humanity splits into two distinct classes, the “GenRich” and the “GenPoor.”

“The GenRich–who account for 10 percent of the American population–all carry synthetic genes. Genes that were created in the laboratory….The GenRich are a modern-day hereditary class of genetic aristocrats….All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class.”

Those who are not as fortunate to have access to genetic modification, called “Naturals” by Silver, will “…work as low-paid service providers or as laborers.”

Bertrand Russel says in “The Impact of Science on Society” (1953) on pages 49-50 that,

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

Hollywood has apparently been keeping up to date on genetic technologies, adding their own theatrical twist. The movie “Gattaca”, released in 1997, portrays a despotic future world in which designer babies are born every day, and the perfection of genes has become the center of society.

Watch the Gattaca trailer:

Thomas H. Campbell of the University of California believes that humanity is destined to gain access to methods of “autoevolution.” Writing in his paper, “The Moral Imperative of Our Future Evolution“, Campbell describes future technologies and their eugenic implications. Campbell praises eugenics policies, and cites the Human Genome Project as a positive development in the identification of “defective” genes.

“We have catalogued defective genes behind a variety of dreadful neurological and metabolic disorders as parts of programs to eliminate them eugenically. Our systematic mapping of the human genome will identify many others. Everyone applauds the goal of purging these defects in our heredity – notwithstanding quibbles over the ethics of the techniques of amniocentesis, abortion and even contraception. I emphatically embrace this eugenic program even though its evolutionary impact is insignificant. Most defective genes are rare, and their total elimination does little for evolution except squeeze the range of variation of humans.”

“We probably will begin our interventions into brain and embryonic development with drugs and hormones and subsequently engineer the desirable intrusions into the genome. Then, after a further generation of accumulating biological information about individual gene function, developmental pathways, and the neural substrate of brain function, evolutionists probably will write novel genes for these traits from scratch using a DNA synthesizer.”

“Of course, the methods for evolving our genetics extend beyond biotechnology. Ultra-sophisticated parallel processing computers and software programs will predictively model how particular gene configurations translate into phenotype, and how particular phenotypic traits can be engineered into developmental pathways. As a start, new computer technology is being developed today as an integral part of the human genome project.”

Campbell, like others, says that future genetic technologies will be extremely expensive, leaving the average person out of the loop. Campbell expresses his approval of this expense due to the fact that only the “most successful generative lines” will have access to these technologies.

“The costs will be enormous, far beyond what most people could afford. This has kept our democratic society from appreciating that these possibilities will be used and will be important. However, their feasibility cannot be judged from what the average person will be willing to pay to procreate. What matters are the resources that the most successful generative lines will be able to apply to their goals. A million dollars per conception seems a great underestimate to me for the beings who hold evolution’s frontier.”

The legacy of Galton, John D., and Carnegie lives on. Though terms have changed, the names of organizations altered, the methods of propagandizing the public reformed; the ideology behind eugenics is being carried into the twenty-first century, and a new eugenics is creeping into our society. Will humanity as we know it today become a fossil as some have proposed? Public awareness is the key. The information contained in this report needs to be spread far and wide, for the future of humanity as we know it depends on it.

source: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2007/08/27/eugenics-moves-to-the-twenty-first-century/

The Post-Human World Is Emerging, Will Free Humans Resist?

Old-Thinker News | May 3, 2020

By Daniel Taylor

Mainstream news says human resistance to losing jobs to automation “could dissipate” in response to pandemic.

Institutional anti-humanism has taken hold of the western world. Coronavirus could lock in a system of high tech tyranny.

A post-human world is emerging. AI systems are activating. The future needs real humans with a conscience and the ability to question authority.

Social distancing by it’s very nature is anti-human. Coronavirus has altered our society dramatically. Some of these changes were already under way, and anti-human forces were planning to implement them ahead of the AI robot tech revolution.

Social media was already distorting social norms well before the pandemic. Former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya stated in 2018 that:

It literally is at a point now we’ve created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works. That is literally where we are. I would encourage all of you how to internalize this is – if you feed the beast, the beast will destroy you.”

Hollywood predictive programming seeded the idea of virtual reality as an “oasis” in a crumbling world with the 2018 film Ready Player One:

Pentagon announces AI system in response to virus

A massive AI system has been rolled out by the Pentagon to organize logistics surrounding essential supplies from national to local areas. As reported, the project will be integrated into a wider military command and control AI weapons system:

“It may also become a part of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control, or JADC2, a massive effort to digitally interlink weapons, vehicles and personnel.”

Coronavirus response created a financial incentive for “non essential” human workers to stay home.

If the government can manage to get stimulus checks into the hands of millions of unemployed workers, a long standing goal of a universal basic income could be fulfilled.

Former President Barack Obama said in 2018 that a universal income through government handouts would be required in the age of artificial intelligence. Obama said:

“Artificial intelligence is here… the pace of change is going to require us to do more fundamental reimagining of our social and political arrangements…”

Multiple headlines from mainstream news are happily welcoming the robot AI takeover in response to the pandemic. Here are a few examples:

The New York Times: “Robots Welcome to Take Over, as Pandemic Accelerates Automation

The BBC: Coronavirus: Will Covid-19 speed up the use of robots to replace human workers?

Wired Magazine:The Covid-19 Pandemic Is a Crisis That Robots Were Built For

Business Insider: “How China, the US, and Europe are using robots to replace and help humans fight coronavirus…”

If we are to believe Elon Musk, Ray Kurzweil and other top Transhumanists, we will need to merge with the machines in order to survive.

In reality the exact opposite is true. Humanity’s survival depends on remaining human and defying the post human agenda.

The future needs real humans with a conscience and the ability to question authority.

The western world needs to develop a pro-human culture and accompanying world view to counter the anti-human programming of the past 100 years.

Free humanity; Unite for a pro-human future.

source: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2020/05/03/the-post-human-world-is-emerging-will-free-humans-resist/

………………………………………

It’s Time To Fight Institutional Anti-Humanism

Old-Thinker News | February 12, 2020

By Daniel Taylor

Pro-human renaissance could bring new era of prosperity.

Leftists have made profitable careers out of battling ghosts of institutional racism, transphobia and bigotry. This campaign has resulted in further division, but most importantly it misses the target entirely.

Institutional Anti-Humanism

The real driving force of the past 100 years has been a massive project launched in the early 19th Century (rooted in an idea over 2,000 years old) that injected an anti-human philosophy into every western institution. Globalist social engineering programs infiltrated every level of our society. Academic, scientific, corporate, governmental, and religious institutions were all touched by its influence. Eugenics and population reduction was a primary goal.

The overarching ethos of this program was essentially anti human. It views humans as soul-less animals to be manipulated by a technocratic elite in pursuit of power.

This can fairly be labeled as institutional anti-humanism, and it still holds power over us in almost every way.

Dr. Lily E. Kay’s 1993 book “The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology” documents much of the early history behind the rise of eugenics and life sciences. Kay demonstrates that the drive for social control and eugenics was largely responsible for the emergence and growth of the science of molecular biology.

A key portion of Dr. Kay’s book concludes that large foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation shaped the development of culture and production of knowledge in the United States:

“…by the end of the Progressive Era, even before the large-scale commitment to the “advancement of knowledge” spurred by World War I, the human sciences received considerable support from the large foundations. Their numerous projects and the unprecedented scope of their financial and institutional resources shaped the development of culture and the production of knowledge in the United States. Through education, public opinion, stimulation of specific research agenda, and the promotion of selective categories of knowledge and research, the Foundation played a key role in the creation of a hegemonic bloc; the resources and prestige flowing into those fields relevant to problems of social control were instrumental in the formation of consensus between social and political elites, on the one hand, and academic interests on the other.”

The ripple effect of this program has sent waves to the present day, when the current global establishment is run by individuals who are completely bought in to this system of thought. Draining the swamp must include throwing out the entire thought system that has driven it.

Vaccines that sterilize women and cause spontaneous miscarriages came out of this system, as did massive projects that created deadly bioweapons world-wide.

Henry Kissinger’s notorious NSSM 200 came out of this institutional anti-humanism.

A secret project to use biological weapons against Southeast Asia in 1947 by the Australian government was spawned by this program.

Planned Parenthood also grew as a tentacle of the project.

The technological revolution currently enveloping the globe is rolling out as an anti human force. Big Tech, acting as an extension of globalist power, is seeking to draw humans into a matrix like existence while the real world crumbles.

We can course-correct and spark a new renaissance that views human beings as having immortal souls with innate value and potential.

We can build up individuals instead of creating victims.

We were simply not meant to live in constant comfort in an artificial environment. Our potential can never be fully expressed.

Technology needs to be developed for human exploration and colonization of space. We can take heart knowing that we are not yet at the end of the wilderness road.

source: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2020/02/12/its-time-to-fight-institutinal-anti-humanism/

Eugenics, Abortion, and Our Future – A Biblical Perspective

The Quest for Perfection

The eugenics movement lost momentum when it was associated with the horrors of the Nazi regime, but it did not die. Instead, it became “quiet and careful.” A resurgence of eugenics is brewing in America today, and modern Planned Parenthood still advocates many eugenic ideals. As Christians, it is our responsibility to view life from God’s perspective and to defend all of those who are created in His image. No matter how impaired a human life may seem, every person has value because they are made in God’s image.

Disclaimer:

The information contained on this site is for your consideration and  your further research. The information is intended to broaden the horizons of the reader and to expose him/her to information that is not talked about or even considered in the mainstream media. Viewpoints are not forced upon any reader. You, the reader, are trusted to discern for yourself while browsing the pages of this website, what is true and untrue.

The author of Unleavenedbread.co.za does not necessarily agree with, support, or endorse everything that is posted, or linked to on any of our pages. Viewpoints expressed in some articles posted on this site do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the author of this website.

Babylon Rising – part 7  – The Biblical Perspective

Babylon Rising – part 6a The Final World Dictatorship

Babylon Rising – part 6a The Final World Dictatorship

The Global ‘Technocratic’ Dictatorship

– The Technocracy –

Part 6a of 7

In this post:

 The Technocratic World   – The ‘New Normal’

Patrick Wood Exposes the Technocracy Agenda

 Capitalism Is Dead

 Technocracy – The Looming Global Scientific Dictatorship

Rebuilding Babel: Toward The Endgame of Technocracy

The Rise of Technocracy

Patrick Wood’s 12 Days of Technocracy

Disclaimer

Due to the volume of content for this subject it has been necessary to extend this series to seven parts. In addition I have found it necessary to provide part 6 as two parts i.e. ‘6a’ and ‘6b’  due to the volume of subject content.

The final part 7 will cover the Biblical perspective – as I see it that is.

The Technocratic World   – The ‘New Normal’

We are living in a world today that is fast being transformed before our very eyes. The world that we have grown accustomed to is about to radically change. COVID 19 presented the opportunity for change and those individuals that have desired radical change for decades now will not let this manufactured crisis go to waste. We are being herded as human cattle into a ‘new normal’ that we are not going to like.

Our world of capitalism, democracy, sovereign nation-states and individual freedom is about to be changed. We are moving into a world of ‘technocratic governance’. This is a world where the ‘god’ is science and technology. Those who want to bring about this change are not looking to rule in any regular political fashion either. They want to rule from behind the curtain through the means of science and technology.

Technocracy is a concept that few people may understand and certainly before this pandemic I was not aware of what a Technocratic Dictatorship would look like. From my online research, it seems clear to me that most people fear an imminent ‘Communist’, ‘Fascist’ or a ‘Socialist’ styled world government of sorts ruled by an evil, ‘Antichrist’ tyrant. This anticipated central world government is often proclaimed as the ‘New World Order’ government or an overarching One World government.

Understanding ‘technocracy’ has been the missing piece of the puzzle for me and understanding the subject has helped me tremendously, especially with regards to an end-time global power and how it fits into the Biblical narrative. Understanding the goals of the technocrats will definitely assist you with understanding the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and will also provide you with a much clearer understanding of why this pandemic ‘crisis’ was created/required in order to bring about the societal and behavioural changes necessary to advance the world toward a Technocratic authoritarian order. This will create the much desired ‘new normal’ for the globalists  – the Technocrats – the ungodly and super wealthy ‘super nerds’ who want to change the world based on their worship of science and technology.

The technocracy movement is a social and ideological movement that arose in the early 20th century. This technocracy movement proposed replacing politicians and business people with scientists and engineers who had the technical expertise to manage the economy. During this pandemic, we have often heard the media and politicians referring to the ‘experts’, either scientific or medical, for advice and guidance. We have witnessed the emergence of the ‘experts’ in science and technology as the real leaders i.e. the technocrats. We have been groomed to praise these ‘experts’ and also the ‘frontliners’ as our saviors in a time of need.

I must state however, that although many of these ‘technocrats’ are easily identifiable, it is my view that there is still a higher level of control behind the curtain of these power-hungry technocrat super nerds. There is a group of ‘elite’ who have longed for world rulership and control for centuries and are utilising technocracy as their means to an end. Anyway regardless of my view on this, these individuals will attain their goal of ruling the world albeit for a very short period of time. More on this though in the final part seven.

…………………………………………..

Technocracy is an ideological system of governance in which a decision-maker or makers are elected by the population or appointed on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge. This system explicitly contrasts with representative democracy, the notion that elected representatives should be the primary decision-makers in government, though it does not necessarily imply eliminating elected representatives. Leadership skills for decision-makers are selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than political affiliations or parliamentary skills.

The term technocracy was originally used to advocate the application of the scientific method to solving social problems. Concern could be given to sustainability within the resource base, instead of monetary profitability, so as to ensure continued operation of all social-industrial functions. In its most extreme sense technocracy is an entire government running as a technical or engineering problem and is mostly hypothetical. In more practical use, technocracy is any portion of a bureaucracy that is run by technologists. A government in which elected officials appoint experts and professionals to administer individual government functions and recommend legislation can be considered technocratic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

…………………………………………..

Techies Have Been Trying to Replace Politicians for Decades

They want to replace politicians with engineers and our modern financial system with one backed by the laws of science. They dream of a world without scarcity, where the miracles of technology can easily meet the needs of everyone in the nation.

No, we’re not talking about today’s Bitcoin-hawking Silicon Valley techno-utopians. We’re talking about Technocracy Inc., an organization founded in 1931 to promote the ideas of a man named Howard Scott.

Scott saw government and industry as wasteful and unfair. He believed that a new economy run by engineers would be more efficient and equitable. His core idea was that what he called the “price system”—essentially the capitalist economy and the fiat currencies it uses—should be replaced with a new economic system based on how much energy it takes to produce specific goods. Under Scott’s plan, engineers would run a new continent-wide government called the Technate and optimize the use of energy to assure abundance. 

https://www.wired.com/2015/06/technocracy-inc/

…………………………………………..

The Global ‘Technocratic’ Framework of Power and Control

For those who may be struggling to visualise how a global Technocratic Dictatatorship will function, let me illustrate by using this COVID pandemic. It should be clear to everyone that the United Nations World Health Organisation provided all member nations with the guidelines and directives for the containment and treatment of the pandemic. There may appear to have been a slight amount of flexibility at the national level with regards to implementation of certain aspects, but the overall brief was the same. Even down to the jargon used. The World Health Organisation was positioned as the pandemic ‘expert’ who directed the international response to the crisis. It is clear that WHO possessed both authority and support from the international member states, which consists of most countries of the world. It is also evident from this pandemic that the political figures in our governments have been rendered powerless and have been reduced to mere figureheads in this meltdown. The briefing from the political leaders was only the reading of the script provided by the ‘experts’.

In part five under the header ‘The Global Governance Infrastructure of The United Nations,’ I provided an outline of the United Nation affiliates, Programmes and associated ‘Specialised Agencies‘. The list is vast. Consider that this list of affiliates contains disciplines including the World Monetary Fund, Environmental, Human Settlements, Food Programme, Agriculture, Labour, Maritime etc. The list is vast and comprehensive in terms of disciplines covered.

Below is a copy of the United Nations ‘overview’ from part five for reference:

Overview
The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945.  It is currently made up of 193 Member States.  The mission and work of the United Nations are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter.
Due to the powers vested in its Charter and its unique international character, the United Nations can take action on the issues confronting humanity in the 21st century, such as peace and security, climate change, sustainable development, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, humanitarian and health emergencies, gender equality, governance, food production, and more.
The UN also provides a forum for its members to express their views in the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and other bodies and committees. By enabling dialogue between its members, and by hosting negotiations, the Organization has become a mechanism for governments to find areas of agreement and solve problems together.
The UN’s Chief Administrative Officer is the Secretary-General.
2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the United Nations.
https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/overview/index.html

Consider then that these affiliate organisations, coupled with their perceived scientific and technical ‘expertise’, would serve to provide guidance to all member states in just about any discipline. This group of organisations will, therefore, provide the framework for an eventual Global Technocratic Dictatorship. We can also witness this UN centralised influence through the global warming/climate change initiatives. Eventually, member states will lose almost all authority in sovereign matters and will be dictated to by these organisations. This is to a large extent already happening, but the influence and authority will grow exponentially over the next ten years through the Sustainable Development goal initiatives – Agenda 2030.  The United Nations organisations and the ‘technocrats’  are well and truly positioned in the drivers seat.

Governments and societies have themselves created this web in which we will all be caught up in. The Technocrats will seize power and we will lose all freedoms as a result.

But fear not, our Heavenly Father has a Global Plan of His own. The days of Mans rule on this earth are numbered and is shortly coming to an end.

The Corbett Report - Patrick Wood Exposes the Technocracy Agenda

by Patrick M. Wood

Capitalism Is Dead

I am almost certain that most people do not realise that economic capitalism is dead. Well, it may not be absolutely dead yet but it is certainly on life-support and has been since 2008 and possibly long before that. The demise of the capitalist economic model has long been desired by the technocrats and there is no doubt in my mind that they are behind the destruction of it.

It was broken before the pandemic through dependency on the twin life-support mechanisms of central bank money and a mountain of debt. I found figures showing that available money, printed and digital, was in the region of $5-80 trillion whereas debt was surpassing $255 trillion. The money game has long been over.

The proclaimed COVID pandemic is the crisis that they have dreamt of. The economic fallout from the pandemic has sealed the fate of capitalism – it’s over. You will see from the Davos quotes listed below that the death of capitalism was already being proclaimed in sessions back in January. Niall Ferguson, the ‘expert’ who advised the UK government on the projected death rate from COVID 19 to be in the hundreds of thousands was one of those who announced the death of capitalism at Davos. This was even before COVID 19 was officially proclaimed as a global pandemic. Was he a very astute, ‘prophetic’ voice or was he preparing to play his part in destroying capitalism? You decide.

….Oh and let me again state that I do not deny that people are sick and dying of disease but my belief is that this is quite normal and is due to a lifetime of poor lifestyle and dietary choices coupled with environmental conditions, including stress. I reject the idea of a contagious virus…..

There is no doubt that the poor people of societies across the world are being severely economically affected by the pandemic but the major part of the financial effect is being felt in the middle classes of society. It is the middle class who operate high capital businesses whether in the manufacturing, tourism or hospitality sectors etc – or of course they may simply be employed in such businesses. It is mainly these ‘middle class’ businesses that are closing down or on the brink of closure as a result of the pandemic. The middle class is being marginalised by this pandemic.

You may not accept this as fact but either way, you will face this reality in the near future. If you are reading this article then you are that target ‘middle class’.

As I have said before in this series, the target of this pandemic is partly to reduce the impact that the ‘middle class’ is having on the planet through high consumerist habits and what is considered as the unnecessary consumption of excessive ‘luxuries’ – either entertainment, travel, dining out and luxury goods etc.

If you have not familiarised yourself with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as yet then I highly recommend that you do. The ‘middle class’ are perceived as generating a far larger than necessary carbon footprint, which in the minds of the technocrats is one of the areas contributing to an unacceptable and accelerated climate change and also widening the inequality gap.

Thousands of businesses have been culled from the surface of the planet through this pandemic, never to return. The hospitality, travel and many other small industries have been shattered. Why was this allowed to happen? The only reason that it was allowed is that it was the goal in the first place.

Another goal of the pandemic is to destroy capitalism and introduce a new ‘technocratic’ economic model serving all stakeholders – or so they claim. This model will be designed to meet the needs and not the desires of the world’s population. The only portion of capitalism that will be allowed to remain is that which is considered absolutely necessary for the collective.

The main problem is that our global economic model is broken. It was broken before the pandemic; already dependent on the twin life-support mechanisms of central bank money and a mountain of debt. 

Capitalism is on death row and will soon be put to death and replaced with a ‘technocratic’ economic system.

Isn’t it ironic that the super-wealthy on this planet are seemingly the ones who are now calling for the demise of capitalism. Those who have become extremely wealthy already, mainly through the capitalist system, now want a world free of excess for anyone else.

Ask yourself where all the diamonds, gold, oil and other resources which have been plundered for centuries are. Who possesses all these treasures? And we are expected to trust these same individuals to preserve the planet for future generations.

‘Those who control the resources will control everything in the future’

– Patrick Wood –

Quotes from the future of capitalism – World Economic Forum (Davos 2020)

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/quotes-on-the-future-of-capitalism-davos-2020/

“Capitalism as we have known it is dead. This obsession we have with maximising profits for shareholders alone has lead to incredible inequality and a planetary emergency.”

That was Marc Benioff at the ‘Stakeholder Capitalism: What Is Required from Corporate Leadership?‘ session.

…………………………

“Business leaders now have an incredible opportunity. By giving stakeholder capitalism concrete meaning, they can move beyond their legal obligations and uphold their duty to society. They can bring the world closer to achieving shared goals, such as those outlined in the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. If they really want to leave their mark on the world, there is no alternative.”

Professor Klaus Schwab in his op-ed ahead of the meeting: Why we need the ‘Davos Manifesto’ for a better kind of capitalism

…………………………

“The whole way that we do business, that we live and that we have grown accustomed to in the industrial age, will have to be changed. We will have to leave that behind us in the next 30 years and we have to come to completely new value chains.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel told the audience at her special address.

…………………………

“Capitalism is the worst of all possible economic systems, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time.”

In 1939, The Technocrat magazine wrote:

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.

‘The magazine went on to explain that Technocracy eschewed capitalism, free enterprise, elected politicians and that it sought to create a resource-based economic system where scientists, engineers and technicians would be the sole planners and controllers of society.’ – Patrick Wood

“the fundamental basis of technocracy is a faith in an efficiency so great that maximum results are obtained by minimum effort.”

Professor Jean Meynaud (1914-1972)

Professor of Political Science at the University of Paris and widely known as a leading political scientist in Europe.

He further wrote,

‘Let us suppose that in a world in which the profit motive becomes more and more paramount, the political authorities (as is already partly true) failed to keep a close watch on the activities of technologists, who do not all have the public interest at heart; in the end, the effect would be a barely perceptible evolution towards a regime which would be democratic only on the surface. The elected representatives would be deprived of the substance of their power… The democratic principle would then be nothing more than the ‘front’ (as skeptics say it has always been) behind which the true leaders of the country would justify or disguise their domination.’ 

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

George Orwell – in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four: 

Technocracy – The Looming Global Scientific Dictatorship

 

 

Editor’s note – ‘technocracy.news’:

The ‘technocracy.news’ website is owned, operated and curated by Patrick Wood, author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington with the late Antony C. Sutton.

This website is not about bashing technology. It is about Technocracy. We love technology when it serves us. We resist all those who would use technology to control us against our will. Technocracy is the clear and present danger to humanity but it cannot be resisted until it is understood. Please read this entire page to kick-start your journey. – Patrick Wood, Editor, Author

Patrick Wood

Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.

https://www.technocracy.news/quick-start/

………………………………………………….

Rebuilding Babel:

Toward The Endgame of Technocracy

 

page1image316366496

 TN Note: This article was written by Patrick Wood on February 24, 2015, and is as relevant today as it was then.

When I was a young financial analyst in 1978, I met Antony Sutton at a gold conference in New Orleans. It took us about 30 minutes of discussion to realize that the Trilateral Commission was in process of hijacking the entire Administration of newly elected president, James Earl Carter.

Founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Commission openly and repeatedly stated that it wanted to create a “New International Economic Order.”

Neither Sutton nor I picked up on the thought that the big hijack was not really a political coup, but rather an economic one. It’s just that they needed the help of the Executive Branch of our government to pull it off.

As a result, they have maintained a hammerlock hold on the entire trade and economic policy machine that has driven the world into a seemingly broken international system of finance and economic development. Broken is an understatement: Perhaps “spiraling out of control” is a better description.

But, there is another side to the story that is much darker, presenting a clear and present danger to our Republic. That is, Technocracy.

It is plainly evident today, with 40 years of historical examination behind it, that the “New International Economic Order” was really “new” and envisioned historic Technocracy as replacing Capitalism altogether. Technocracy was based on energy rather than money and its system of supply and demand that regulates pricing.

Some distinctives of Technocracy include:

• Elimination of private property and wealth accumulation
• Replacing traditional education with workforce training
• Micromanaging all energy distribution and consumption
• Driving people to live in a limited number of cities and off of rural land

• Enforcing a balance between nature’s resources and man’s consumption of them.

Are you thinking that this list is vaguely familiar? You should because it represents the modern manifestation of programs like Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Cap And Trade, Climate Change, Common Core, massive surveillance operations and a whole lot more. All of this has been brought to us by the machinations of the Trilateral Commission and its members since 1973, and it is all part of its master plan to completely replace capitalism with Technocracy. This is their “New International Economic Order”!

What does Smart Grid have to do with Common Core? They are both elements of Technocracy. What does Sustainable Development have in common with Smart Growth? Technocracy. Climate change and total surveillance? You guessed it.

It is all part of the same economic coup started in 1973 and if left unchallenged, it is going to deliver us straight into a Scientific Dictatorship from which we will not be able to recover.

If I am even remotely correct in my analysis, then we had better figure out who the real enemy of the American Republic is.

Ignorance is not the enemy; Ignorance merely hides the enemy and his agenda, but it can be quickly remedied with sufficient illumination and knowledge.

Politicians are not the enemy, whether liberal or conservative. Technocrats hate politicians because they are incapable of running a technological society, but they use politicians whenever it can advance their agenda.

The government itself is not the enemy, but technocrats control certain parts of the machinery of government in order to implement their Technocracy agenda.

In fact, the enemy is Technocracy. Technocrats are human, embedded, entrenched, single-minded, amoral, highly trained, hardened, with unlimited funding. They are master strategists, master propagandists, fully networked and maintain a constant cover-up of their actions. They have worked their way into the fabric of our society from the highest levels of the Executive Branch down to the lowest levels of local government.

The hard-core technocrats in government have virtually neutered every elected body in our nation, from Congress down to state legislatures.

 Even when Congress passes legislation that gives direct marching orders to Obama and his Administration, they are simply ignored. When Obama wants his own action without going through Congress, he simply creates Executive Orders, Memorandums or Signing Statements.

To be fair to Obama, he is not a technocrat, but only a puppet thereof. All of the Technocracy puppet-masters are lurking and executing behind the scenes.

Take Trilateral Commission member John Podesta for instance. Podesta is Senior Policy Advisor to Obama for Climate Change. In the 1990s under Clinton, Podesta invented and perfected the policy of ruling by Executive Orders, and now he is coaching Obama. Just before he took this position last year, Podesta had just finished up working with a high-level climate-change planning group at the United

Nations that called for global reforms and renewed initiatives.

Even the New York Times acknowledges, “the architect of Mr. Obama’s climate change plan is none other than his senior counselor, John D. Podesta.” The same NYT article also quoted Speaker of the House John Boehner as saying, “This announcement is yet another sign that the president intends to double-down on his job-crushing policies no matter how devastating the impact for America’s heartland and the country as a whole.”

All complaining and whining aside, Congress remains completely impotent to stop or even slow either Podesta or his prodégé Obama. This is how Technocracy works: In the name of (false) science, they tell you what to do and you do it.

Please be clear on this – people like John Podesta are not socialists, Marxists, communists or fascists. They are Technocrats who are bent on imposing Technocracy that will ultimately destroy capitalism and install themselves as the unelected and unaccountable leaders of the New International Economic Order.

It’s a Scientific Dictatorship.

 For those who think this is all too inconceivable, consider what Christiana Figueres stated on February 3, 2015:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution…That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.” [Emphasis added]

Figueres is the Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and is the undisputed global driver for implementing climate-change policies and Sustainable Development.

Perhaps you can understand why I sub-titled my newest
book, Technocracy Rising, as “The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.” That’s what it is. People all over the world are rushing to climb aboard this “green” horse but the product being delivered is pure destruction. They are being played like fiddles in a symphony orchestra. They are collectively being deceived into thinking that Utopia is straight ahead – but instead of Utopia, they are going to get dictatorship.

Indeed, it’s time for a national discussion on Technocracy. The technocrats who are bent on transforming America must be identified, challenged and stopped.Maybe that’s what you want. Not me. However, understand that we will not uproot Technocracy as long as we think we are fighting communists, socialists, Marxists and Fascists. That’s the wrong enemy, and while you might knock them all into oblivion, the technocrats will quietly move toward their goal of transforming the world into a Technocracy.

© 2015 Patrick Wood – All Rights Reserved

………………………………………………….

 

The Rise off Technocracy

Technocracy Was a Big Movement in the 1930s

Technocracy was originally designed as a replacement economic system for Capitalism and Free Enterprise, masterminded by prominent engineers and scientists at Columbia University in 1932. It was to be a resource-based economic system that used energy credits as its accounting system, rather than currency as we know it today.

The Technocracy ideology turned into a movement when Technocracy, Inc. was founded in 1934 by Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert. Together, they wrote the Technocracy Study Course that became their go-to bible for all the meetings they held throughout the U.S. and Canada. At the peak, this membership organization had over 500,000 dues-paying members.

Technocracy Went Into Decline in the 1940s

Public appeal for Technocracy began to fizzle by the end of the 1930s, especially after the Hearst newspaper empire banned all of its writers from covering Technocracy. A parallel organization had a brief life in Nazi Germany before WWII, but it was squashed by Hitler when it was seen as competition. Individual Technocrats in America and Europe, however, continued to hold fast to the Utopian dream of Technocracy.

Trilateral Commission Adopts Technocracy in the 1970s

In 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski was a young political science professor at Columbia University, the same place where Technocracy was born in 1932. He authored a book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era, that caught the eye of the global banker, David Rockefeller. Together, they subsequently co-founded the Trilateral Commission in order to create a “New International Economic Order.”

Technocracy is Fed to the United Nations in the 1980s

In 1987. Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland ended a United Nations-sponsored task force with the publication of Our Common Future. This book popularized the term Sustainable Development for world consumption. In 1992, when the UN convened the first Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro, Agenda 21 was born as the “Agenda for the 21st century.” Brundtland’s book received praise and accolades from the UN for providing the framework for Agenda 21 and its related documents.

Today, Agenda 21 is still in force, but has been significantly expanded through the 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). More recently, the New Urban Agenda was adopted at the UN’s Habitat III conference.

Synonyms for Sustainable Development include Green Economy and Natural Capitalism. Collectively, they describe a new economic paradigm that is highly correlated with the original specification for Technocracy, namely, that it is is a resource-based economic system that uses energy as accounting. Cities are to be converted into ‘Smart Cities’ as the world is transformed into a borderless Utopia, and rural dwellers are to be forced into these cities. All areas of UN publications stress the doctrine of ‘No one left behind.”

The Purpose is to Replace Free Enterprise and Capitalism

This is not an idle speculation. In 2015, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, clearly stated,

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”

Thus, the saga of the Trilateral Commission’s New International Economic Order (NIEO) has come full circle, and yet it continues on a global basis at breakneck speed.

Tyranny of Science or Scientific Dictatorship

This new resource-based economic system demands that 100 percent of the means of production and consumption be placed into the hands of Technocrats who will make all decisions for manufacturers and consumers. The Technocrats said the same thing 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…” – The Technocrat Magazine, 1938

The intended global Technocracy will be thus operated by Technocrats (not politicians or representatives of the people) according to their narrow view of science, and it will simultaneously remove the need for elected officials.

In short, a Technocracy is operated as a Scientific Dictatorship.

Technocracy Endgame Confirmed

Technocracy In America: The Rise of the Info-StateIn January 2017, leading globalist scholar Dr. Parag Khanna published a book, Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info-State, that emphatically declares America’s need for a ‘direct Technocracy’. Among other things, he calls for the abandonment of the Senate and for the Supreme Court to directly modify the Constitution as it sees fit.

Khanna believes in a borderless world where global Smart Cities and mega-regions will be connected to create a global society, or a giant city-state.

 

 

Next, Listen to Some Videos

I have conducted many interviews on radio and video over the past two years, and here are several of the better ones. The last one, “Five Reasons Why You Should Read Technocracy Rising”, will give you a concise, 12 minute synopsis of some of what you are reading here.

 

A Few Related Articles that Patrick Wood has penned

Leading Scholar Outs Global Elite Endgame As Technocracy

Technocracy: The Real Reason Why The UN Wants Control Over The Internet

Technocracy Will Rise Out Of The Ashes Of Western Civilization

The ‘Pseudo-Ethics’ Of Social Justice In Economics, Politics And Religion

Whence Technocracy: Neofeudalism, Peasants And Pitchforks

How The Trilateral Commission Converted China Into A Technocracy

Technocracy, Smart Grid And The Green Economy

Carbon Currency: A New Beginning For Technocracy?

Global Smart Grid Is Technocracy’s Endgame

Rebuilding Babel: Toward The Endgame Of Technocracy

Reflexive Law: The New Legal System Driving Sustainable Development

https://www.technocracy.news/quick-start/

PATRICK WOOD’S 12 DAYS OF TECHNOCRACY
Day 1: We Were Warned About Technocracy
direct technocracy

After having written two books on Technocracy, reviewed over 230 important historical books and posted almost 4,000 related stories, there is a tendency to think that the subject is exhausted.

But, it is not.

Almost every day some new thing pops up that surprises me, whether from industry, academia or government. Historical tidbits constantly surface that show how analysts foresaw our current trajectory decades earlier. Modern scholars often write openly about Technocracy and Technocrats, especially in Europe or Asia, and yet America largely remains in the dark.

As I present my findings in public forums, whether speaking or writing, I am constantly aware of some kind of invisible wall that keeps the message from being fully understood or propagated. For instance, I have sent dozens of review copies of books to key centers of influence around the country, but how many reviews have actually been published? Hardly any. I have presented to elected officials, attorneys, civic leaders and scientists. How many have embraced any understanding of Technocracy? Again, hardly any.

However, for all the people who have confirmed their understanding and alarm of Technocracy, I am fully convinced that the material is easy enough to understand for anyone who is willing to understand it. Apparently, most are not willing. In some cases, people are too distracted with other things to pay attention. In other cases, people turn a blind eye because they find themselves profiting off some aspect of Technocracy and don’t want to upset their own applecart.

Whatever the case, America is largely missing the many siren calls for radical change in America. Here is a case in point.

Dr. Parag Khanna, a leading global scholar promoting Technocracy, speaks to elite groups all around the world. With bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a PhD from the London School of Economics, Khanna has written several highly esteemed books on various aspects of globalization.

In 2017, Khanna released a book with the very pointed title Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info-State. Endorsed by many prominent globalists, it laid out the radical agenda of what a “direct Technocracy” would look like in America:

In America, direct technocracy would look like this: A collective presidency of about a half-dozen committee members backed by a strong civil service better able to juggle complex challenges; a multi-party legislature better reflective of the diversity of political views and using data technologies for real-time citizen consultation, and the Senate replaced by a Governors Assembly that prioritizes the common needs of states and shares successful policies across them; and a judicial branch that monitors international benchmarks and standards, and proposes constitutional amendments to keep pace with our rapidly changing times. 

How would we get to a direct Technocracy? Khanna states that “it is time again for a new constitutional convention” and concludes that “only utilitarian thinking can bring about another progressive era.”

Of course, Americans can ignore Khanna, but the global elite don’t, because he is writing to their long-established goals of doing exactly what he proposes! Abolish the Senate and give the Constitution to the Supreme Court? Have a committee of Presidents? Adopt utilitarian thinking to promote progressivism?

This is not Marxism, Socialism or Communism. It is Technocracy. Everything else going on around us is a sideshow that provides nothing more than a convenient cover for those behind the curtain who are the real movers and shakers in the world.

https://www.technocracy.news/day-1-we-were-warned-about-technocracy/

Day 2: Academic Backing Of Technocracy

Dr. Francis Schaeffer was an historian, Christian philosopher and one of the greatest thinkers of the last century. In Episode X (the final segment) of his video series, How Should We Then Live?, he stated that society was falling into a moral abyss with no fixed absolutes to provide form and structure for living. To replace that necessary structure and thereby avoid utter societal chaos, he accurately and clearly recognized that such absolutes would be supplied by an increasingly authoritarian, technocratic elite. (Yes, Schaeffer actually used the word “technocratic”.)

In other words, as people lost the ability to self-regulate their own life and behavior, someone or something would step into the vacuum and do it for them.

A younger contemporary of Schaeffer was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era when he was a political science professor at Columbia University in the late 1960s. Brzezinski was the polar opposite of Schaeffer in that he eschewed Christianity, Christian philosophy and even the existence of God.

Brzezinski came to virtually the same conclusion as Schaeffer (for entirely different reasons) when he wrote,

Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits. (emphasis added)

Brzezinski further stated,

Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the stepping stones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society. (emphasis added)

Since Schaeffer was an avid reader, he likely had read Brzezinski’s work, but I can find no proof of that. He did, however, read Daniel Bell’s seminal 1973 book, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting.

Bell had received his PhD in sociology from Columbia University in 1961. We know he was well acquainted with Brzezinski’s work because he thoroughly critiqued it in his own book.

There are two reasons that I bring up Bell: first, he was a self-professed apologist for Technocracy and second, Schaeffer held up Bell’s book toward the end of Episode X and quoted from page 480:

The lack of a rooted moral belief system is the cultural contradiction of the society, the deepest challenge to its survival.

Bell was indeed a big thinker in the same vein as Brzezinski; both were Technocrats and both were educated at Columbia University where Technocracy was originally conceived in 1932. Bell, however, was much more direct than Brzezinski when he wrote,

The technocratic mode has become established because it is the mode of efficiency – of production, of program, of “getting things done.” For these reasons, the technocratic mode is bound to spread in our society. (p. 354)

It was Bell who first popularized and developed the concept of the “post-industrial” society:

Since the post-industrial society increases the importance of the technical component of knowledge, it forces the hierophants of the new society – the scientists, engineers and technocrats – either to compete with politicians or become their allies.

Bell’s 489-page “essay in social forecasting” presented the big picture of the future. It was ominously written in the same year (1973) that the Trilateral Commission was co-founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller.

Now, I had already cited Bell’s works in both of my books on Technocracy, but I had fallen short in examining who or what might have stimulated Bell to write his book in the first place. This became my 2019 surprise as I picked up my own copy of Bell’s The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (the same edition that Schaeffer referenced above) and read it’s Preface more carefully:

My greatest debt, institutionally, is to the Russell Sage Foundation and its president, Orville Brim. A grant from the foundation in 1967 at first released me from one-third of my teaching schedule at Columbia, and allowed me to organize an experimental graduate seminar at Columbia on modes of forecasting. The foundation also subsidized my research in the next few years. In 1969-1970 I spent a sabbatical year as a visiting fellow at the foundation, where this book began to take shape. (emphasis added)

Essentially, Bell was employed by the Russell Sage Foundation as he fleshed out his book.

The Russell Sage Foundation, launched in 1907, is one of the oldest foundations in America. It started as an ultra-progressive champion of “social sciences” and has been continuously connected to the most progressive elements of the global elite ever since. Its website currently states,

The Russell Sage Foundation is the principal American Foundation devoted exclusively to research in the social sciences. Currently, the Foundation dedicates itself exclusively to strengthening the methods, data, and theoretical core of the social sciences as a means of improving social policies.

Not surprisingly, the historical archives of the Russell Sage Foundation are housed at the Rockefeller Archive Center in New York.

The academic support for modern Technocracy is obvious and easily traced. The literature is pointed and definitive: they all envisaged a technocratic elite rising to dominate populations.

Given this vision, it is no surprise that the Trilateral Commission sprang forth in 1973 to “make it so” – with “Captain Brzezinski” at the helm as its first Executive Director.

https://www.technocracy.news/day-2-academic-backing-of-technocracy/

Day 3: Technocracy In Europe And America

Once upon a time, Jean Meynaud (1914-1972) was a professor of Political Science at the University of Paris and widely known as a leading political scientist in Europe. His works are still recognized as foundational in modern Europe, but you would be hard-pressed to find any American who ever heard his name.

In 1964, Professor Meynaud wrote a seminal book with the simple title of Technocracy. Indeed, Europe was not ignorant of the changes taking place that rankled institutions as well as the people they represented, and there was no love lost for unelected and unaccountable technocrats who were usurping power. At the time in France, this topic was even on the lips of political protestors who cried “Down with Technocracy”.

Meynaud noted that “the fundamental basis of technocracy is a faith in an efficiency so great that maximum results are obtained by minimum effort.” He wrote,

Let us suppose that in a world in which the profit motive becomes more and more paramount, the political authorities (as is already partly true) failed to keep a close watch on the activities of technologists, who do not all have the public interest at heart; in the end, the effect would be a barely perceptible evolution towards a regime which would be democratic only on the surface. The elected representatives would be deprived of the substance of their power… The democratic principle would then be nothing more than the ‘front’ (as skeptics say it has always been) behind which the true leaders of the country would justify or disguise their domination. 

In the intervening years from 1964 to 2019, Europe has continued this trend, transforming itself into a full-blown Technocracy controlled by unelected and unaccountable European Union Technocrats. Europeans widely recognize this today, laying their angst at the levers of the technocrat machine that dominates every single area of their lives.

Having entrenched themselves into an unmovable power structure, these Technocrats are now killing off democracy, free enterprise and capitalism in order to implement the economic system of Technocracy known as Sustainable Development or the Green Economy. This is a resource-based economic system, unlike the free market of supply and demand, where both production and consumption are controlled by a single entity – namely, those same Technocrats.

Knowing that mass resistance (after all, people were already crying “Down with technocracy”) would accompany the economic transition, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was introduced as a fear mechanism to drive citizens into not only accepting, but demanding the one-and-only solution offered: Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

As his book clearly shows, Meynaud really understood what was about to take place. Technocratic encroachment would eventually dominate the political structure, while leaving its outward appearance in place to placate citizens into thinking nothing had really changed. Meynaud nails this:

I use the term ‘influence’ broadly, meaning the capacity possessed by some people to induce others to act, think and feel in a certain way or according to a predetermined suggestion. This aptitude enables technocrats to grasp a certain measure of authority over the politicians who are directly or indirectly chosen by the people to assume control of public affairs. This allows them to guide the lines of action which politicians adopt and the decisions they take. 

This is Social Engineering on the grandest scale. It is the tail that wags the dog. It is the wizard behind the curtain who pulls the levers.

Has this happened in America? Does anyone really think that our elected representatives in Congress have any substantive power to make key decisions that favor the people instead of other institutional interests? Is the Administration effective at turning back the growing infrastructure of Technocracy? Of course not! Technocrats are seen continuously asserting themselves: Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Banks, etc.

Furthermore, Meynaud nailed the societal impact of this Technocrat encroachment:

In a representative democratic system, the power of suffrage and the trust of the people tend to be eroded by the advance of technologists. (emphasis added)

In today’s America, lack of trust is a scourge nobody saw coming. Nobody trusts anyone anymore. Congress is so badly divided that some people are saying it can never be healed again. The hostile divide between government and citizens is at an all-time high. Families are breaking up as children turn against their parents. Employees are turning on their employers.

In short, trust has been destroyed at every level. But don’t think that this just happened by accident; it is a direct outcome of the growth of Technocracy in America.

Thankfully, Meynaud noted that “Technocratic power is not a permanent acquisition.” Of course, he said that in 1964, before Technocracy had fully asserted itself in Europe. How Europeans could throw off Technocracy today is a mystery and a seemingly impossible feat.

In America, we still have a short window of time to do something about it. We can join the earlier calls made in France of “Down with technocracy”. But… we had better be more certain to follow our rhetoric with tangible, concrete and forceful actions to ensure its demise.

In the meantime, spare me the criticism that Technocracy is just a myth and a conspiracy theory. Many great scholars and thinkers have written extensively about it over the decades, and we all are without excuse if we ignore them.

https://www.technocracy.news/day-3-technocracy-in-europe-and-america/

Day 4: Technocracy Vs. Communism/Socialism, Fascism

image_pdf

As individualists for the most part, Conservatives are scared to death of Socialism. As collectivists, Socialists are scared to death of falling short of the ‘common good’. Each group has a unique and strikingly different belief system and supporting logic. 

Those who believe that Socialism (or Communism) is the bogeyman just can’t get it out of their head. I have sat down with intelligent people and carefully gone through the following table of comparisons, and they have  eagerly nodded their heads in agreement. But the next day they revert right back to talking about the dangers of Socialism and Communism. Were they just not paying attention? Were they being disingenuous and only pretending to agree with me? Probably neither. 

The fact is, old habits of thinking and acting are very hard to change. All of us struggle to some degree when we are challenged with new thoughts that require a shift in our existing belief system. If we believe that Socialism or Communism is the biggest enemy of the state, we will be very resistant to any facts to the contrary. 

It is true that the trappings of former political systems are still visible in certain countries. China still has the hammer and sickle. Germany still has a few neo-Nazis running around. But how many times have we ever been told, “Don’t judge a book by its cover”? Times change. Things change. Our thinking about them must advance as well. Holding a world view from 10, 20 or 30 years ago is simply not adequate today. 

With that said, I was hoping hope to change readers’ mindsets when I wrote in Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, “The dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism: It is Technocracy.”

The ancient Chinese General Sun Tsu, who wrote The Art of War in the 6th century BC, noted that the enemy must be clearly identified before victory can be achieved.  This is still true today. Technocrats smile inwardly when you call them Communists, Socialists or Fascists because this allows them to continue on their way unthreatened and uninterrupted. 

Here are 25 comparisons that make the proper distinction between Technocracy, Communism/Socialism and Fascism. To correctly cement the features of each ideology into your worldview, I suggest reading and contemplating this list every day for 30 days straight.

TECHNOCRACY COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM FASCISM
Endgame: Scientific Dictatorship Endgame: Classless society Endgame: National strength
Hates Communists, favored Fascists Hates Fascists & Technocrats Hates all types of Marxists
Has contempt for electoral democracy Promotes electoral democracy Has contempt for electoral democracy
Seeks totalitarian system by scientific methods Seeks totalitarian system by communitarianism Seeks totalitarian system by nationalistic submission
Relies upon cult of science (Scientism) Relies upon cult of personality (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Che) Relies upon cult of personality (Hitler, Mussolini)
Promotes Scientism Promotes atheism Promotes a form of Christianity
Promotes cities, is anti-rural Promotes rural development Anti-urban, promotes rural identity
Replaces Capitalism with resource-based economic system Managed Capitalism Generally supports Capitalism for its own purposes
Despises Capitalism Marx believed Capitalism was a necessary step to Communism Viewed as a ‘third way’ between Capitalism and Communism
Apolitical Mostly viewed as ‘left wing’ Often viewed as ‘conservative’
Racially agnostic Stalin condemned anti-Semitism Tends toward anti-Semitism and racism
Highly reveres intellectuals who agree with them Killed intellectuals in their own countries, on multiple occasions Killed intellectuals in other countries
Generally pacifist Mostly killed their own citizens Mostly killed citizens of other countries, plus Jews and other ‘undesirables’
Controls people with the system/technology Controls people with people Controls people with dictator
Population: over-populated Population: non-issue Population: non-issue
Genetic cleansing, general population reduction Ideological cleansing Genetic cleansing, but selective
Universal Basic Income (UBI) Stratified pay structure, according to the need of each citizen Stratified pay structure, according to merit and value to leadership
Advances according to the advancement of technology Advances according to the development of ideology Advances according to the strength of the nation
Human conditioning to live within the system Education supports ideology Education supports nationalism
Global citizen, city-state oriented Nation-state oriented Nation-state oriented
Dissolves the state Empowers the state Empowers the state
Science knows best People know best People know best
Social engineers hide behind facade of science Leadership easily identified Leadership easily identified

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…”  (The Technocrat, 1938)

Eradicates profit completely and all private property, establishes a resource-based economy controlled by a scientific elite using data-driven scientific method.

Communism: Political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Fascism, a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (Merriam-Webster)

A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the marketplace, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. By extension, Any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law, race-baiting and violence against largely unarmed populations. (Wikitionary)

”We are building this global society without a global leader. Global order is no longer something that can be dictated or controlled from the top down. Globalization is itself the order.”  Dr. Parag Khanna Stepping-stone to Technocracy
Zbigniew Brzezinski stated in Between Two Ages: America’s Role In the Technetronic Era (1970), that Communism and Socialism were necessary stepping stones to get to the end game, but they were not the end game in themselves. The final stage was to be Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era, which is Technocracy

 

https://www.technocracy.news/day-4-technocracy-vs-socialism-communism-fascism/

 

Day 5: The Fitting Of Technocracy And Transhumanism
image_pdf

If society must be transformed into Technocracy, then the humans who live there must be transformed into Transhumans. In other words, a perfectly efficient, utopian society envisioned by Technocrats would be quickly soiled if it were inhabited by weak-minded and imperfect humans in their present form. This is exactly why we see many Technocrats who also identify as Transhumans as well. Some well-known names that come to mind include Elon Musk (Tesla), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Ray Kurzweil (Google) and Peter Thiel (PayPal).

To grasp this larger picture, it is necessary to address three questions:

  1. What is Technocracy?
  2. What is Transhumanism?
  3. How is Scientism the glue that binds them together?

What is Technocracy?

In 1939, The Technocrat magazine wrote:

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.

The magazine went on to explain that Technocracy eschewed capitalism, free enterprise, elected politicians and that it sought to create a resource-based economic system where scientists, engineers and technicians would be the sole planners and controllers of society.

Many Technocrats today have no idea of the deeper goals of Technocracy but nevertheless use their expertise to run portions of society without any regard for America’s traditional political processes. ‘Rule by experts’ is a rule, but it is only one subservient part of the overarching goal of replacing our current economic system with Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, Green Economy, Green New Deal, etc.

What is Transhumanism?

One modern champion of Transhumanism, Dr. Max More, wrote,

Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades. “Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.” (Max More, 1990)

Transhumans seek to apply advanced technology to the condition of man in order to take over the evolutionary process and literally create Humans 2.0. The holy grail of Transhumanism is to achieve immortality, but in the process they intend to weed out the more negative characteristics of Humans 1.0: their warlike nature and their tendency to be argumentative,  inconsistent, unreliable, etc. This is genetic cleansing on the largest possible scale.

Scientism is the glue that binds them together

Scientism is a religious proposition that was first presented by the French philosopher Henri De Saint-Simon (1760-1825). He wrote,

“A scientist, my dear friends, 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.”

While true science explores the natural world using the time-tested scientific method of repeated experimentation and validation, Saint-Simon’s Scientism is a speculative, metaphysical worldview about the nature and reality of the universe and man’s relation to it.

Saint-Simon proposed that the religious leadership of his day should literally be replaced by a priesthood of scientists and engineers, who would interpret the oracle of science in order to make declarations to society on the human actions necedssary to lead mankind to Utopia. Thus, science would be elevated to a state of immutable godhood, worshiped by its followers, who are led by its priests.

Technocracy and Transhumanism are both based on Scientism.

Both believe that advanced science, engineering and technology are the exclusive instruments of progress. Both are adept at promising benefits that are always just around the corner, but that never materialize. Both are expert at manipulating governments to supply taxpayer resources to fund their respective projects. Both believe they are hijacking evolutionary processes to create a future engineered by technologists.

No Future Here, Go to Mars…

An even more substantive connection between Technocracy and Transhumanism is that they both see no future for the world as it exists today. Radical environmentalists like Greta Thunberg believe the world has only 12 years left before a climate apocalypse destroys us all. Elon Musk uses his billions to escape Earth by funding his SpaceX rocket company with the ultimate intent of colonizing Mars. Jeff Bezos privately funds his Blue Origin for the same purpose – to colonize Mars. They both have stated that the only future for mankind is in outer space, populating the cosmos because Earth is going to hit a dead end when its natural resources run out.

In short, Technocracy and Transhumanism are both anti-human. Technocracy, channeled by the United Nations as Sustainable Development, believes that the earth can only support one billion or so humans. Furthermore, all humans are considered as mere resources on a par with herd animals such as cattle. Transhumanism believes Humanity 1.0 is as good as dead and the only hope for the future of man is for Transhuman scientists to invent Humanity 2.0 and leave Earth altogether.

In one sense, Technocracy’s strict allocation of resources and energy only mark a containment pattern while they build and test space travel technology.

This is not new thinking. In 1872 Winwood Reade wrote The Martyrdom of Man in which he stated as clearly as any modern Transhumanist or Technocrat could:

Disease will be extirpated; the causes of decay will be removed; immortality will be invented. And then, the earth being small, mankind will migrate into space, and will cross the airless Saharas which separate planet from planet, and sun from sun. The earth will become a Holy Land which will be visited by pilgrims from all the quarters of the universe. Finally, men will master the forces of Nature; they will become themselves architects of systems, manufacturers of worlds. 

These bodies which now we wear belong to the lower animals; our minds have already outgrown them; already we look upon them with contempt. A time will come when Science will transform them by means which we cannot conjecture, and which, even if explained to us, we could not now understand, just as the savage cannot understand electricity, magnetism, steam. (p. 179)

The word ‘radical’ doesn’t even scratch the surface

In light of the above, I hope you realize that you simply cannot look at Technocrats and Transhumanists and pin labels on them like Marxist, Socialist, Communist or Fascist. Transhumanists and Technocrats represent a new type of radicalness that the world has never seen before.

It means nothing when people gather to discuss philosophical issues and new ways of doing things, unless they have the means to do what they claim. Jeff Bezos isn’t waiting for NASA to colonize Mars; he is building his own spaceship with his own money. Likewise, Elon Musk is self-funding his own space fleet. The late global financier, David Rockefeller, didn’t wait for governments to flesh out a new economic order, but rather used his own funds to create the Trilateral Commission with its own economic transformations.

Thanks to the United Nations’ adoption of Technocracy as Sustainable Development, its Agenda 21 policies have been spread to every corner of the planet, including every town and county in America. In total ignorance of the trap being laid for them, people are now demanding more, not less. Global warming is being used as the battering ram to break down the current economic system, paving the way for the only alternative being offered: Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

Lest you think that the scientific elite are benevolent pure-hearted idealists simply working for the betterment of mankind, I would caution you to remember the late Jeffrey Epstein, who plumbed the depths of depravity, debauchery, sex trafficking and blackmail and who was also a member of the elitist Trilateral Commission for several years. Epstein was a Technocrat and Transhumanist who hoped to achieve eternal life within his lifetime. Alas, he failed.

To use the word ‘radical’ to describe Technocracy and Transhumanism would be a gross understatement. They are both outside the bounds of objective reality.  And worse, they are dragging the rest of us along with them.

https://www.technocracy.news/day-5-the-fitting-of-technocracy-and-transhumanism/

 

Day 6: Technocracy’s Necessary Requirements
image_pdf

Just like today, early Technocrats were obsessed with distribution of goods to a targeted region of the world that they called a Technate. In 1934, the North American Technate included Greenland, Canada, United States, Mexico, Cuba, the Caribbean, all of Central America and the northernmost countries of South America. However, no mention was ever made as to how those sovereign nations, each with their own particular type of government, would be persuaded to voluntarily discard those structures and cede control to a group of megalomaniac scientists and engineers.

Nevertheless, framers of Technocracy proceeded as if all of those nations would magically succumb to Technocracy’s scientific dictatorship, and they documented seven key requirements that must be met before the system could function properly.

These seven original requirements are obviously just as valid and operational today as they were back then. [Scott, Howard et al, The Technocracy Study Course, p. 232]

1. Register on a continuous 24-hour-per-day basis the total net conversion of energy

Conversion of energy means creating useable energy from stored energy like coal, oil or natural gas; when they are burned, electricity is generated. Hydroelectric and nuclear also convert energy. There were two reasons to keep track of useable energy: First, it was the basis for issuing “energy script” to all citizens for buying and selling goods and services. Second, it predicted economic activity because all such activity is directly dependent upon energy. (Note that Technocrats intended to pre-determine how much energy would be made available in the first place.)

2. By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load

Once available energy was quantified, it was to be allocated to consumers and manufacturers so as to limit production and consumption. Technocrats would have control of both ends, so that everything is managed according to their scientific formulas.

The modern Smart Grid, with its ubiquitous WiFi-enabled Smart Meters on homes and businesses, is the exact fulfillment of these two requirements. The concept of “energy web” was first revitalized in 1999 by the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) in Portland, Oregon. A government agency, BPA had a rich history of Technocrats dating back to its creation in 1937. The “energy web” was renamed Smart Grid in 2009 during the Obama Administration. Note that Smart Grid was a global initiative that intended to blanket the entire world with this new energy control technology.

3. Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption

Technocrats were obsessed with aggregating inventory quantities in the economic system from beginning to end. Inventory would be stored in production facilities until it was ready to be delivered to consumers and producers. Only actual consumption by end-users would shrink inventory.

We see this concept used extensively in modern corporations, termed Supply Chain Management (SCM), where its goal is to minimize stored inventory (squeezing out the inefficiencies) and make for “just-in-time” manufacturing and consumption.

4. Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used

This granular level of data tracking drills down to specific items and would ostensibly assign a trackable serial number to every item manufactured, shipped and ultimately consumed by individuals or other manufacturing processes. Such detailed item tracking is a core value of modern Supply Chain Management theory and practice.

The greatest enabler of Technocracy is the Internet of Things (IoT), where all connected devices are networked together via the latest 5G wireless technology. Tom Wheeler, former head of the FCC, praised 5G and the IoT in 2017: “If something can be connected, it will be connected”.  The harvesting of data from billions of sensors embedded in the IoT will, for the first time in history, provide real-time data collection. In turn, this data flow will put wind in the sails of Artificial Intelligence algorithms designed to control society and people in it.

5. Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual

This requirement is a cross-check of inventory against actual consumption by a verified individual. Thus, if something is bought but not consumed immediately, the Technocrat overlords could take action to stop such behavior. It must be understood that Technocracy intended to altogether eliminate private property, savings, and inheritance, etc. The hoarding of consumable items was viewed as unauthorized savings.

The means of collecting this information is through monitoring and total surveillance. Surveillance and data collection are seen everywhere today, and according to Technocrats there is no such thing as “enough” data. The Intelligence agencies (NSA, CIA, DHS, etc.) are creating massive national databases that harvest real-time data from every conceivable source. Surveillance includes biometric data (i.e., facial scans, DNA, iris and voice scans), communications (email, phone calls) financial transactions, location tracking (geospatial intel), social media, psychographic data, etc.

6. Allow the citizen the widest latitude of choice in consuming his individual share of Continental physical wealth

We must understand this requirement from the perspective of a Technocrat. First, there would not be a wide range of selection of goods and services because there would be no competition between manufacturers. Products would be designed and manufactured by Technocrats at their sole discretion. The real thing in view here is the aggregate amount of “Continental physical wealth” and how much of it you deserve to consume. Technocrats largely view humans as so many cattle in a feed lot, existing only to be fed a managed diet from birth to death, housed and shielded from the weather, medically treated for maximum efficiency, etc.

7. Distribute goods and services to every member of the population

The key to this last requirement is that Technocrats demanded that every single person in the Technate would be forced to participate. As today, outliers were not to be allowed. We see the tagline “No person left behind” throughout the UN’s literature on Sustainable Development.

The Predicted Outcomes

According to The Technocracy Study Course, the anticipated and promised “end products” would be:

  1. A high physical standard of living
  2. A high standard of public health
  3. A minimum of unnecessary labor
  4. A minimum of wastage of non-replaceable resources
  5. An educational system to train the entire younger generation indiscriminately as regards all considerations other than inherent ability – a Continental system of human conditioning. (Ed. Note: human conditioning is not education but rather propaganda-style indoctrination.)

Not surprisingly, these outcomes overlap perfectly with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted at the 2030 Agenda conference in September 2015:

  1. Goal #1 – No poverty
  2. Goal #3 – Good health and well-being (the banner on Goal #3 states: “Vaccinate your family to protect them and improve public health”)
  3. Goal #8 – Decent work and economic growth
  4. Goal #12 – Responsible Consumption and Production
  5. Goal #4 – Quality education

At the United Nations 1992 conference in Rio De Janeiro which produced the Agenda for the 21st Century (known as Agenda 21), few realized that it was firmly rooted in Technocracy. Nor did they suspect that its interim name had been changed to “New International Economic Order” by the Trilateral Commission in 1973.

In sum, the above seven requirements are being implemented throughout the world, although Americans should be most concerned about their own country. Look past the thinly veiled utopian promises and you will see only an authoritarian scientific dictatorship run by megalomaniac Technocrats. George Orwell said it best in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

Epilogue

Google is a thoroughly Technocrat organization. In 2018, an internally produced video was leaked, called The Selfish Ledger. The concepts presented are futuristic yet centered on managing all of society and all of its inhabitants.

https://www.technocracy.news/day-6-technocracy-and-total-surveillance/

 

Day 7: China Is A Technocracy
China Technocracy
image_pdf

Thanks to early members of the Trilateral Commission, China was brought out of its dark ages Communist dictatorship and onto the world stage. Furthermore, the Trilateral Commission orchestrated and then facilitated a massive transfer of technology to China in order to build up its non-existent infrastructure.

Professor Antony C. Sutton and I co-authored Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II between 1978 and 1979, and in those books we thoroughly documented the so-called “China trade”:

Tri­lat­erals pro­pose to build up Com­mu­nist China. Tri­lat­er­alist policy is clear cut. The West must aid the con­struc­tion of Com­mu­nist China: this is expressed in An Overview of East-West Rela­tions (Tri­angle Paper No. 15, 1978, p. 57) as follows:

“To grant China favor­able con­di­tions in eco­nomic rela­tions is def­i­nitely in the polit­ical interest of the West” adding “…there seems to exist suf­fi­cient ways for aiding China in accept­able forms with advanced civilian technology.”

Tri­angle paper 15 also adds:

“The sit­u­a­tion is dif­ferent… where arms sup­plies or advanced mil­i­tary tech­nolo­gies are con­cerned, except for types of equip­ment that by their nature serve purely defen­sive pur­poses.” (p. 58)

In fact, as we shall see later, Tri­lat­eral firms have exported even advanced mil­i­tary tech­nology to Com­mu­nist China.

Fur­ther, as part of one world, Tri­lat­er­al­ists see an ulti­mate merging of free enter­prise Taiwan with the Com­mu­nist main­land. Even more remark­able, the paper envis­ages that Com­mu­nist China will return to an expan­sionist aggres­sive policy under two conditions:

    1. as Com­mu­nist China “gets stronger,”
    2. if rela­tions with the Soviets are “normalized.”

The paper adds, “already now, the activity of Com­mu­nist Guer­rillas in Thai­land and Malaysia, linked to each other and looking to China, per­sists and even seem to be on the increase.” (page 59)

So far as Com­mu­nist China is con­cerned, we may con­clude that Trilaterals:

    • want to build Com­mu­nist China into a mil­i­tary superpower,
    • wish to do this with the full and clear under­standing that China will likely resume its expan­sionist course in the Far East, and
    • are willing to sub­si­dize guer­rilla activ­i­ties in Thai­land and Malaysia (much of the “civilian tech­nology” cur­rently being trans­ferred has use­ful­ness for guer­rilla warfare.)

In hindsight, it’s clear that we absolutely nailed the issue. It wasn’t that we were so smart but that we were simply reading what they themselves wrote and then we reported on it.

It has been widely noted that China was initially brought into the mainstream of global trade by Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a failed Communist dictatorship, China was a blank slate with over 1.2 billion citizens under its control. However, Chinese leadership knew nothing about capitalism and free enterprise, and Brzezinski made no effort to teach them about it. Instead, he planted seeds of Technocracy.

Once diplomatic relations were normalized with China, global corporations connected to the Trilateral Commission rushed in to build infrastructure, factories, educational facilities, financial centers, etc. In the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000, a transformation took place that was considered nothing short of an economic miracle; but it was not of China’s doing. Rather, it can be fully attributed to the masters of Technocracy within the ranks of the Trilateral Commission.

In 2001, an article appeared in Time Magazine. The editor of Time, Hedley Donovan, was a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, and his publication was one of several media outlets that collaborated with Trilateral initiatives. The article, Made in China: The Revenge of the Nerds accurately and plainly revealed what had taken place during the prior 20 years:

The nerds are run­ning the show in today’s China. In the twenty years since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms kicked in, the com­po­si­tion of the Chi­nese lead­er­ship has shifted markedly in favor of tech­nocrats. …It’s no exag­ger­a­tion to describe the cur­rent regime as a tech­noc­racy.

After the Maoist mad­ness abated and Deng Xiaoping inau­gu­rated the opening and reforms that began in late 1978, sci­en­tific and tech­nical intel­lec­tuals were among the first to be reha­bil­i­tated. Real­izing that they were the key to the Four Mod­ern­iza­tions embraced by the reformers, con­certed efforts were made to bring the “experts” back into the fold.

During the 1980s, tech­noc­racy as a con­cept was much talked about, espe­cially in the con­text of so-called “Neo-Authoritarianism” — the prin­ciple at the heart of the “Asian Devel­op­mental Model” that South Korea, Sin­ga­pore, and Taiwan had pur­sued with apparent suc­cess. The basic beliefs and assump­tions of the tech­nocrats were laid out quite plainly: Social and eco­nomic prob­lems were akin to engi­neering prob­lems and could be under­stood, addressed, and even­tu­ally solved as such.

The open hos­tility to reli­gion that Bei­jing exhibits at times — most notably in its obses­sive drive to stamp out the “evil cult” of Falun Gong — has pre-Marxist roots. Sci­en­tism under­lies the post-Mao tech­noc­racy, and it is the ortho­doxy against which here­sies are mea­sured. [Emphasis added]

I will take momentary leave to request that my skeptics and critics stop insisting that China is a Communist dictatorship and not a Technocracy. Can you just read the article above?

China’s Technocracy In Full Bloom

Today’s China is a scientific dictatorship nightmare. With 600 million facial recognition cameras to be installed by 2020, China will have one monitoring camera for every seven citizens and facial recognition Artificial Intelligence software to instantly locate, identify and track everyone. In short, China is totally obsessed with surveillance and absolute control over its population using state-of-the-art technology.

Here are some examples of Technocracy at work in China:

China’s Social Credit Scoring system registers all citizens, their activities and their behavior in order to deny or award privileges. Citizens cannot purchase a new cell phone without first providing a facial scan and other identification information.

Companies in China, regardless of national origin, are also assigned Social Credit scores in order to control their behavior. All companies are required to install government-accessed cameras within their own offices and factories.

China supports “anything goes” genetic engineering on plants, animals and humans.

China intends to dominate space and space travel, having recently landed an exploration vehicle on the dark side of the moon. It is already testing a Mars lander and pledges to colonize the red planet.

China currently leads the world in 5G, Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, Quantum Computing, and it intends to dominate all areas of science and technology.

China is aggressively exporting its surveillance technology to nations around the world, in an effort to establish its Technocracy as widely as possible.

The list goes on, but the evidence supports the analysis: China is a full-blown Technocracy and it is the first of its kind on planet earth, thanks to the clever manipulation and support of Western elites like the Trilateral Commission. Furthermore, its intentional Technocracy is spreading like a cancer to other nations, including India, Asia, Europe, Africa and South America. The combined population of China and India alone represents over 36 percent of world population; by comparison, the number of people living under Marxist-style governments is very small.

In conclusion, the clear and present danger to world domination is not any kind of Marxist derivative, but rather neo-authoritarian Technocracy. Living under such a system will be far more oppressive and painful than Socialism, Communism or Fascism.

https://www.technocracy.news/day-7-china-is-a-technocracy/

 

Day 8: Technocracy And Central Banks

image_pdf

It is common knowledge that the central banks of the world, like the Federal Reserve, control monetary policy for everyone, everywhere. Central banks are an exclusive lot because in each case, each bank has only one customer – namely, the host nation’s government. The Federal Reserve serves only the United States Treasury, for instance. The Bank of England serves only the British government, and so on.

The influence wielded by central banks is felt in all areas of economic activity within the home nation as well as in surrounding countries. In the case of the Federal Reserve, which manages the most important reserve currency in the world, its activities are closely watched by economists and forecasters everywhere.

What most people don’t know, however, is that the central bank collective has a central bank of its own: the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The BIS is located in Basle, Switzerland, and the vast majority of its operations and policies are shrouded in total secrecy. The BIS invents and directs policies for all other central banks and conversely, no central bank acts outside the policy structure set by the BIS.

In a 2018 Bloomberg Markets Special Report titled Welcome to the Elite Private Club Of the World’s Central Bankersa key fact about the BIS was revealed:

There’s been a changing of the guard at the Bank for International Settlements, the little-known organization that sits at the heart of the world’s financial system. Agustín Carstens, former head of Mexico’s central bank, succeeded Jaime Caruana as general manager on Dec. 1. He’s taking charge of an institution that stands out as a bastion of global technocracy in an age of increasing transparency and growing disillusionment with elites.

A “bastion of global technocracy”?

The famous currency expert, Dr. Franz Pick (1898-1985), once stated, “The destiny of the currency is, and always will be, the destiny of a nation.” With the advent of rampant globalization, this concept can certainly be given a global context as well: “The destiny of currencies is, and always will be, the destiny of the world.”

If the Bank for International Settlements is indeed a bastion of global Technocracy, what does that say about all the subsidiary central banks and the rest of the commercial global banks operating in each nation?

Well, it spells big trouble. It portends a total global transformation and a reset of the world’s finance and economic system.

In June 2019, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, delivered a speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet for Bankers and Merchants of the City of London at the Mansion House in London. The Bank of England is one of most powerful central banks in the world, and its Governor sits on the Executive Committee at the Bank for International Settlements.

Carney stated:

There’s a new economy emerging driven by changes in technology, demographics and the environment. This economy requires a new finance. A new finance to serve the digital economy. A new finance with products that are more cost effective, better tailored, and more inclusive. A new finance to support the transition to a sustainable economy. A new finance that balances innovation with resilience. With its leadership in fintech and green finance, the UK private sector is creating the new finance, but your efforts will be more effective with the right conditions in which to innovate and level the playing fields on which they compete. (emphasis added)

Indeed, the Bank of England is finally revealing itself in the image of green Fintech** (Financial Technologies) which will finance the world into Sustainable Development: “We will support the transition to a carbon-neutral economy.” 

Bank of EnglandInfographic from Bank of England report

In sum, the central banks of the world have revealed that they are 100% complicit with the United Nations’ economic system known as Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy; the Bank for International Settlements has been recognized by a major financial publication as a “bastion of global technocracy”; and individual central banks are reinventing themselves to complete the transition to the new economic system.

Technocracy is upon the world. It is not driven by citizens, but rather by the same global elitists who have been pushing for it for several decades. As such, it is a huckster operation designed to ultimately twist the natural resources of the world out of the hands of citizens and nations, and into the coffers of the elitists.

I hope the reader can see that the clear and present danger to the world is Technocracy, not Communism, Socialism or Fascism. This must be recognized now, while there is still a sliver of time left to do anything to stop it.

(**For a detailed explanation of Fintech, please see Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, Chapter 8, Fintech: Crypto, Cashless and Green.)

https://www.technocracy.news/day-8-technocracy-and-global-banks/

Day 9: Technocracy And Smart Cities
image_pdf

The concept of “smart growth” was a brilliant marketing strategy that was introduced in the early 1990s as an alternative phrase for Agenda 21. Americans don’t like to be included in “agendas” they did not create or approve, but they instantly warmed up to the idea of being “smart”. After all, who wants to be “dumb”?

The concept of Smart Growth has spawned a plethora of derivatives such as Smart City, smart phone, smart network, smart home, smart streets, smart cars, smart grid, smart appliances, etc. Essentially, the inclusion of “smart” has come to mean anything saturated with technology designed to control the object of its focus. 

The Big Tech companies of Silicon Valley and similar tech centers fancy themselves to be urban planners, but that is a misnomer. Traditional urban planners seek to build functional cities that work for people, whereas Smart City planners build functional cities focused on controlling people. 

As you will remember from other essays in this series, one main object of Technocracy, aka Sustainable Development, is to transfer resources from the hands and ownership of people and their representative institutions into the hands of a global common trust operated by the global elite. When David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973 to create a “New International Economic Order”, grabbing resources became the master plan and Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, became the means to that end. 

Cities don’t have physical resources like farming, minerals, timber, etc. Rather, it is the rural areas of the world where such resources are found and developed. So, to prepare for taking over large swaths of rural areas, Technocrats developed two coordinated strategies: First, move people from rural to urban settings and second, keep them there.

The United States contains 2.27 billion acres of land. The federal government owns some 650 million acres, representing over 28% of our total land mass. Most federal land is in the western states, which are rich with natural resources. The U.S. Constitution does not provide for broad federal land ownership, but that has not stopped the government from ever-expanding its portfolio. Apologists for federal ownership use the justification that the American people actually own those acres, but in fact much of the federal property is completely inaccessible to the public. 

In China, where Technocracy reigns, land grab policies are more direct. For instance, China unveiled a plan in 2014 to summarily move 250 million farmers off their land by 2026 and into megacities that had already been constructed but sat vacant. The vacated farm land is being combined into giant factory farms to be operated by advanced technology such as agricultural robots and automated tractors. Ostensibly, the farmers who refuse to leave will be helped along with the barrel of a gun. 

Once relocated into cities of the government’s choosing, these farmers will fall into a social engineering machine that will continuously surveil them, track them, assign social credit scores to limit their access to privileges, etc. They will never regain enough resources or mobility to leave their assigned cities. In other words, they will be trapped. 

Smart City Development

Around the world, there are several Smart City commonalities which can be easily observed in practice and in literature:

  1. Surveillance. Monitor people using biometric facial scanning, geo-spatial tracking, financial data, social media, etc. A population that is surveilled can be easily controlled.
  2. Transportation. Force people out of private vehicles into shared public transportation such as scooters, bicycles, buses, light rail, etc. Without private transportation, they are locked into the city and out of the rural area.
  3. Data. Collect real-time data from the Internet of Everything (IoE). IoE is an expansion of the Internet of Things concept to include people as well. 
  4. Control. Social engineering is always leading the thought process of Smart City development. However, unlike elected political representatives, the social engineers are always self-appointed Technocrats who decide what citizens should or should not do, where citizens should or should not go, with whom citizens should or should not associate with, etc. 

All of this fits the original definition of Technocracy, as seen in The Technocrat magazine in 1939:

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.

Original Technocrats viewed people as nothing more than resources on the same level as animals and natural resources on the planet. Their goal was – and still is – to apply “science” to the efficient balancing of resources by controlling production of goods and services as well as their consumption. The objects of this social engineering would have no more control over their own lives than the cattle in a feedlot. 

Smart Cities and Regionalization 

In the United States, Smart City policies are increasingly being imposed by regionalization. 

The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) is a non-governmental organization that “serves as the national voice for regions by advocating for regional cooperation as the most effective way to address a variety of community planning and development opportunities and issues.” According to its website, there are over 500 regional councils in all 50 states serving population areas ranging from less than 50,000 to more than 19 million. 

These regional entities, known as Councils of Governments (COGs) or Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), impose Sustainable Development policies on all targeted communities, cities and counties within their supposed jurisdiction, bypassing the officially elected representatives. The NARC literature is very clear regarding its purpose. NARC supports:

  • Federal consultation of local governments in formulating environment, energy and land use policies
  • community resilience planning to mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events
  • expand[ing] Federal incentives to reduce energy dependence and promote renewable energy use
  • multi-jurisdictional solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
  • empowering regions to utilize the opportunities created by technology and data, included automated and connected vehicles
  • public and private investments that provide regions with the tools they need to create economically vibrant and sustainable communities. 

In 2019, a new regionalization scheme was launched in Arizona called the Smart Region Initiative (SRI). It will create implementation policies for Smart City technology throughout a given region of cities and counties. As I wrote in February 2019, 

The Phoenix area Smart Region Initiative is a pilot program to see how much sovereignty can be stripped from member cities without a mass uprising by disenfranchised citizens. With no elected officials, SRI seeks domination over 22 cities and 4.2 million people to dictate uniform implementation of Smart City policies and technology.

If this pilot is successful, it will be rolled out across the nation for the rapid installation of Smart City tech, including 5G small cell towers, smart street lights with cameras, sensors, and listening devices, smart street technology for autonomous vehicles, data collection technology, and so on. 

Conclusion

Where I grew up on a farm in northern California, crops like tomatoes and melons required lots of manual labor to pick the fruit during the harvest season. Thousands of workers from Mexico would be granted “green cards” to temporarily enter the U.S. and then would return to their own country when the work was done.

While they moved from farm to farm, they would be housed in dormitory-style facilities known as “labor camps”. These allowed for sleeping and eating, and some facilities were barely better than tents, but the work got done and the workers returned home with their paychecks in hand.

I am reminded of these work camps when I look at today’s modern concept of the Smart City, where captive labor resources are plentiful, accessible and trainable. Is this really the purpose of city life in the 21st century? It would appear so. 

For urban dwellers, what happened to all the physical resources throughout the vast expanse of rural America? Well, that’s none of your business anymore. After all, you are “smart” now. 

https://www.technocracy.news/day-9-technocracy-and-smart-cities/

Day 10: Technocracy And Education
image_pdf

Technocrats have long since hijacked the American education system for their own agenda. What once was a system of actual education of students has now become a system intended to produce nothing more than conditioned Technocrat workers. When this is understood, modern education programs – President George Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” policy and President Barack Obama’s Common Core Education Standards and the Trump Administration signing a UN agreement that states “We commit to facilitating the internationalization of education” – will become crystal clear.

When the Technocracy Study Course was written in 1934 by M. King Hubbert and Howard Scott, it was literally intended to be the “bible” of Technocracy. It contained all of the basic elements of societal construction along with rules and principles for living.

Hubbert and Scott names education as one of the pillar service sectors of Technocracy was education. On page 232, they listed “The end products attained by a high-energy social mechanism on the North American Continent” as:

    1. a high physical standard of living,
    2. a high standard of public health,
    3. a minimum of unnecessary labor,
    4. a minimum of wastage of non-replaceable resources,
    5. an educational system to train the entire younger generation indiscriminately as regards all considerations other than inherent ability—a Continental system of human conditioning. (emphasis added)

William Akin elaborated on this in his book, Technocracy and the American Dream (1978, p. 142).

A continental system of human conditioning will have to be installed to replace the existing insufficient educational methods and institutions. This continental system of general education will have to be organized as to provide the fullest possible conditioning and physical training… It must educate and train the student public so as to obtain the highest possible percentage of proficient functional capacity.

Since the basic need of society was technical expertise, their education system would abolish the liberal arts, which addressed outmoded moralistic solutions to human problems. It would essentially replace the humanities with the machine shop. In the process, members of society would be conditioned to think in terms of engineering rationality and efficiency. Man, in short, would then be conditioned to assume the character of machines, to accept “a reality understood in terms of machine-like function.” 

Early Technocrats, thoroughly captivated by the vain religion of Scientism, believed that truth about man and the universe could only be discovered through science. As a result, the pioneer of behavioral psychology, B.F. Skinner, was a principal contributor to Technocrat understanding of human conditioning. It was a theory that they eagerly embraced and applied to their utopian model of Technocracy.

Skinner’s association with the Technocracy movement has been well documented in academic literature. Alexandra Rutherford, for instance, wrote B. F. Skinner and Technology’s Nation: Technocracy, Social Engineering, and the Good Life in 20th-Century America in the History of Psychology, in which she stated,

Skinner’s efforts were part of a much larger social engineering tradition that received one of its fullest expressions in the Technocracy Movement of the 1930s.

The balance of Rutherford’s paper detailed the “several philosophical and structural similarities between the Technocrats’ and Skinner’s social visions.” 

The Technocracy Study Course is thoroughly dependent on this line of thinking, and every chapter stresses the importance of and need for “conditioning” of all members of society in order for Utopia to materialize. Of course, this goes well beyond just education, but early conditioning of young students was of paramount importance:

No conditioned response to a given stimulus can ever occur unless the subject has previously been through the conditioning experience involving this stimulus and the corresponding response. (p. 187)

Enter Common Core Education Standards

Although the modern drift of education toward Technocratic conditioning started in the early 1980s, it is not the purpose of this paper to present details that others have presented over the years. Rather, I will skip forward to the latest program called the Common Core Education Standards Initiative (CCESI) which has swept the American education system over the last 10 years.

CCESI was sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), both of which are non-governmental organizations. CCSSO is a progressive advocacy organization that focuses on “education workforce; information systems and research; next generation learners; and standards, assessment, and accountability.”The NGA’s membership is exclusively the Governors of each state and territory, but it presents itself as a political organization. 

It is important to note that both the NGA and CCSSO are completely independent of any government authority or accountability. 

Did funding for CCESI come from the federal government? No! Instead, the primary financier was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, controlled by Microsoft pioneer Bill Gates – a Technocrat. In fact, over a 10 year period, Gates provided almost $500 million to various organizations to develop the curriculum according to his own personal vision of education. 

Furthermore, according to its own website, the resulting copyright for CCESI is tightly held by these same organizations:

NGA Center/CCSSO shall be acknowledged as the sole owners and developers of the Common Core State Standards, and no claims to the contrary shall be made. 

Parents today wonder why the nature and focus of education has changed so radically over the last 10 years. The simple reason is that it has been hijacked by private Technocrat-oriented organizations and funded by Technocrats like Bill Gates. To call this a monumental coup would be an understatement. 

Of course, the Technocrats had help and full cooperation from the federal government which had distributed Common Core to the individual states, -proof of how deep the Technocrat influence runs within our political structures.

In sum, Akin’s observation of Technocracy’s “Continental system of human conditioning” has proven correct: “It would essentially replace the humanities with the machine shop.”

https://www.technocracy.news/day-10-technocracy-and-education/

Day 11: Technocracy And The Rise Of Techno-populism
image_pdf

If you want to start an argument in a room full of political scientists, just ask what they think about Populism. This is a vague term that means something to everyone and nothing to no one.

In the simplest sense, Populism is a movement of ordinary citizens against the elite whom they perceive are wrongly ruling over them. The problem is that it doesn’t matter if the movement is left, right or centrist.

President Donald Trump is said to be riding the wave of Populism because he is perceived to be against the so-called “Deep State” of elites who have a stranglehold on the U.S. political system.

The recently deposed communist leader of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was said to have led a populist movement when he originally rose to power. Alas, things changed when a new and more right-leaning populist movement rose up to throw him out.

The sobering reality about all populist movements is that none of them actually know how to run a country. They know what they don’t like but they have no practical policies that would fix things. Often, a populist group will focus on a single issue or narrow group of issues that have become important to it for any number of reasons, but when they are asked about broader policies to run the entire nation, the discussion falls apart.

The Technocrat Appeal

Typically, Technocrats are viewed as polar opposite to populists, and for good reason. Technocrats are often unelected and unaccountable for their actions, and they make important decisions without any connection to the will of the people.

Nevertheless, Technocrats know how to get things done and make things work. This is the exact point where populists and Technocrats find common ground, giving rise to a new term called “Techno-populism”, or a blending of Populism with Technocracy.

Techno-populism has a broad meaning, as does Populism. Even Wikipedia notes that “[t]he diverse range of movements along the political spectrum indicates that techno-populism can be used as a tool by any ideology that presents itself as a party for the people.” The modern use of the term was popularized just after the 2008 financial meltdown.

Dubbing this trend Techno-populism is very accurate because it describes much of what is happening in the Western world today. President Trump was elected on a populist surge but promotes Technocrats to actually make things run. The military, for instance, is full of Technocrats who prosecute armed conflicts. The Internet of Things and 5G are being promoted from the top down. Technocrat influence is likewise seen in the departments of Energy, Transportation, Homeland Security, Environmental Protection and Education. In fact, it was data-minded Technocrats who manipulated both social and traditional media to make the election possible in the first place.

In Europe, three instances of Techno-populism have been identified by political scientists: the Five Star Movement in Italy, Podemos in Spain, and the Pirate Party in Iceland. England’s BREXIT movement is very close to such a declaration.

Even the elitist London School of Economics blog recognizes Techno-populism:

The Five Star Movement and Lega’s nomination of Italian law professor Giuseppe Conte as the next Prime Minister of Italy presents a puzzle: why would an apparently ‘populist’ government nominate a Prime Minister who fits the mould of a technocrat? Chris Bickerton writes that given the Five Star Movement’s history, we should not be surprised at the nomination of Conte. The party stands for a curious blend of technocracy and populism, and is representative of a new type of ‘techno-populist’ party that is emerging elsewhere across Europe.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was seated as President in 1933, he was challenged by the early Technocrat leaders to declare himself dictator in order to implement Technocracy. He refused the “offer” but had no problem admitting scores of Technocrats into his administration to run the country.

In Nazi Germany, Hitler outlawed the Technocracy, Inc. movement because he could tolerate no competition, but then he relied heavily upon Technocrats to build his Fourth Reich.

At the end of WWII, President Truman authorized top-secret Operation Paperclip to bring some 1,600 Technocrat scientists and engineers from Nazi Germany to America and place them in top positions within our own government. Of special note were rocket scientists and aerospace engineers.

The only valid observation here is that Technocrats are always in demand by political leaders, who have no reservation about using them to further political objectives. Political administrations come and go, but the underlying Technocrats continue on uninterrupted.

In today’s world, the curious attraction between Populists and Technocrats is akin to a moth being attracted to the flame: Populists cannot prevent being ultimately dominated and burned by Technocrats.

https://www.technocracy.news/day-11-technocracy-and-the-rise-techno-populism/

Day 12: Rejecting Technocracy
Technocracy
image_pdf

Having just written eleven essays showing how Technocracy is a malignant cancer growing at breakneck speed all around the world, and especially in the United States, I will not sugar coat either the problem or the solution.

Four years ago, I wrote my first book on Technocracy, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. I purposely used the term “Trojan Horse” to express that this has been a well-disguised sneak attack from the very beginning.

Today, the trap door is open and the attackers are pouring out. They are in plain view, working their craft to ensnare us into a Scientific Dictatorship.

Yet, Americans continue in oblivion, distracted by every imaginable political sideshow that has no substance, and entertained by a constant parade of bread and circuses.

Our epitaph could well read, “America: Alas, She Died In Her Sleep”.

In the meantime, there are thousands of Americans diligently defending their local communities from the various tentacles of Technocracy: Smart Grid, property rights abuses, 5G rollout, government mandated vaccinations, surveillance cameras, global warming and so many more.

To have any significant impact to actually STOP Technocracy, this force needs to replicate itself at scale and with great speed.

It is essential to understand that the national government will not and cannot save your local community, city or county. Washington is already swimming with Technocrats who are using the Federal apparatus to promote Technocracy throughout America. The last and only line of defense is in your local cities, towns and counties. This successful strategy has been proven time and time again, and it works.

Target The Achilles Heel

In Day 6: Technocracy’s Necessary Requirements, I listed the original items that need to be in place for Technocracy to take hold. These requirements were clearly stated in the Technocracy Study Course and they are just as valid today as they were in 1934.

To the extent that we can block or scramble any of those requirements, we can deal a serious blow to advancement of Technocracy and Technocrats. Thus, it is imperative to focus on these things:

  • Smart Grid, Smart Meters, Alternative Energy – There is no doubt that the national power grid needs to be updated, but not in a way that seeks to control energy. There is no energy shortage and there is no demonstrated need for “alternative energy”. Stop those plans. Expose them. Educate your local officials to not fall prey to the false narrative that the world will end in 12 years if they don’t take action. Demand that your local and elected officials personally write all city and county ordinances and block outside lobbyists from having any foothold.
  • 5G rollout and Internet of Things – If Technocrats fully implement 5G, artificial intelligence programs will take over the Internet of Things. By stoping 5G Small Cell antennas from being erected in your community, you could deal a fatal blow to near-term plans for Technocracy.
  • Surveillance cameras, license plate readers, militarization of police – Again, these are local issues that can only be addressed locally. Demand that your local leaders re-cast your law enforcement as peace keepers instead of military wannabes. Do not trade security for privacy.
  • Demand data privacy – Your local officials can create and pass binding resolutions that literally tie technocrats in knots when they are denied free access to your data. Your city exists to protect the rights of its citizens; make them work at it!
  • Reject regionalization – Most UN policies for Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, are imposed through regional governance entities called Councils of Governments. These organizations are patently unconstitutional and you should demand that your city, town and county withdraw from and reject all such regionalization.
  • Education reform in your local schools – Any and all outside influence over education and curricula must be rejected, with control being returned to parents and local teachers. If they refuse, encourage everyone in your community to get their children out of government schools and into private or home school situations. As documented in Day 10: Technocracy and Education, human conditioning promoted by Technocracy is toxic and NOT eduction.

This is not an exclusive list, and I will reserve the right to edit or add to this article in the future. However, I hope you get the idea that you have the power in your hands to make immense changes in your local community that will stop Technocracy and Technocrats dead in their tracks.

Turn off the TV. Quit wasting time shaking your fist at Washington theatrics. Get up. Get out. Meet people where you live, shop, raise children, etc. Make a difference. Sure, you may get some resistance, but I can virtually guarantee that you will be shocked by the numbers of fellow citizens who are thinking the same as you are.

Despite our efforts to the contrary, it is possible and perhaps even probable, that Technocracy will win and throw us into a Scientific Dictatorship from which there is no escape. On the other hand, Americans have overcome seemingly insurmountable enemies in our past, but only to the extent that we came together as AMERICA and threw off the forces that sought to bury us.

Where do you stand?

https://www.technocracy.news/day-12-rejecting-technocracy/

Disclaimer:

The information contained on this site is for your consideration and  your further research. The information is intended to broaden the horizons of the reader and to expose him/her to information that is not talked about or even considered in the mainstream media. Viewpoints are not forced upon any reader. You, the reader, are trusted to discern for yourself while browsing the pages of this website, what is true and untrue.

The author of Unleavenedbread.co.za does not necessarily agree with, support, or endorse everything that is posted, or linked to on any of our pages. Viewpoints expressed in some articles posted on this site do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the author of this website.

Babylon Rising – part 7  – The Biblical Perspective

Babylon Rising – part 5 The Network of Global Control

Babylon Rising – part 5 The Network of Global Control

The Globalist Web

Part 5 of 7

The Global Dictatorship and a Biblical Perspective

In this 5th part of the series I would like to provide evidence to support the fact that there is a conspiratorial agenda to empower a centralised global governance framework which will direct the regional governments of the world in every aspect of life on planet earth. This will not present a ‘one world government’ but will certainly become a powerhouse for global control. A look into the books of Daniel and Revelation in the final part 6 of this series will reveal the nature and driving force behind this global super power.

There may be some readers, who after considering the United Nations Sustainable Development plan, still believe that their approach is the best way forward for the wellbeing of humanity. Well I must admit that if I did not read my Bible, or consider the prophectic implications of Scripture, then I would probably not be writing this series. It is my respect for Biblical obedience, my interest in ‘end-times’ prophecy and my eager desire for the ‘second-coming’ of our Messiah Yahushua that I share my thoughts on this matter.

We must not be beguiled by the virtuous veneer of the United Nations and their Sustainable Development Plan.

This is merely a display of ungodly secular-righteousness, the underlying objective of which is simply a desire for global power and control.

In the final part 7 of this series I will further reveal how this agenda of ‘man’ conflicts with the will of our heavenly Father and what His Word says regarding the outcome of man’s agenda to rule the world.

 

UN Mandela Day Speech

On July 18th 2020 South Africa held the 18th Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres was the guest speaker.
It was timely and opportunistic of the United Nations to utilise this humanitarian platform to address the world on the dire urgency for a solution to address global inequality.

The Lecture title was  – Tackling The Inequality Pandemic – A New Social Compact For A New Era.

With this type of address one must realise that no word used is ‘off the cuff’. The script is well prepared. In light of this it is significant to take note of the meaning in the lecture title of the words ‘social compact’.

The term ‘social compact’ and ‘social contract’ are used synonymously:

‘social compact/contract’ is an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.

Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order – Celeste Friend. “Social Contract Theory”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 26 December 2019.

Social contract theorists seek to demonstrate why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

This speech was used as an opportunity for the United Nations to highlight and bring to the forefront the goals of their Sustainable Development plan.

Below I have listed some of the speech highlights:

It was mentioned during the opening address how COVID 19 had brought about global solidarity but had also exposed inequality, racism and economic deprivation.

It was also stated that the bigger challenge was that of building a transformation post COVID world (4.33)

A further comment – ‘Cyril Ramaphosa keeps reminding us that the South Africa which will emerge after covet 19 will not be the South Africa of 2019 the world will be a new world’ (13:57)

Cyril Ramaphosa made the following comments:

 ‘His (Nelson Mandela) commitment to advancing freedom made him the father of not just our nation but of every nation’ (16.17)

Nelson Mandela is now to be seen as the father of the world? Where is our Heavenly Father in our plans?

‘inspired by Mandela’s spirit of compassion and care this pandemic has revived the bonds of solidarity amongst nations of the world’ (17.11)

Capitalism came under attack –

‘vast profits can no longer be made at the expense of the vast majority of the peoples of the world’ (25.30)

Antonio Guterres of the UN went on to make some interesting and revealing statements:
He mentions that the 26 richest people in the world  have more than half of the world’s wealth. If this is true. which I believe it is but massively understated because the world’s richest are never identified or listed anywhere, why not just focus on them? Redistribute their wealth and all will be well. Leave the rest of the hard working middle class alone and stop demonising us.
Interestingly Guterres preaches against the ills of colonisation,white supremacy and white male domination in the world. He makes all of these accusations while occupying one of the highest level positions in the world – as a white male from a country of historical colonisers. What is that old saying ‘people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’? Why does he not simply bow out and vacate his position for a worthy black woman from a previously colonised country?

 ‘the pandemic has demonstrated the fragility of our worlds’

 ‘The vision and promise of the United Nations is that food, healthcare, water and sanitation, education, decent work and Social Security are not commodities for sale to those who can afford them but basic human rights to which we are all entitled. We work to reduce inequality every day everywhere and that vision is as important today as it was 75 years ago.It is at the heart of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development our agreed blueprint for peace and prosperity on a healthy planet and captured in Sustainable Development Goal 10’ 

 ‘Two sources of inequality in the world – colonialism and patriarchy’.(40:42)

 ‘the continent of Europe imposed colonial rule on much of the global source for centuries through violence and coercion. Colonialism created vast inequality within and between countries.(40.54)

 ‘We live in a male-dominated world with a male-dominated culture’ (42:51)

The irony in most of his comments is that although countries are no longer colonised through physical occupation, the vulnerable countries are still colonised through the banking system and massive global corporations who plunder the wealth of these victim countries without any idea that it is taking place. Take note of the continual attack on the male gender and patriarchy. I can agree that masculinity in our world is rather toxic and destructive but a blanket attack on all males is unacceptable. Also, ‘patriarchy’ is a Biblical instituted reality and has deep spiritual meaning. Attacking patriarchy is targeting the very core of the divine design and the Biblical blueprint for mankind.

‘COVID19 is a human tragedy but it has also created a generational opportunity. An opportunity to build back a more equal and sustainable world’ (48.06)

Yes, this opportunity was created, and more and more people are starting to wake up to this fact. This statement reveals the truth behind the COVID crisis. They needed an opportunity that ‘global warming/climate change’ was not presenting. And this is no normal opportunity either. This is a ‘generational’ opportunity – a once in a lifetime opportunity not to be missed. This is the CREATED OPPORTUNITY. The opportunity to fast track the world towards a global dictatorship.

‘the response to the pandemic and to the widespread discontent that preceded it must be based on a new social contract and the new global deal that creates equal opportunities for all and respect the rights and freedoms of all. This is the only way that we will meet the goals of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development’(48.14)

‘Let’s face the facts the global political and economic system is not delivering on critical global public goods public health, climate action, sustainable development, peace’(53.34)

‘We need the new global deal to ensure that power wealth and opportunities are shared more broadly and fairly at international level. A new model for global governance must be based on full inclusive and equal participation in global institutions’ (54.03)

The problem is that this sharing will take place through the demise of the middle class. The end result will be that we will all become poorer as a result. Oh, but not the super wealthy who will remain untouched by this ‘new global deal’.

‘New global deal based on a fair globalization on the rights and dignity of every human being on living in balance with nature and taking account of the rights of future generations and on success measured in human rather than economic terms is the best way to change this.The worldwide consultation process around the 75th anniversary of United Nations has made clear that people want a global governance system that delivers’.(54.41)

‘The developing world must have a far stronger voice in global decision-making we also read the more inclusive and balanced multilateral trading system that enables developing countries to move up global value chains’(55:11)

‘We need a new global deal at global level with an effective transfer of resources to the developing World’ (65.10)

Please take note of the remark ‘transfer of resources to the developing World’. Robin Hood we see you. Disempower those who could and would resist your agenda.

‘We have an opportunity now’ (66.07)

‘We have a problem of power and we have a problem with excess. Our priority at the present moment is in the excess’ (69.33)

Again read ‘middle class’ into this.

‘We need to look into the question of power and I think there is a risk to look into the world and to have a world divided into two blocks by the two biggest economies (70.08)

‘We need a universal system and we need universal rules we need international law prevailing (70.34)

Babylon here we come.

‘Power redistribution and governance. A governance of the digital world that brings equality in the excess but also in the use of the digital world and that allow us to control the negative aspects of digital (71.03)

‘I think this only increases our responsibility to build back based on the sustainable development goals’ (72.41)

‘Let’s organize those investments that will be made for the recovery to make sure that they are based in the principles and in the policies of the Sustainable Development Goals they build an inclusive economy that they build a sustainable economy’ (72.52)

‘That needs obviously a top-down approach we need leaders that are committed that force change and we need to support those leaders’ (74.12)

‘Only with this pressure from below will those that are trying to change things, to change the rules of the game from the top will be able to succeed. If not the lobbies that exist the power structures that exists the interests entrenched interest that exists, the entrenched inequality that exists will of course make life very difficult to all those leaders that are trying to change the world in a better direction based on the agenda 2030 based on the climate agreement; (75.44)

‘These can only be possible if from the bottom comes a very strong pressure to force leaders to move into directions that can lead to sustainability and inclusivity that can address inequality and the fragilities of our present worlds’ (76.27)

Take special note of his comments pertaining to pressure from the bottom. The ‘Black Lives Matter’ campaign is secretly funded and used, as well as the racism narrative, to pressurise society and government to comply with the need for change. In the end the Black people will realise that they have been exploited, yet again, but this time through their mass cooperation. Let’s hope that they wake up to this ploy before we all become victims of this global power takeover. If only we could all see that the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy is being utilised by the ‘globalists’ with great success. The only equality that will emerge from this by 2030 is that we will all become slaves to a New World Order – the New Babylon Beast sytem.

‘We need to really know that we are all in the same sea make sure that we come all into the same boat’ (77)

The reason that ‘democracy’ is pushed internationally as the chosen political model of choice is because it is easy to control the masses to vote for any desired outcome. The lower income masses are more dependent on the state and as such are more easily manipulated and controlled. Being the smaller group of people, the middle class will easily be outnumbered in the voting booth by the controlled masses. Those at the top use the masses to further their agenda but in the end we will all be losers. We will all lose freedom and global poverty will increase exponentially.

There are many voices across the world, and many highly credible ones too, who are speaking out against this COVID scam and the imminent move towards a global dictatorship. The ‘elite’ know this and are not perturbed because the dissenting numbers are few. As long as the masses of the world – probably as much as 95%, continue with the delusion then the plan will succeed. The decieved, democratic voice will ensure this.

Please note that there is not one single reference to Scripture or one single Bible verse mentioned in this discussion and presentation.
This is all about the wisdom and works of man – the praise and exaltation of man and the exclusion of Almighty God.

The UN and its agencies are a power trap. Once entrenched they will grow in power and control  which we will never be able to reverse. No country will be able to break free again as a sovereign nation. The UN is not just an advisory organisation, It was designed to mature into a global governing entity. Anyone trying to break away would probably be demonised as a rogue nation. Oh and yes there will be regional governments that appear to be autonomous but all will be directed and governed by the United Nations Agencies.

Detect the global language throughout the speech. Speaking as one global voice.The problem with a unified global voice is that it involves full inclusivity.- all cultures and all religions. We are being forced into accepting the abomination of all the new norms – ‘gender identification’, ‘LGBTQ’, abortion etc. Biblical guidelines are being displaced by the will of man. And how many realised that the authority of the WHO and Governments overuled our right to gather as Bible Believing Christains, whether in a chuch building or as a group. How can we be prevented from gathering. Rest assured, judgement from the throne of our Heavenly Father is coming – and very soon.

The looming global power grab is the real ‘virus’ threat and as always prevention is better than the cure.

I believe that António Guterres is just a puppet in this agenda. I do not believe that he has any idea about the greater plan for global rulership. The ‘hidden hand’ behind this agenda is just that – hidden. They never expose themselves or appear in the public eye and anyone who does is not from their elite group. They remain the backstage ‘hidden hand’ – the controllers of the puppets. António Guterres is passionate about the Sustainable Development plan and is being used as the frontman because of this energy.

This Sustainable Development plan may all seem like the best approach to many for the equality of all but the Bible reveals a very different picture to me. The Prophets and the book of Revelation suggest a different ending to this agenda. Our Father has His own agenda 2030 and aslo another ‘global reset’ plan.

The Bible is the comprehensive guideline for harmonious life on earth and if recognised and observed would result in a thriving world.

The Creator of this world who is a Loving Father to all of mankind knows best.

Video - Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture by UN Secretary-General António Guterres

Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture by UN Secretary-General António Guterres

This fake COVID 19 global crisis and the resulting ‘social engineering’ program, will leapfrog humanity into the new age of oppressive centralised global governance and  control – ‘The New Normal’

………………………….

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

Isaiah 5:20-21

And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled:

But the LORD of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God that is holy shall be sanctified in righteousness.

Isaiah 5:15-16

The Global Governance Infrastructure

of

The United Nations

Most people will be aware of the existence of the United Nations organisation and most will now be aware of the affiliated World Health Organisation (WHO) as a result of their involvement with the COVID 19 crisis. But how many are aware of the enormous infrastructure of the United Nations, its Specialized Agencies, Funds, Programmes and their controlling global influence.

The purpose of my providing you with this information is to show you that the infrastructure and programmes are already in place to govern all activities and actions of all governments of the world.

To assume that member governments govern with complete autonomy is naive. Any government that would go against the UN or any of their affiliates and their guidance would more than likely be considered to be roque governments e.g North Korea, Syria etc

 One can not deny that the World Health Organisation has been steering the global reaction to COVID 19 and has provided the detailed guidance to all member governments of the world. We have witnessed some flexibility with regard to the implementation procedures but for the most part the WHO guidelines were adhered to – globally.

And now we see the UN taking full avantage of the opportunity created to fast-track the 18 goals of the  ‘Sustainable Development‘ agenda which is to be fully realised by 2030.

What we are witnessing with this infrastructure and control is the manifestation of Bible Prophecy.

Here is a little overview of the United Nations organisation:

Overview
The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945.  It is currently made up of 193 Member States.  The mission and work of the United Nations are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter.
Due to the powers vested in its Charter and its unique international character, the United Nations can take action on the issues confronting humanity in the 21st century, such as peace and security, climate change, sustainable development, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, humanitarian and health emergencies, gender equality, governance, food production, and more.
The UN also provides a forum for its members to express their views in the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and other bodies and committees. By enabling dialogue between its members, and by hosting negotiations, the Organization has become a mechanism for governments to find areas of agreement and solve problems together.
The UN’s Chief Administrative Officer is the Secretary-General.
2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the United Nations.
https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/overview/index.html

Below is a list of their Funds, Programmes, Specialized Agencies and Others:

The UN system, also known unofficially as the ‘UN family’, is made up of the UN itself and many programmes, funds, and specialized agencies, all with their own leadership and budget.  The programmes and funds are financed through voluntary rather than assessed contributions. The Specialized Agencies are independent international organizations funded by both voluntary and assessed contributions.

Funds and Programmes

UNDP – Headquarters: New York City, USA
The United Nations Development Programme works in nearly 170 countries and territories, helping to eradicate poverty, reduce inequalities and build resilience so countries can sustain progress. As the UN’s development agency, UNDP plays a critical role in helping countries achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

UNEP – Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya
The United Nations Environment Programme established in 1972, is the voice for the environment within the United Nations system. UNEP acts as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment.

UNFPA – Headquarters: New York City, USA
The United Nations Population Fund – UNFPA is the lead UN agency for delivering a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, and every young person’s potential is fulfilled.

UN-Habitat – Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya
The mission of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme is to promote socially and environmentally sustainable human settlements development and the achievement of adequate shelter for all.

UNICEF – Headquarters: New York City, USA
UNICEF works in 190 countries and territories to save children’s lives, to defend their rights, and to help them fulfil their potential, from early childhood through adolescence.

WFP – Headquarters: Rome, Italy
The World Food Programme aims to eradicate hunger and malnutrition.  It is the world’s largest humanitarian agency. Every year, the programme feeds almost 80 million people in around 75 countries.

UN Specialized Agencies – The UN specialized agencies are autonomous organizations working with the United Nations. All were brought into relationship with the UN through negotiated agreements. Some existed before the First World War. Some were associated with the League of Nations. Others were created almost simultaneously with the UN. Others were created by the UN to meet emerging needs.

FAO – Headquarters: Rome, Italy
The Food and Agriculture Organization leads international efforts to fight hunger. It is both a forum for negotiating agreements between developing and developed countries and a source of technical knowledge and information to aid development.

ICAO – Headquarters: Montreal, Canada
The International Civil Aviation Organization develops standards for global air transport and assists its 192 Member States in sharing the world’s skies to their socio-economic benefit.

IFAD – Headquarters: Rome, Italy
The International Fund for Agricultural Development, since it was created in 1977, has focused exclusively on rural poverty reduction, working with poor rural populations in developing countries to eliminate poverty, hunger and malnutrition; raise their productivity and incomes; and improve the quality of their lives.

ILO – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The International Labor Organization promotes international labor rights by formulating international standards on the freedom to associate, collective bargaining, the abolition of forced labor, and equality of opportunity and treatment.

IMF – Headquarters: Washington, DC, USA
The International Monetary Fund fosters economic growth and employment by providing temporary financial assistance to countries to help ease balance of payments adjustment and technical assistance. The IMF currently has $28 billion in outstanding loans to 74 nations.

IMO – Headquarters: London, United Kingdom
The International Maritime Organization has created a comprehensive shipping regulatory framework, addressing safety and environmental concerns, legal matters, technical cooperation, security, and efficiency.

ITU – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The International Telecommunication Union is the United Nations specialized agency for information and communication technologies. It is committed to connecting all the world’s people – wherever they live and whatever their means. Through our work, we protect and support everyone’s fundamental right to communicate

UNESCO – Headquarters: Paris, France
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization focuses on everything from teacher training to helping improve education worldwide to protecting important historical and cultural sites around the world. UNESCO added 28 new World Heritage Sites this year to the list of irreplaceable treasures that will be protected for today’s travelers and future generations.

UNIDO – Headquarters: Vienna, Austria
The United Nations Industrial Development Organization is the specialized agency of the United Nations that promotes industrial development for poverty reduction, inclusive globalization and environmental sustainability.

UNWTO – Headquarters: Madrid, Spain
The World Tourism Organization is the United Nations agency responsible for the promotion of responsible, sustainable and universally accessible tourism.

UPU – Headquarters: Bern, Switzerland
The Universal Postal Union is the primary forum for cooperation between postal sector players. It  helps to ensure a truly universal network of up-to-date products and services.

WHO – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations system. The objective of WHO is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health. Health, as defined in the WHO Constitution, is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

WIPO – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The World Intellectual Property Organization protects intellectual property throughout the world through 23 international treaties.

WMO – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The World Meteorological Organization facilitates the free international exchange of meteorological data and information and the furtherance of its use in aviation, shipping, security, and agriculture, among other things.

World Bank – Headquarters: Washington, DC, USA
The World Bank focuses on poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards worldwide by providing low-interest loans, interest-free credit, and grants to developing countries for education, health, infrastructure, and communications, among other things. The World Bank works in over 100 countries.

-International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
-International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)*
-International Development Association (IDA)
-International Finance Corporation (IFC)
-Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)*
* International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) are not specialized agencies in accordance with Articles 57 and 63 of the Charter, but are part of the World Bank Group.

Other Entities and Bodies

UNAIDS – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) leads and inspires the world to achieve its shared vision of zero new HIV infections, zero discrimination and zero AIDS-related deaths. UNAIDS unites the efforts of 11 UN organizations—UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNDP, UNFPA, UNODC, UN Women, ILO, UNESCO, WHO and the World Bank—and works closely with global and national partners towards ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.

UNHCR – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – UNHCR protects refugees worldwide and facilitates their return home or resettlement.

UNIDIR – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research is a voluntarily funded autonomous institute within the United Nations. An impartial actor, the Institute generates ideas and promotes action on disarmament and security. UNIDIR brings together states, international organizations, civil society, the private sector and academia to work together—internationally, regionally and locally—to build and implement creative solutions that will benefit all states and peoples.

UNITAR – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
An autonomous UN body established in 1963, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research is a training arm of the United Nations System, and has the mandate to enhance the effectiveness of the UN through diplomatic training, and to increase the impact of national actions through public awareness-raising, education and training of public policy officials.

UNOPS – Headquarters: Copenhagen, Denmark
The mission of the United Nations Office for Project Services is to help people build better lives and help countries achieve peace and sustainable development. UNOPS helps the UN, governments and other partners to manage projects, and deliver sustainable infrastructure and procurement in an efficient way.

UNRWA – Headquarters: Amman, Jordan
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees has contributed to the welfare and human development of four generations of Palestine refugees. It’s services encompass education, health care, relief and social services, camp infrastructure and improvement, microfinance and emergency assistance, including in times of armed conflict.  It reports only to the UN General Assembly.

UNSSC – Headquarters: Turin, Italy
The United Nations System Staff College is the learning organization of the United Nations system. It designs and delivers learning programmes for staff of the UN system and its partners. It helps the United Nations become more effective by fostering a common leadership and management culture across the system.

UN Women – Headquarters: New York City, USA
UN Women merges and builds on the important work of four previously distinct parts of the UN system, which focus exclusively on gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Related Organizations

CTBTO – Headquarters: Vienna, Austria
The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization promotes the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (which is not yet in force) and the build-up of the verification regime so that it is operational when the Treaty enters into force.

IAEA – Headquarters: Vienna, Austria
The International Atomic Energy Agency, is the world’s centre for cooperation in the nuclear field. The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies.

IOM – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The International Organization for Migration works to help ensure the orderly and humane management of migration, to promote international cooperation on migration issues, to assist in the search for practical solutions to migration problems and to provide humanitarian assistance to migrants in need, including refugees and internally displaced people.

OPCW – Headquarters: The Hague, Netherlands
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is the implementing body of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which entered into force in 1997. OPCW Member States work together to achieve a world free of chemical weapons.

UNFCCC – Headquarters: Bonn, Germany
The UNFCCC Secretariat (UN Climate Change) was established in 1992 when countries adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). With the subsequent adoption of the Kyoto Protocol  in 1997 and the Paris Agreement  in 2015, Parties to these three agreements have progressively reaffirmed the Secretariat’s role as the United Nations entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change.

WTO – Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
The World Trade Organization is a forum for governments to negotiate trade agreements, and a place where member governments try to sort out the trade problems they face with each other.

https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/funds-programmes-specialized-agencies-and-others/index.html

ID 2020

If you are not already familiar with the ID 2020 initiative then you may want to review this agenda. The following information is taken fromt the ID2020 website – https://id2020.org

What is really interesting is to see who the funders and Alliance Partners are – see image below. Of particular interest is GAVI – The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations

The GAVI Alliance (formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation) is a global health partnership of public and private sector organizations dedicated to ‘immunisation for all’. The founder of GAVI was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

And what has GAVI, vaccines and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation all have in common? Well this article form Septembe 2019 reveals all. Is this the imminent RFID chip implant on its way to a medical facility near you?:

 – ID2020 and partners launch program to provide digital ID with vaccines –

‘The ID2020 Alliance has launched a new digital identity program at its annual summit in New York, in collaboration with the Government of Bangladesh, vaccine alliance Gavi, and new partners in government, academia, and humanitarian relief.

The program to leverage immunization as an opportunity to establish digital identity was unveiled by ID2020 in partnership with the Bangladesh Government’s Access to Information (a2i) Program, the Directorate General of Health Services, and Gavi, according to the announcement.’

source article: https://www.biometricupdate.com/201909/id2020-and-partners-launch-program-to-provide-digital-id-with-vaccines

 – Back to ID2020 – 

‘In September 2015, all United Nations member states adopted the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, including their commitment to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration” by 2030.’

‘ID2020 is building a new global model for the design, funding, and implementation of digital ID solutions and technologies. ‘

‘The Need for Good Digital ID is Universal
The ability to prove who you are is a fundamental and universal human right. Because we live in a digital era, we need a trusted and reliable way to do that both in the physical world and online.’

‘A unique convergence of trends provides an unprecedented opportunity to make a coordinated, concerted push to provide digital ID to everyone.
1.1 billion people worldwide live without a digital ID
Identity is vital for political, economic and social opportunity. But systems of identification are archaic, insecure, lack adequate privacy protection, and for over a billion people, inaccessible.’

‘We Need to Get Digital ID Right
Since 2016, ID2020 has advocated for ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID. 

For the one in seven people globally who lacks a means to prove their identity, digital ID offers access to vital social services and enables them to exercise their rights as citizens and voters and participate in the modern economy. But doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties and putting control over personal data back where it belongs…in the hands of the individual. 

Every day, we rely on a variety of forms of identification to go about our lives: our driver’s license, passport, work badge and building access cards, debit and credit cards, transit passes, and more. 

But technology is evolving at a blinding pace and many of the transactions that require identification are today being conducted digitally. From e-passports to digital wallets, online banking to social media accounts, these new forms of digital ID allow us to travel, conduct business, access financial and health records, stay connected, and much more. ‘

‘Bringing privacy-protecting, portable and user-centric digital identity to life.
ID2020 supports digital identity programs that both directly improve lives and generate needed evidence for how we maximize the potential of digital ID for everyone.’

The World Economic forum

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

What is the Fourth Industrial Revolution?

Ubiquitous, mobile supercomputing. Artificially-intelligent robots. Self-driving cars. Neuro-technological brain enhancements. Genetic editing. The evidence of dramatic change is all around us and it’s happening at exponential speed. Previous industrial revolutions liberated humankind from animal power, made mass production possible and brought digital capabilities to billions of people. This Fourth Industrial Revolution is, however, fundamentally different. It is characterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human.

http://www.weforum.org/

The World Economic forum - The Fourth Industrial Revolution

A New Global Currency – The Great Reset

The future of Capitalism and Carbon Credits

Most will have heard about the restart of the economies of the world post COVID 19 and are probably optimistic in this regard. But what is the future of ‘money’ and capitalism. Will things return to the way they were pre-COVID? I do not think so. There is a need for a new model – or so the globalsits are advising. When one considers the current global debt of $255 trillion – rising exponentially, compared to the amount of available money in the world ($5-$80 trillion ???), then one can easily see that the system is about to collapse. Debt can never be repaid. There is simply too large a gap between the debt figure and the money available. The monetary model has reached the end of its life and has to change:

Global Debt Monitor – COVID-19 Lights a Fuse

 – Global debt across all sectors rose by over $10 trillion in 2019, topping $255 trillion. At over 322% of GDP, global debt is now 40 percentage points ($87 trillion) higher than at the onset of the 2008 financial crisis—a sobering realization as governments worldwide gear up to fight the pandemic.
– With the COVID-19 fiscal response in full swing, the global debt burden is set to rise dramatically in 2020; gross government debt issuance soared to a record high of over $2.1 trillion last month, more than double the 2017-19 average of $0.9 trillion.

Intitute of International Finance – https://www.iif.com/Portals/0/Files/content/Research/Global%20Debt%20Monitor_April2020.pdf

Here’s how much money there is in the world — and why you’ve never heard the exact number

Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said one part of the answer can be found in information published by the U.S. Federal Reserve.

“It’s a number called M0, which is essentially the number of notes and coins in circulation,” Kirkegaard said. “For the United States, that number on the Federal Reserve website is somewhere in the vicinity of $1.5 trillion.”

Kirkegaard said that a comparable tally of currency in circulation from all over the world, tracked by the Bank for International Settlements, totals about $5 trillion.

But using a more inclusive definition of money, “that amount goes much, much higher,” explained Jeff Desjardins at the financial media website Visual Capitalist, which has published an infographic on the topic.

“Add in checking accounts, savings accounts, money-market accounts — not quite physical money, but you can make a bank transaction digitally and use that as money,” and Desjardins said the total amount of money easily accessible in the world economy grows by several multiples. This is called broad money, and according to the CIA World Factbook, and the global total is in excess of $80 trillion.

Most of the broad money in the world economy isn’t actually cash held in bank vaults, explained Karen Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics. It’s bank balances on digital ledgers, money that people deposited in banks, and banks then lent out again.

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-money-there-is-in-the-world-2017-10?r=US&IR=T

……………………………………..

Having reviewed the above facts consider the World Economic Forum’s 51st Annual Meeting in January 2021 to discuss the ‘Great Reset’. This is not a discussion about restarting the global economy. This is a discussion about RESETTING the global economy. This is a huge difference. Change is coming and the ‘middle class’ are not going to like it:

……………………………………..

WEF sets 2021 agenda: The Great Reset

“The Great Reset” will be the theme of a unique twin summit to be convened by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in January, 2021. The 51st World Economic Forum Annual Meeting will bring together global leaders from government, business and civil society, and stakeholders from around the world in a unique configuration that includes both in-person and virtual dialogues.

“We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind. We have to decarbonise the economy in the short window still remaining and bring our thinking and behaviour once more into harmony with nature,” said Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.

“A great reset is necessary to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being,” added Schwab “The global health crisis has laid bare the unsustainability of our old system in terms of social cohesion, the lack of equal opportunities and inclusiveness. Nor can we turn our backs on the evils of racism and discrimination. We need to build into this new social contract our intergenerational responsibility to ensure that we live up to the expectations of young people.”

“Covid-19 has accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We have to make sure that the new technologies in the digital, biological and physical world remain human-centred and serve society as a whole, providing everyone with fair access,” he said.

Mr Schwab also pointed out that the global pandemic had demonstrated again how interconnected the world now is.

“We have to restore a functioning system of smart global cooperation structured to address the challenges of the next 50 years. The Great Reset will require us to integrate all stakeholders of global society into a community of common interest, purpose and action,” said Schwab. “We need a change of mindset, moving from short-term to long-term thinking, moving from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder responsibility. Environmental, social and good governance have to be a measured part of corporate and governmental accountability,” he added.

Other influential leaders echoed Mr Schwab’s call.

“In order to secure our future and to prosper, we need to evolve our economic model and put people and planet at the heart of global value creation,” said HRH The Prince of Wales. “If there is one critical lesson to learn from this crisis, it is that we need to put nature at the heart of how we operate. We simply can’t waste more time.”

The Prince of Wales has long campaigned for environmental issues, not least in Transylvania, Romania, where he has invested in property, restoring a number of cottages in which he stays at least once a year. For the rest of the year he opens them to all comers, declaring his wish (in a personal note handed to all guests) that it “will encourage more people to visit Transylvania, and in this way promote sustainable development.”

António Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, called the great reset “a welcome recognition that this human tragedy must be a wake-up call. We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.”

WEF intends its next annual meeting to be a more innovative summit, reflecting the spirit of the great reset. It will provide a unique opportunity at the beginning of 2021 to bring together the key global government and business leaders in Davos, yet framed within a global multi-stakeholder summit driven by the younger generation to ensure that the great reset dialogue pushes beyond the boundaries of traditional thinking and is truly forward-oriented.

To do so, the World Economic Forum will draw on thousands of young people in more than 400 cities around the world, many in emerging Europe, who will be interconnected with a powerful virtual hub network to interact with leaders in Davos. Each of those hubs will have an open house policy to integrate all interested citizens into this dialogue, making the annual meeting open to everyone.

https://emerging-europe.com/news/wef-sets-2021-agenda-the-great-reset/

……………………………………..

If you would like to look a little further into the future of this looming ‘Great Reset’ then have a look at the United Nations Carbon Union. For those with eyes to see you will find that the ‘currency’ will be largely ‘carbon credits’ built around compliance and obedience to prescribed global carbon parameters. Imagine then what your current ‘carbon footprint’ is with your large, non-environmentally friendly home and your multiple fuel driven cars. Couple this with your current lifestyle of jetsetting to foreign destinations on regular holidays. And what about the foods you buy? How ‘carbon friendly’ is your lifestyle? It would seem that by 2040 your life will not resemble your currrent one at all. Unless of course you have another way of accumulating ‘carbon credits’ to offset your poor lifestyle choices that is. Have a look into your future governed by ‘Carbon Credit’ restraints: 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF CARBON

The Department of Carbon (CUDC) was build with in the Carbon Union for setting and publishing carbon policies, regulations and incentives. It sets mechanisms to set carbon prices, release and track carbon credits, exam and authorize carbon sequestration tools, collecting carbon bills and approve carbon credit transactions. 

Each parities in the Carbon Union has a Department of Carbon branch to manage the carbon emission within the region and will report to the central Department of Carbon. 

THE CARBON AGREEMENT

The Carbon Agreement builds upon the Convention and  brings nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so.

​The Carbon Agreement deals with greenhouse gas emissions reduction, sequestration, and finance starting in the year 2040. The language of the agreement was negotiated by representatives of 175 parties at the 36th Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Shanghai. The Agreement aims to respond to the global climate change threat by closing the gap between the industry carbon reduction plan and a carbon sustainable life this century and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further.

GLOBAL CARBON GOAL

The goal is to use the collective citizen’s power to make up the huge gap between the industry’s carbon reduction plan and carbon sustainable life.

The gap between current carbon emissions and the Paris Climate Accord was made smaller by factories though carbon cap and trade, technologies inventions and carbon management. What if individuals can similarly reach the carbon emission goal through a personal carbon cap and trade, new technology innovations and personal carbon management? For those challenges The collective and bottom-up power are beyond measure.

NEW CURRENCY – CARBON CREDIT

Within Carbon Union, individuals have to pay for every single gram of carbon dioxide they emit directly or indirectly.

A carbon price has been put on every human activities. This new global currency, called Carbon Credit (emblem on the left), add carbon to the global currency market. Humanity finally steps into the world of Carbon Economy.

PERSONAL CARBON CAP & BILL

CARBON CAP
Every Carbon Union citizen now has a 5.5kg daily carbon cap, which means everyone has 5.5 free carbon credits to spend per day. 

CARBON BILL
If citizens exceed their carbon credit caps, they can make up the difference through an expansive monthly payment to the Carbon Union, or they can earn carbon credits by offsetting carbon emissions on their own.  The exchange rate between the carbon credit and dollar is one carbon credit equals to one dollar.

Carbon Sustainable Code
The carbon offset LOGO is the code for carbon sustainable products that released by CUDC. Manufacturers who use low carbon solutions in their businesses can put this code on their products and can be sold in lower carbon prices than other products in the market.

Double currency experience
3 Feb, 2041
Every product and activity costs carbon credits, and carbon prices vary depending on the carbon emissions created during cultivation, manufacturing and transportation. 

​Some products produced in carbon sustainable ways and get a carbon offset logo on its tag. Such as the Carbon Cowboy Beef (image below). The beef provides customers healthier food but sold at much lower carbon prices than other beef in the market, which making it very popular.

Carbon account connect to your credit card
18 Feb, 2041
Every citizen has a carbon balance in their bank account. Every carbon credit payment will be calculated into their carbon balance automatically. 

Read all about the Carbon Union here: https://www.thecarbonunion.org/copy-of-the-carbon-union

……………………………………………..

Reset the Table – The Rockefeller Foundation

What Covid-19 has revealed
The images of the past few months have been both shocking and heartbreaking.

Families out of work and newly struggling with nutrition insecurity waiting in long car lines for a day’s or a week’s worth of food. School nutrition professionals—wearing whatever protective equipment they or their schools could provide—putting their own health at risk to meet the rising demand for food in their communities. Meat and poultry plant workers suffering disproportionate rates of Covid-19 infections while facing mandatory return-to-work orders. And farmers, with none of their usual buyers in a position to purchase, out of economic necessity dumping millions of gallons of milk, onions, beans, eggs, and more.

These images tell a powerful story of the economic and public health consequences of poor nutrition, with 94 percent of deaths from Covid-19 among individuals with an underlying condition, the majority of which are diet-related. They tell an equally powerful story of a food system struggling to respond to the disruptions wrought by Covid-19.

 

 

……………………………………………..

This 3D-printed steak could help us reduce meat consumption

World Economic Forum

  • Every year, billions of animals are raised and slaughtered for food.
  • This uses huge amounts of water and energy.
  • Some experts believe alternatives could be better for people and the environment.

Billions of animals are killed for food every year. In fact the total number slaughtered every two years exceeds the number of people that have ever lived.

meat alternative vegan vegetarian labirculutre plant based alternatives steak isreal innovation change

 

Number of animals slaughtered for meat in the world.

Image: Our World in Data

Whether you’re a keen meat eater or not, there’s no ignoring that its production consumes a huge amount of natural resources: 15,000 litres of water to produce a single kilogram of beef.

Many studies highlight the health benefits of reducing meat consumption too. A report published in the JAMA Internal Medicine found that eating two servings of red meat, processed meat or poultry a week was linked to a 3-7% higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

Growing alternatives

It’s no surprise, then, that there’s a growing amount of interest in meat alternatives.

A start-up firm in Israel, Redefine Meat, is using industrial-scale 3D-printing to produce a plant-based ‘alt-steak’ that it says has a structure and texture similar to that of the real thing.

Eshchar Ben-Shitrit, the company’s chief executive and co-founder, told Reuters: “We can do the entire cow, not only one part of the cow.”

In 2019, his firm raised $6 million in funding – an indication of how seriously the non-meat meat market is being taken. According to a report in Vox, demand for meat alternatives in the US leapt by 264% while the coronavirus pandemic was raging. Redefine Meat says it expects the category to be worth $140 billion annually by 2030.

Here’s to your health

Eating too much meat – red meat in particular – has been associated with a range of health problems for decades including heart disease and some forms of cancer. It has been linked with obesity too. In the US, over 70% of people are overweight or obese.

In China, meat consumption has grown as economic development has ushered in a series of societal changes. Rapid urbanization and the adoption of so-called Western lifestyle habits, like eating more fast food and meat in general, are two of the more visible examples. Under the surface, there are signs people’s health is starting to suffer.

A McKinsey report from 2019 sums it up by saying: “Alas, as incomes have grown, so too have waistlines. Diets high in protein and fat have taken hold in China, leading to a 10% urban-area obesity rate projected to increase to 25% by 2030 if left unchecked. Obesity is already costing the country more than $93 billion annually, or 1.1% of GDP.”

What is meat anyway?

Meatless meatballs, burgers, sausages and more have been available in supermarkets around the world for decades. They tend to contain things like soy, rice, peas and other vegetables.

The challenge for such products has tended to be that no matter how they taste, their texture doesn’t resemble meat. That’s something the use of 3D-printing technology could overcome, as it creates layers of interwoven fibres that more closely mimic the real thing.

In 2013, meanwhile, a food scientist in the Netherlands hit upon a different approach. Mark Post of the University of Maastricht unveiled a burger grown in a laboratory from cattle stem cells and muscle tissue. At a biochemical level, his burger is made from the same stuff as a regular burger – meat tissues.

But it didn’t come from an animal. Technically it isn’t the flesh and muscle fibre of any cow. Whether or not that means it is meat may be a question for philosophers to ponder.

A route forward

As well as consuming resources, the meat industry generated considerable amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Compared with the production of a regular meat burger, plant-based alternatives use up to 99% less water, 95% less land, and 90% less emissions, according to the United Nations.

None of which gets us away from the rising global demand for meat. But there are short- and long-term changes that will help address some of these concerns. The UN cites a study undertaken by the University of Michigan, on behalf of the meat-substitute producer Beyond Meat. It suggests that Americans eat, on average, three burgers per week but could “save the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by 12 million cars, simply by swapping one of those weekly meals with a plant-based alternative.”

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) suggests a series of changes in consumers’ attitude and behaviour will be required to secure a more sustainable global food supply. These include raising awareness among the general public of the importance of tackling food waste: around the world one-third of all food produced ends up in the garbage.

The FAO also calls for a rebalancing of food prices to reflect the total cost of food production and supply. That includes the loss of biodiversity from land-clearance, emissions and pollution, and the consumption of water. And it suggests a reduction in per-capita meat consumption in affluent countries.

In the latest Great Reset dialogue, John Kerry, Jan Vapaavuori, Hilary Cottam, Mohammad Jaafar, Bob Moritz, Geraldine Matchett, Phillip Atiba Goff, Saadia Zahidi and Borge Brende discuss how to rebuild the ‘social contract’ in a world where millions of people have lost their jobs and faith in democracy is under extreme pressure.

 

The World Economic forum - COVID-19: The Great Reset

“The Great Reset” will be the theme of a unique twin summit to be convened by the World Economic Forum in January 2021. In-person and virtual dialogues will address the need for a more fair, sustainable and resilient future, and a new social contract centred on human dignity, social justice and where societal progress does not fall behind economic development.

Since it made its entry on to the world stage, COVID-19 has torn up the existing script of how to govern countries, live with others, and take part in the global economy in a dramatic way. Professor Schwab and CEO and Founder of the Monthly Barometer Thierry Malleret explore these disruptions in their new book, COVID-19: The Great Reset. The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.

 

Take a peak into the future – the year 2030

An article on the World Economic Forum website.

Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city”. I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.
It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.
First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?

Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.
“Environmental problems seem far away”

In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.
Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.

Have you read?
2030: the rise of compassion, or a world of warships and walls?
What will we eat in 2030?
What will we eat in 2030?

This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.
The death of shopping

Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.
When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.

For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.
“They live different kinds of lives outside of the city”

My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.

Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.

All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realised that we could do things differently.

Author’s note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading – for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.
Share

Written by
Ida Auken, Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget)
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-really-remember-what-that-is/

Beware of the ‘secular righteousness’ of the United Nations Sustainable Development plan which is only a veneer and is opposed to the righteousness of the Almighty Creator, YHWH .

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Proverbs 14:12

For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Psalm 1:6

Agenda Games

Below I have included some interesting videos from International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA. He has been very outspoken on the deceit of this fake pandemic and how the puppet masters are mind-controlling the population.

His Youtube channel is well worth a visit for  more insightful content.

You may also be amazed at the incredible list of endorsements for Vernon listed on his website. http://www.vernoncoleman.com

Here is a sample to illustrate his credibility:

“Britain’s leading health care campaigner” (The Sun)

“Dr Vernon Coleman is one of our most enlightened, trenchant and sensible dispensers
of medical advice.” (The Observer)

“Sharpest mind in medical journalism.” (Daily Star)

“His message is important.” (The Economist)

“Perhaps the best known health writer in the world today” (The Therapist)

“Probably one of the most brilliant men alive.” (Irish Times)

“The patient’s champion.” (Birmingham Post)

“Britain’s leading medical author.” (The Star)

We Are Victims of the Greatest Crime in History‘ – Dr Vernon Coleman

 

Videos - International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA

Video

The New World Order is Already Launched

Video

Corona World Order

Some are suggesting that the current crisis is the end of globalization, or that it will wipe out the New World Order altogether . . . but they are wrong. In fact, this crisis is the globalists’ dream, and what we are witnessing is the birth of a totalitarian control grid the likes of which could scarcely have been imagined before this pandemic panic kicked off. Welcome to the Corona World Order.

Video

Global Nightmare: Staying Sane During the Madness

International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, explains why paranoia is now the only way to live. He points out that mask wearing collaborators are ignorant and don’t understand what is happening. He gives some shocking facts about GlaxoSmithKline, the vaccine and drug manufacturer, and explains the plans for a Global Church as well as a Global Government. He also gives advice for those who don’t want to wear masks in public.

Disclaimer:

The information contained on this site is for your consideration and  your further research. The information is intended to broaden the horizons of the reader and to expose him/her to information that is not talked about or even considered in the mainstream media. Viewpoints are not forced upon any reader. You, the reader, are trusted to discern for yourself while browsing the pages of this website, what is true and untrue.

The author of Unleavenedbread.co.za does not necessarily agree with, support, or endorse everything that is posted, or linked to on any of our pages. Viewpoints expressed in some articles posted on this site do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the author of this website.

Christian Zionism – part 3

Christian Zionism – part 3

Christian Zionism – part 3

More on Antisemitism

In my previous two posts I provided material on the subject of Zionism,  Christian Zionism and the charge of Antisemitism.

In my first post I shared material that provided evidence and highlighted the fact that most of Jewish religious Judaism groups are apposed to the establishment of the  State of Israel – as a sovereign Jewish State/homeland.

In the second post I shared material pertaining to Christian Zionism and the tremendous following Israel has from this Christian support base – both financiaal and moral. I show in this post the erroneous teaching from the Christian pulpits that has led to this support.

If you have not read these two previous posts then I would encourage you to do so in order for you to gain the broad understanding and implications of this predicament. Here are the links:

Jewish Opposition to Zionism

Christian Zionism

In this post I will provide additional content to illustrate how the charge of Antisemitism has eveolved into somewhat of a ‘witch hunt’ and now pursues anyone who even challenges the secular deeds of the political State of Israel in any manner whatsoever.

As mentioned in my previous posts, my interest is solely from the perspective of Biblical Truth. I have no interest in worldly politics from a secular viewpoint.I am however extremely interested in Biblical Prophecy and the signs of the times in which we now live.

I look forward with a desperate hope for the soon return of our Messiah Yahushua –  first to receive his bride and therafter to set up his Kingdom here on this earth.

I am neither herein commenting on the Jewish people’s rights to have their own homeland or the legality of the current State of Israel and it’s political affairs. My views on such matters are personal and fall outside the scope of the content and objectives of this article. This commentary is purely focused on Biblical exegesis.

My grave concern with regards to the State of Israel is how many tens of millions of Christain believers are decieved into believing that the establishment and the affairs of the State of Israel and/or it’s city Jerusalem is the fullfimnet of Bible Prophecy. The New Testament is clear on who and what the temple is today for believers and what the ‘New Jerusalem’ is according to the book of Revelation – i.e. the bride.

The parables and illustrations used in the Old Testament were mainly shadows of greater things to come through the Messaih, who came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets of Old – Matthew 5:17.

Why are Christians falling prey to this deception from the Christain Zionist movement and FOZ – Freinds of Zion?

Our correct interpretation and understanding of the New Testament message pertaining to Isreal and Jerusalem should however not lead to any anger or aggressive critisism on our part towards the Jewish people –  as a whole or individual Jews. This would be Antisemitism. The fact that there are a small number of individuals with unfounded Zionist political aspirations, those who hide behind a Jewish identity, should not motivate one to rise up against any other single or group of Jewish people in anger or resentment.

A New Testament believer should be humble and understand that we are the wild olive that has been grafted into the root and the new shoot – Y’shua. The old branches were broken off because of unbelief – Romans 11: 15 – 24

As I have said before, the Jewish people do not acknowledge the New Testament message and therefore only view Israel/Jerusalem and the temple from an Old Testament perspective. But we should know better and not follow their interpretation and deeds whcih contradict the New Testament revelation.

I beleive that most of the Jewish people will be converted to beleievers in the Messaih in a very short space of time when the ‘Two Witnesses’ reveal the True Gospel message at the coming day of Yom Teruah. For two thousand years now the Christain church has provided a Gospel message and New Testament messaage that is completely foreign to any informed religious Jew. The mainstream Christain message is a perverted message and appears as such to the Jews.

Listen to the critique of ‘Jews for Judaism’ – specifically Rabbi Michael Skobac and another Jewish Rabbi –  Tovia Singer. These are learned men. To them the Christain message, rather the Christain interpretation of the New Testament, is complete nonsense. Unfortunately I have to share their view. Christainity has misrepresented the Truth of the New Testament for 2000 years. Read my section entitled ‘Holy Cowfor some of the reasons why I say this.

Dear Christians, it really is time to wake up.

Let us also not follow the Jewish ways which lack New Testament guidance and understanding. Let us also stop critisising the Jewish people for their lack of understanding and let us shine the light of Truth.

Without the Messiah there is no way to the Father:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6

The Jewish people don’t know this though because they dont read the New Testament.

They don’t know that we are the ‘temple’ – both individually and as a body.

They don’t know that a select body of believers. the ‘overcomers’, will be the ‘New Jerusalem’.

They don’t know that Israel was a name given to Jacob through submission to the Almighty and that this serves as a pattern for the New Testament ‘Israel’.

But we, as New Testament believers should know.

Old things are passed away – all things are become new:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:17  

What does the following verse from the book of 1 john have to say about those who deny that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah?

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 2:22

And who are these who deny that Jesus is the Christ?

Wake up Zionist Christians. Wake up.

I provided evidence through my previous posts how political Zionsim is rooted in Christainity and not Judaism. The history of Zionism goes back to England and the Plymouth brethren.  Theodor Herzl was clearly attracted to the opportunities contained within this Christain belief and became one of the founders of modern polical Zionsim.

One would probably ask what the thought process was behind this Christain Zionist teaching. It should be clear that these Christains understood certain end time Bible prophecy fulfilment being the Jewish people returning to ther land.  This interpretation assumed that this would then usher in the return of ‘Jesus’. The present Christian Zionist views are the same. In fact they believe that the supposed ‘prophetic’ events regarding Israel’s establishmnet and the imminent building of a third temple are all end time prophectic events.  Tens of billions of dollars are poured into Israel from the Church around the world as aid to support and expedite this claimed prophetic fulfilment. They see these events as ‘signs’ of the end times and the second coming of Messiah. But these are false, non-biblical signs.

These Christains, anxious to witness ‘signs’, are putting their hope in deception.

And what does our Messiah reveal regarding those who want a sign:

But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Mathew 12:39

A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.

Mathew 16:4

Has the Church become a wicked and adulterous generation – deperately looking for a sign which is non-biblical?

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

I have included another article written by Rev. Dr, Stephen Sizer on Antisemitism which describes his personal experince. He is a leading voice speaking out against Christian Zionsim with full Biblical support. He is a prime example of what happens to those who proclaim the Truth. One can begin to understand how the ‘Two witnesses’ of Revelation will be killed for their testimony – Revelation 11:7

The New Antisemitism

BY Rev. Dr Stephen Sizer

Ten years ago, in September 2008, an anonymous ‘Mordechai Maverick’ sent a defamatory message about me to everyone in our church Facebook group. The message drew attention to a new but anonymous blog called Seismic Shock (intended apparently to sound like my name), which described me as a “dangerous anti- Semite” and promised to publish articles to expose me. The anonymous author(s) then began to write articles about me on a weekly basis, sometimes daily. These were subsequently re-posted on other websites such as Rosh Pina Projectand Harry’s Place. In a one year period September 2008-to July 2009 well over one hundred articles about me were published on the Seismic Shockwebsite.

Surrey police took an interest and provided me and my family with additional security. On 29th November 2009, I received a report from West Yorkshire Police to advise that they had identified and visited an individual and asked him to desist writing defamatory material about me and remove from his website material of that nature. I was asked to contact them if I became aware of further articles by the same individual “causing you harassment”. Despite the fact that at the time I did not know the name of the author, he subsequently went public and then accused me of using the police to suppress free speech on the internet.

On 30thJune 2011, he wrote to each of my staff, drawing their attention to three defamatory videos about me on YouTube. He stated,

“I am concerned about the way your church is being used to form ties with extremists. I will be making a formal complaint to the Bishop of Guildford, but I want to alert your church leadership to these facts beforehand. I am keenly aware of how the Incumbent reacts to lay criticism.”

On the 4thJuly 2011, on Harry’s Place, a comment was left for ‘Mordechai’: “I understand that you are compiling a dossier on one of Saleh’s supporters, the Rev Sizer, to submit to the church authorities. Bishop Christopher of Guildford has written me to say that he will take action if proof of anti-Semitic views, whether in written form or verifiable spoken form, can be sustained.”[1]

In October 2012, Jonathan Arkush, on behalf of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, made a formal complaint to my Bishop, alleging “a clear and consistent pattern” of misconduct “unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders” Their complaint alleged that I had made “antisemitic statements”; that I was an “avid reader and publicizer of websites that are openly and virulently antisemitic”; of “trawling dark and extreme corners of the internet for material” to add to my website; of regularly publishing links on my website “to antisemitic websites, thereby re-publishing their anti-Semitism” in order to introduce readers to “racist and antisemitic websites.”[2]

To maximize the embarrassment, the complaint was published on their website the same day it was delivered to my Bishop, so that I and many others were aware of it before he was. A year later in October 2013, the complaint was resolved by conciliation.[3]I believe this was due in part to the robust support I received from several Jewish academics and rabbis, from leading politicians and several Anglican Bishops who spoke in my defence and challenged the allegations.[4]Although the Board of Deputies withdrew their complaint on this occasion, the criticisms continued and eventually led to my early retirement, but that is another story.[5]

Being accused of antisemitism is not something I would wish on anyone. It is painful and when such allegations are publicised, it is acutely embarrassing as well as distressing to family and friends.

This is a rather long introduction to explain why I have had a longstanding personal interest in how antisemitism is defined, and in particular, how the definition is now being broadened, conflating hatred of Jewish people with criticism of Israel. This has not gone unchallenged and has led to sharp divisions within the Jewish community.Antony Lerman, for example, asks,

“How is it that so many people who care deeply and genuinely about the problem of antisemitism find themselves on the opposite sides of a barricade fighting what sometimes seems like a war to the death? How many of us who have got caught up in these often bitter battles have hoped for some way of finding a common language through which we could discuss our differences?”[6]

  

Antisemitism redefined

Dr Bryan Klug at St Benet’s, Oxford, defines antisemitism as ‘a form of hostility towards Jews as Jews, in which Jews are perceived as something other than what they are’[7]The Community Security Trust (CST) defines antisemitism as “hatred, bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against Jews.”[8]

The word “Antisemitism” came into use in the late nineteenth century to describe pseudo-scientific racial discrimination against Jews. Now, it generally describes all forms of discrimination, prejudice or hostility towards Jews throughout history; and has been called “the Longest Hatred”.[9]

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, recently accepted by the British government[10], reads:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”[11]

The IHRA acknowledge that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” However, following the IHRA definition, examples of how the definition may be applied include “but are not limited to”,

 – “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

 – Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

 – Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”[12]

Lerman traces the historical development of the ‘new antisemitism’ and draws out how the new definition differs from traditional descriptions. He cites Irwin Cotler, Canadian professor of law and former minister of justice in the 2003-2006 Liberal government, as saying,

“In a word, classical anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever society they inhabit. The new anti-Semitism involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations, with Israel as the targeted ‘collective Jew among the nations’.”[13]

Leading lawyers have described the new IHRA definition as having a “chilling effect” on free speech.  Hugh Tomlinson QC was asked to give legal opinion on the impact the new definition could have on freedom of expression and assembly, by Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP), Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), Free Speech on Israel (FSOI) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).

Tomlinson stressed that the definition is not legally binding and public bodies are under no obligation to adopt it. Indeed, those that do so must take care in applying it or risk,

“unlawfully restricting legitimate expressions of political opinion in violation of statutory duties to ensure freedom of expression and assembly…”[14]

Tomlinson further argues, “Properly understood in its own terms the IHRA Definition does not mean that activities such as describing Israel as a state enacting a policy of apartheid, as practising settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott divestment or sanctions against Israel can properly be characterized as antisemitic. A public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to prohibit or sanction such activities would be acting unlawfully.”[15]

Tomlinson insisted that the new definition could “not be used to judge criticism of Israel to be antisemitic, unless the criticism actually expresses hatred towards Jews.” Criticism of Israel for its actions is clearly not synonymous with criticism of Israel for being Jewish. Designating Israel as a Jewish state is also problematic, not just for two million Israeli Palestinians, but also the five million Palestinians living under military occupation in the Palestinian Territories.[16]


Anti-Zionism and antisemitism

Jewish activists have been among the most vociferous in voicing opposition to the new definition.Ben White cites several anti-Zionist Jewish campaigners.

“For Rebecca Vilkomerson, Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a group with more than 200,000 online members and 60 chapters across the US, “equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism obscures the long history of Jewish anti-Zionism and diasporism.” According to the UK-based group Jews for Justice for Palestinians, fusing “Jewishness/Israel/Zionism” enables antisemitism to become “a weapon for imposing conformity on dissidents within the Jewish community.”

Chicago-based Rabbi Brant Rosen has described how “growing numbers of Jews” identify as anti-Zionists for “legitimate ideological reasons”, motivated “by values of equality and human rights for all human beings.” His words chime with those of a former President of Edinburgh University’s Jewish Society, who recently wrote of “the growing frustration felt by many millennial Jews about the default positioning that support for Israel receives amongst Jewish civil society organisations.”

But what about the claim that, since Zionism is simply Jewish self-determination, anti-Zionism is anti-Jewish bigotry? This is also misguided; put simply, “self-determination does not equate to statehood.” As legal scholar Michael Kearney has explained, self-determination is “less understood these days as a right to one’s own exclusive state, and more as a right to non-discrimination and to democratic participation in society.”

Israel’s supporters, however, are deliberately conflating terms such as ‘homeland’, ‘home’, ‘state’, and ‘self-determination’. The concept of a Jewish homeland is one thing; the creation and maintenance of a ‘Jewish state’, in Palestine, at the expense of its non-Jewish inhabitants, is another. The right to self-determination is never a right to colonisation, whoever is doing it.

Finally, to maintain that anti-Zionism is antisemitism is to deny the historical and contemporary reality of the Palestinians’ experience, and to dehumanise them as a people. For the Palestinians, Zionism has meant violent displacement, colonisation, and discrimination – are they ‘antisemitic’ for refusing to cheer their own dispossession? By extension, as orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor Charles H. Manekinput it recently, labelling Palestine solidarity activists as antisemitic is to imply that “the Palestinians have little justified claim to sympathy.”[17]

 

Antisemitism objective and subjective

Frances Webber, of the Institute for Race Relations, raises a more fundamental concern that antisemitism is now being seen as not just about racist actions but also about prejudicial attitudes. In effect, he argues, the IHRA definition operates within the realm of ‘thought policing’.

“… what particularly concerns us here is the way that the definition of anti-Semitism is moving from deed to thought, from the objective to the subjective, from action to attitude.

The IRR has always maintained that it was important to distinguish between prejudices – the subjective – and the acting out of those prejudices – the objective – in discriminatory acts, physical attacks, government edicts etc. Penalising people for racist feelings or attitudes leads to thought-policing, whereas racist acts are measurable and therefore prosecutable before the law if needs be. And there are specific laws relating to incitement to race hatred, the committing of racially-motivated crimes, discrimination in provision of goods and services whether direct or indirect.

But, recently, emanating in part from cultural/identity studies in academia, a kind of victimology, a subjectivism is creeping into policy. Anything that is said or might be said that upsets people, gives hurt, merely makes them uncomfortable, is becoming equated with outright discrimination and liable for a prohibitive ban.”[18]

Referring to the IHRA definition adopted by the Conservative government, Webber emphasizes that causing offence is not synonymous with racism.

“The conceptual flaw underlying Pickles’ definition is to equate racism with anything that gives offence. For while racism is offensive, not everything which gives offence is per se racist. Objections to cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist or paedophile are made not on grounds of their offensiveness – although they undoubtedly are – but on the grounds of the use of crude racist images to depict a religious minority as quintessentially evil. Although it might cause offence to some, it is no more inherently racist to attack Israel’s policies than it is to demand that ‘Rhodes must fall’ or to denounce US or British imperialism or these states’ complicity in torture. So Pickles’ definition not only appears to make an exception of Israel but also to close down on freedom of speech and of expression when it comes to defining what it is permissible to say about a particular country.”[19]

What then is wrong with the new definition of antisemitism? Essentially, critics argue that it,

“conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence political debate.”[20]

 

Blaming Jews and exacerbating antisemitism

Kamel Hawwash believes broadening the definition of what constitutes antisemitism to include criticism of Israel to be misguided and indeed, does “a disservice to the Jewish community in this country.”[21]

“… once criticism of Israel is linked to hatred of Jews in the UK, a line was crossed which implicitly makes the Jewish community somehow responsible for the actions of a foreign state.”

Lerman goes further, arguing that perversely, the new definition actually provokes antisemitism.

“The de-coupling of the understanding of antisemitism from traditional antisemitic tropes, which thereby made criticism of Israel in and of itself antisemitic, necessarily made the opposite – support for Israel – into a touchstone for expressing sympathy with Jews. This opened the door to the phenomenon of Jewish support for far right, anti-Islam, anti-immigrant parties keen to whitewash their pasts and sanitise their anti-Muslim prejudice by expressing support for Israel and seeing the country and its Jews as the front line against Islam’s ‘incursion into Europe’.

It is not surprising, therefore, that acceptance of the ‘new antisemitism’ theory has contributed to the exacerbation of tensions between Muslims and Jews in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe). There is, however, mutual pre-existing misunderstanding and mistrust, while negative images of Jews unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict are common among some Muslims.”[22]

The children’s story of Chicken Little who thought the sky was falling in when a leaf fell on her tail is pertinent.[23]By broadening or diluting the definition of antisemitism, people may become complacent or immune to genuine antisemitism and not repudiate it as they should.

Klug argues, “When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing—the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance.”[24]

Lerman adds, “Given the misery and murder that antisemitism has caused over the centuries,” … “one might expect pro-Israel groups to be more circumspect before using it indiscriminately as a political tool.” … “not everything that offends Jewish sensibilities is antisemitism”, and by labelling BDS as antisemitic, Israel advocates “are draining the word of any meaning.”[25]

Ben White concludes, “This politicised redefining of antisemitism should worry us all: it dehumanises Palestinians and delegitimises solidarity, imperils the fight against real antisemitism, and constitutes a much broader attackon our democracy and political freedoms.”[26]

 

Antisemitism and the UK Labour Party

In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party have been criticised for failing to address antisemitism within the party. Pro-Israeli lobbyists know that a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn will introduce major changes to British foreign policy.  Assuming Labour had a sufficient majority, Jeremy Corbyn’s government would likely recognise the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders, (like most of the rest of the world), and also might introduce sanctions against Israel as well as companies profiting from the occupation.

White cites Richard Kuper, spokesperson of Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP), as saying, “there is clearly also a co-ordinated, willed and malign campaign to exaggerate the nature and extent of antisemitism as a stick to beat the Labour party”[27]

He also observes, “The Labour Party has more than 400 MPs and peers at Westminster, in addition to almost 7,000 local government officials and some 390,000 members. The antisemitism ‘crisis’ has involved half a dozen individuals, most of whom have either never held, or no longer hold elected office. Corbyn himself has repeatedly condemned antisemitism since becoming leader, while according to Party General Secretary Iain McNicol, everyone reported for antisemitism has been suspended or excluded.”[28]

 

Challenging both antisemitism and Zionism

 Hawwash has called upon the British government to reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism for the following reasons:

“Our message to British politicians is this:as long as Israel continues to occupy Palestine, to oppress and murder, to lay siege to two million people, to steal our land and resources, to restrict our movement, to refuse to allow the refugees to return, to attack our religious sites, to illegally settle our land and to leave our people with no hope of freedom, dignity or independence, we and our supporters will continue to speak out, to educate and to demand that the British government changes its shameful, but deliberate policies which place trade with Israel above human rights.We will not allow Zionists who support a state that does all of the above to silence us under the disguise of the “new anti-Semitism” but we will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Jews in their fight against the real anti-Semitism that some still undoubtedly face.”[29]

It is lamentably true that in the past, church leaders have indeed tolerated antisemitism and incited racist attacks on Jewish people. Racism is without excuse. Antisemitism must be repudiated unequivocally.However, anti-Zionism is not synonymous with antisemitism. Judaism is a religious faith. Israel is a largely secular and multi-ethnic nation state. Zionism is a political system. These three are not synonymous. Indeed most Zionists are Christians[30]and many Jews are anti-Zionist.[31]

This is why it is imperative to repudiate antisemitism, to defend Israel’s right to exist, within internationally recognised borders, while at the same time campaign equally for the civil, religious and political rights of Palestinians to be respected. This is surely the best way to bring an end to the evil of antisemitism.

“What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.”(Micah 6:8)

 

Update 30 August 2018

The Palestinian Return Centre has obtained an Opinion from Geoffrey Robertson QC on the interpretation and impact on free speech, of the British Government’s acceptance in 2016 of an extended definition of anti-Semitism promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

Notes

[1] http://hurryupharry.org/2011/07/03/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-raed-salah/

[2] http://www.stephensizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Response-to-the-Complaint-of-Misconduct-from-Stephen-Sizer.pdf

[3] http://www.stephensizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Stephen-Sizer-Board-of-Deputies-Conciliation-October-2013.pdf

[4] http://www.stephensizer.com/friends/

[5]See www.peacemakers.ngo

[6] Antony Lerman, Defamation v Anti-Defamation, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/14/dissenting-new-antisemism-film

[8] https://cst.org.uk/antisemitism/definitions

[9] Ibid.,

[10]https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-definition-of-antisemitism

[11] https://antisemitism.uk

[12] https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/node/196

[13] Antony Lerman, The ‘new antisemitism’, https://www.opendemocracy.net/mirrorracisms/antony-lerman/new-antisemitism

[14] Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Legal opinion finds major faults with government antisemitism definitionhttps://www.palestinecampaign.org/legal-opinion-finds-major-faults-government-antisemitism-definition

[15] Ibid.,

[16]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territories

[17] Ben White, Shifty antisemitism wars, https://benwhite.org.uk/2016/04/22/shifty-antisemitism-wars

[18] Frances Webber, Anti-semitism – thought or deed? http://www.irr.org.uk/news/anti-semitism-thought-or-deed/

[19] Ibid.,

[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

[21] Kamel Hawwash, Redefining anti-Semitism will not silence Palestinian’s struggle for justice, http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/balfour-anti-semitism-1450743096

[22] Lerman, op. cit.,

[23]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny

[24] Brian Klug, The Myth of the New Anti-SemitismThe Nation, February 2, 2004

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

[25] Lerman, cited in Ben White, op. cit.,

[26] White, op. cit.,

[27] White, op. cit.,

[28] White, op. cit.,

[29] Hawwash, op. cit.,

[30] For a critique of Christian Zionism see Stephen Sizer, Zion’s Christian Soldiers: The Bible, Israel and the Church, Intervarsity Press, 2007. http://www.stephensizer.com/books/zions-christian-soldiers/

[31] See On Antisemitism: Solidarity and the Struggle for Justice: Jewish Voice for Peace, Haymarket Books, 2017.

 

original post : https://stephensizer.com/2018/05/the-new-antisemitism/

 

Criticizing Israel Isn’t Anti-Semitic. Here’s what it is.

Pro-Israel politicians don’t speak for young Jews like me. They shouldn’t pretend to.

written by Sarah Gertler – the Newman Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Weeks ago, when the first accusations of anti-semitism were being leveled against Representative Ilhan Omar, I was deeply agitated.

Not long ago I saw her address these accusations at a local town hall. She reminded the world that, as a Black Muslim woman in America, she knows what hate looks like — and spends her life laboring against it. Her words were clear, bold, and unflinching.

When members of Congress not only continued to gang up and falsely smear Omar as anti-semitic, but even created a House Resolution painting her words as hateful, I wasn’t just agitated. I was absolutely disgusted.

Omar has criticized the U.S. government’s support for Israeli actions that break international law. And she’s spoken out against the role money in politics plays in shoring up that support.

Neither is anti-semitic.

What is anti-semitic is the cacophony of mainstream media and politicians saying that criticizing U.S. policy toward the state of Israel is the same as attacking Jewish people.

Like most American Jewish youth, I grew up knowing Israel. During holidays, I sang prayers about Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel. In Hebrew school, I learned about the country’s culture, its cities, its past prime ministers. At my Jewish summer camp, we started every day with the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah.

My image of Israel was a rosy one. When I finally visited it in college, I was spellbound by the lush landscapes and sparkling cities, certain I would one day move to this golden ancestral home myself.

All this emotional buildup made it all the more sickening when, in the years that followed, I learned the realities of the Israeli occupation.

The modern state of Israel was established by Zionists — a nationalist movement started by European Jews with the aim of creating a “Jewish state” as a refuge for persecuted Jews.

It’s true that Jews have faced centuries of brutal persecution in Europe. But the Zionists’ project shared unmistakably European colonialist roots.

In 1948, Israel’s war of independence led to the Nakba, an invasion driving 700,000 Palestinians from their homes. These Palestinians were never allowed to return, creating a massive refugee population that today numbers over 7 million.

While I was able to travel freely up and down Israel, the Palestinians who once lived there are legally barred from returning. While I wandered the marketplaces trying stews and shawarmas, Palestinians in Gaza can’t afford even the gas to cook their foodbecause of the Israeli blockade.

Zionism didn’t create an inclusive Jewish refuge either. In fact, the diverse Mizrahi — or Arab — Jewish population that was already thriving in Palestine was pushed out of Israeli society as Ashkenazi — or European — Jews became the elite class.

What it did create is an imperialist stronghold that continues to break international law by building settlements deeper and deeper into Palestinian territory, giving Jewish Israelis superior legal status to Arab Israelis and Palestinians, and attacking all who protest.

Since Israel’s origin, the U.S. has supplied tens of billions of dollars of military aid and ardent political support. Congress consistently ignores dozens of UN resolutions condemning Israeli abuses, and year after year gives it more resources to violently oppress impoverished Palestinians.

Pro-Israel lobbying groups’ considerable political influence has even pushed Congress to consider bills punishing Americans who support Palestinian rights. (Around half of all states already have such laws.)

More broadly, they rely on villainizing critics with false claims of antisemitism — especially when the criticism comes from a person of color, as we’ve seen with Angela Davis, Marc Lamont Hill, and Michelle Alexander before Rep. Omar.

I, along with an increasing number of young American Jews, want to discuss U.S. support of Israel. Talking foreign policy is not anti-semitism.

What is anti-semitic — always — is saying that all Jews support violence and imperialism.

https://ips-dc.org/criticizing-israel-isnt-anti-semitic-heres-what-is/

 

Anti-Semitism or Antisemitism

What’s in a hyphen? Why writing anti-Semitism with a dash distorts its meaning

Regularly spelled with a hyphen in American English but without in academia, some experts claim the punctuation mark slashes the word’s potency

In April of 2015, Microsoft received an unusual memo. Crafted on behalf of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, a group of scholars issued a “Memo on Spelling of Antisemitism,” urging a change to the mammoth hi-tech company’s auto-correct spelling policy. Until then, a hyphen had been perfunctorily added between “anti” and “Semitism” in the word commonly used for hatred and prejudice against Jews.

Far from being an innocuous debate over semantics, the IHRA claimed that a hyphened “anti-Semitism” gave credence to discredited Nazi racial theories, wherein humanity was divided into superior and inferior subcategories. Additionally, claimed the scholars, a hyphen dilutes and distorts the term’s meaning by implying that groups other than Jews are included within the supposed “Semites” being opposed.

Case in point is a 2015 speech given by consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader: “[Supporters of Israel] know how to accuse people of anti-Semitism if any issue on Israel is criticized, even though the worst anti-Semitism in the world today is against Arabs and Arab-Americans,” he said.

Addressing a gathering of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the five-time presidential nominee’s remarks focused heavily on Jews and Israel.

According to Nader, a longtime critic of the Jewish state, “The Semitic race is Arabs and Jews and Jews do not own the phrase anti-Semitism.” For this and other remarks, Nader was accused of “linguistically hijacking” the term anti-Semitism by some critics.

Like the word “Aryan,” the term “Semitism” is based on a mythical conglomeration of languages and race, as opposed to science. “Semites” were people who spoke one of several related languages, all of whom traced their roots to the Bible’s Shem, Noah’s son.

The term “antisemitism,” coined in 1879, was not a reference to groups of people who spoke similar Levant-based languages. Rather, as “invented” by German journalist Wilhelm Marr, “antisemitism” was intended to give an air of modernity and science to old-fashioned Jew-hatred.

After its inception in Germany, antisemitism — without a hyphen — spread across the continent. The term was never hyphenated in German, Spanish, or French. In English, however, the term has come to appear with a hyphen in most popular usages, outside of Europe.

For the IHRA, the addition of a hyphen to antisemitism is problematic in part because the group sees the hyphen as a “[legitimization] of a form of pseudo-scientific racial classification that was thoroughly discredited by association with Nazi ideology.”

According to the alliance, adding a hyphen also “divides the term, stripping it from its meaning of opposition and hatred toward Jews. Antisemitism should be read as a unified term so that the meaning of the generic term for modern Jew-hatred is clear.

“At a time of increased violence and rhetoric aimed towards Jews, it is urgent that there is clarity and no room for confusion or obfuscation when dealing with antisemitism,” stated the alliance.

‘Overreaction to Arab claims’
Since 2015, governments around the world have adopted the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, and Microsoft no longer “forces” a hyphen into the term. However, most English-language media outlets and writers outside of academia — including this one — continue to employ a hyphenated anti-Semitism.

Unlike those in the ivory tower, in the assessment of some Jewish communal practitioners, now is not the time for a semantic debate. When questioned by The Times of Israel, very few experts expressed concern about anti-Semitism continuing to be spelled with a hyphen among the general public.

Ken Jacobson, the Anti-Defamation League’s deputy national director, believes the conversation is “intellectually dueling and largely divorced from reality.”

In Jacobson’s assessment, the debate is “is an overreaction to Arab claims that they can’t be anti-Semites because they are a Semitic people,” he said.

Calling the term anti-Semitism “archaic and strange,” Jacobson noted that “it took the shock of Russian pogroms and the Holocaust to bring the term into everyday usage,” as he told The Times of Israel.

Because the term anti-Semitism has been spelled with a hyphen “millions of times in every vehicle possible,” said Jacobson, “changing it will not enhance anyone’s understanding and could even undermine a word that aptly conveys the power of this evil.” said Jacobson.

For Rob Leikind, head of Boston’s American Jewish Committee chapter, “There are good arguments with which to contend that the spelling ‘antisemitism’ more accurately depicts anti-Jewish hostility or prejudice than the spelling ‘anti-Semitism.’”

However, said Leikind, “‘anti-Semitism’ is the common way to spell the word, some extremists excepted. Nearly everyone understands that this word references Jews alone, and changing to ‘antisemitism’ would accomplish little beyond causing additional confusion.”

Clarity is also on the mind of journalist Cnaan Liphshiz, a Netherlands-based reporter for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“In my professional capacity I use whatever the style guide requires. Personally, I find the debate too persnickety to feel strongly about one way or another,” said Liphshiz, who regularly writes about anti-Semitism in Europe.

“However, I’m inclined to use the non-hyphenated variant because that’s how it’s spelled in virtually all the European languages that I monitor for my reporting,” said Liphshiz.

‘Embedded in our collective consciousness’
Among experts questioned by The Times of Israel, several made cases for the importance of “antisemitism,” as opposed to “anti-Semitism.”

“The term anti-Semitism (as you apparently spell it) is meaningless, because there is no Semitism one can be ‘anti’ to,” wrote Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer in an email to The Times of Israel.

According to Bauer, “There are Semitic languages, including for instance Tigrean in Ethiopia, and the term hardly refers to antipathy towards the Tigre. You cannot be anti-Semitic just as you cannot be anti-Indo-European,” said Bauer.

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, head of the AMCHA Initiative focused on campus anti-Semitism, wrote that “Anti-anything — with a hyphen — describes a state of being opposed to a particular policy, idea or thing at a particular time.”

However, added Rossman-Benjamin, anti-Semitism goes beyond “opposition” to Jews, and involves “a profound and irrational hatred of them, a phenomenon embedded in our collective consciousness that has existed longer than any other form of hatred. Anti-Semitism — with the hyphen — does not seem to me to capture this understanding of the word,” she said.

According to Rossman-Benjamin, a hyphen-less antisemitism “is also the recognized spelling among scholars of antisemitism and the one we use in all of our scholarly work. The confusion arises because anti-Semitism — with the hyphen — has become the accepted spelling in most dictionaries and spell-checkers.”

Despite her case for ditching the hyphen, Rossman-Benjamin was pragmatic about the likelihood of “anti-Semitism” disappearing from popular use.

“The approach we take is to use antisemitism in the vast majority of our work, including scholarly articles, research, reports and presentations,” said Rossman-Benjamin. “However, when writing for news outlets we have no problem including the hyphen to be consistent with the preferred spelling of reporters, editors and fact-checkers, and it saves us much back-and-forth on corrections.”

Another organization with a focus on combating Judeophobia on campus is StandWithUs, which provides activists with strategies and materials about — for example — how to defend Israel against the BDS movement.

According to StandWithUs co-founder and CEO Roz Rothstein, her organization has always used a hyphenated anti-Semitism.

“As incidents of anti-Semitism across the US and other countries have escalated, and the conversation should address both the incidents and the immediate need for solutions, we don’t want to distract people from the importance of the conversation by throwing a new spelling at them,” said Rothstein.

Echoing that sentiment was Alvin H. Rosenfeld, director of Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism.

“Will spelling the word in an unhyphenated way as “antisemite” and not “anti-Semite” correct its misuse? Probably not for those who willfully misuse it, but for others, it may clarify that no one ever beat or cursed a Jew because he hated ‘Semitism,’ but only because he hated Jews,” wrote Rosenfeld.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/whats-in-a-hyphen-why-writing-anti-semitism-with-a-dash-distorts-its-meaning/

 

I urge all who read here to please watch the following video

Christian Zionism: The Antichrists’ Rewrite of History- The Scofield Bible is a LIE!

Before the foul Scofield bible, Christians in the USA all opposed the Zionist takeover of Palestine, declaring it to be an act of great evil. So the backers of Zionism, engineered a mass misinformation effort, with such corrupted, anti-truth, Antichrist tools of deception, as the Scofield Bible, which has been written, backed and promoted by those of the evil Satanic New World Order which detests devout Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. The Scofield bible created the false “Christian Zionism” by deceiving people into supporting Zionism. Many Clergy have exposed the lies of the Scofield bible and Christian Zionism and that it is completely untrue. Good Jews, the world over, condemn Zionism as being agaisnt God and Holy Scripture.

Christian Zionism – part 2

Christian Zionism – part 2

Christian Zionism – part 2

The Deceit of Christian Zionism

 

This content is posted for the purpose of understanding Biblical prophecy and current world events – supposedly aligned with such.

I have no secular political interest or agenda other than that which pertains to my pursuit and understanding  of  Biblical Truth.

 

At least one in four American Christians surveyed recently by Christianity Today magazine said that they believe it is their biblical responsibility to support the nation of Israel. This view is known as Christian Zionism. The Pew Research Center put the figure at 63 per cent among white evangelicals. Christian Zionism is pervasive within mainline American evangelical, charismatic and independent denominations including the Assemblies of God, Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, as well as many of the independent mega-churches. It is less prevalent within the historic denominations, which show a greater respect for the work of the United Nations, support for human rights, the rule of international law and empathy with the Palestinians.

The origins of the movement can be traced to the early 19th century when a group of eccentric British Christian leaders began to lobby for Jewish restoration to Palestine as a necessary precondition for the return of Christ. The movement gained traction from the middle of the 19th century when Palestine became strategic to British, French and German colonial interests in the Middle East. Proto-Christian Zionism therefore preceded Jewish Zionism by more than 50 years. Some of Theodore Herzl’s strongest advocates were Christian clergy.

Christian Zionism as a modern theological and political movement embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism. It has become deeply detrimental to a just peace between Palestine and Israel. It propagates a worldview in which the Christian message is reduced to an ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today.

Followers of Christian Zionism are convinced that the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 and the capture of Jerusalem in 1967 were the miraculous fulfillment of God’s promises made to Abraham that he would establish Israel as a Jewish nation forever in Palestine.

Tim LaHaye’s infamous Left Behind novels, together with other End Times speculations written by authors such as Hal Lindsey, John Hagee and Pat Robertson, have sold well over 100 million copies. These are supplemented by children’s books, videos and event violent computer games.

Burgeoning Christian Zionist organizations such as the International Christian Embassy (ICEJ), Christian Friends of Israel (CFI) and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) wield considerable influence on Capitol Hill, claiming a support base in excess of 50 million true believers. This means there are now at least ten times as many Christian Zionists as Jewish Zionists. And their European cousins are no less active in the Zionist Hasbarafia, lobbying for Israel, attacking its critics and thwarting the peace process. The United States and Israel are often portrayed as Siamese twins, joined at the heart, sharing common historic, religious and political values.

Pastor John Hagee is one of the leaders of the Christian Zionist movement. He is the Founder and Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church, a 19,000-member evangelical church in San Antonio, Texas. His weekly programmes are broadcast on 160 TV stations, 50 radio stations and eight networks into an estimated 99 million homes in 200 countries. In 2006 he founded Christians United for Israel admitting,

“For 25 almost 26 years now, I have been pounding the evangelical community over television. The Bible is a very pro-Israel book. If a Christian admits ‘I believe the Bible,’ I can make him a pro-Israel supporter or they will have to denounce their faith. So I have the Christians over a barrel, you might say.”

In March 2007, Hagee spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference. He began by saying:

“The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened. There are 50 million Christians standing up and applauding the State of Israel…”

As the Jerusalem Post pointed out, his speech did not lack clarity. He went on to warn:

“It is 1938. Iran is Germany, and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler. We must stop Iran’s nuclear threat and stand boldly with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East… Think of our potential future together: 50 million evangelicals joining in common cause with 5 million Jewish people in America on behalf of Israel is a match made in heaven.”

Christian Zionists have shown varying degrees of enthusiasm for implementing six basic political convictions that arise from their ultra-literal and fundamentalist theology:

  1. The belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people leads Christian Zionists to seek to bless Israel in material ways. However, this also invariably results in the uncritical endorsement of and justification for Israel’s racist and apartheid policies, in the media, among politicians and through solidarity tours to Israel.
  2. As God’s chosen people, the final restoration of the Jews to Israel is therefore actively encouraged, funded and facilitated through partnerships with the Jewish Agency.
  3. Eretz Israel, as delineated in scripture, from the Nile to the Euphrates, belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, therefore the land must be annexed, Palestinians driven from their homes and the illegal Jewish settlements expanded and consolidated.
  4. Jerusalem is regarded as the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews, and cannot be shared with the Palestinians. Therefore, strategically, Christian Zionists have lobbied the US Administration to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem and thereby ensure that Jerusalem is recognised as the capital of Israel.
  5. Christian Zionists offer varying degrees of support for organisations such as the Jewish Temple Mount Faithful who are committed to destroying the Dome of the Rock and rebuilding the Jewish Temple on the Haram Al-Sharif (Noble sanctuary of Al-Aqsa).
  6. Christian Zionists invariably have a pessimistic view of the future, convinced that there will be an apocalyptic war of Armageddon in the imminent future. They are deeply sceptical of the possibility of a lasting peace between Jews and Arabs and therefore oppose the peace process. Indeed, to advocate an Israeli compromise of “land for peace” with the Palestinians is seen as a rejection of God’s promises to Israel and therefore to support her enemies.

Within the Christian Zionist worldview, Palestinians are regarded as alien residents in Israel. Many Christian Zionists are reluctant even to acknowledge Palestinians exist as a distinct people, claiming that they emigrated to Israel from surrounding Arab nations for economic reasons after Israel had become prosperous. A fear and deep-seated hatred of Islam also pervades their dualistic Manichean theology. Christian Zionists have little or no interest in the existence of indigenous Arab Christians despite their continuity with the early church.

In 2006, I co-drafted the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism signed by four of the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem: His Beatitude Patriarch Michel Sabbah, Latin Patriarch, Jerusalem; Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem; Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal, Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East; and Bishop Munib Younan, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land. In it they insisted:

“We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organisations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!

We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state and peace and security in the entire region.”

The patriarchs concluded, “God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.” The prophet Micah asks, “What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8).

It is my contention after more than 10 years of postgraduate research that Christian Zionism is the largest, most controversial and most destructive lobby within Christianity. It bears primary responsibility for perpetuating tensions in the Middle East, justifying Israel’s apartheid colonialist agenda and for undermining the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

The closing chapter of the New Testament takes us back to the imagery of the Garden of Eden and the removal of the curse arising from the Fall:

“Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb… On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.” (Revelation 22:1-2)

Surely this is what Jesus had in mind when he instructed his followers to act as Ambassadors of peace and reconciliation, to work and pray that God’s kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven.

Stephen Sizer

Reproduced with thanks from Middle East Monitor.

https://stephensizer.com/2013/08/christian-zionism-the-new-heresy-that-undermines-middle-east-peace/

Zionism defined

In general terms, Zionism may be defined as ‘the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel’. The term ‘Zionism’ was first coined in 1892 by Nathan Birnbaum, then a student in Vienna. A year later he published a booklet entitled, The National Rebirth of the Jewish People in Its Homeland as a Means of Solving the Jewish Problem, in which he advocated Jewish nationalistic ideas that Theodor Herzl was to later expound in A Jewish State, published in 1896. At the First World Zionist Congress, which Herzl convened in Basle a year later, he and Birnbaum articulated the deep longings of many Jewish people for their own homeland. Various strands of Zionism emerged in the early twentieth century including practical, socialist and communist.

The most recent and probably most destructive form to appear is known as Messianic Zionism. Distinct from much more traditional and less extreme expressions of Zionism, this is associated with individuals like Rabbi Kahne and Gershon Salomon, together with the Gush Emunim movement and the Temple Mount Faithful. Messianic Zionism was spawned from within the ultra-Orthodox subcultures of the ‘Charedi Bible-belt’ around Jerusalem following the 1967 ‘Six Day War’. The Charedim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) were, according to Sachar, ‘the first to embrace the territorialist mysticism inherent in the 1967 triumph’ and came to be a decisive factor in Likud’s electoral victory in 1997. Equating Arabs with the ancient Amalekites, and convinced they have a divinely ordained mandate to carry out ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Israel, religious Zionists have been in the forefront of the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, attacks on Muslims and mosques and the systematic expansion of the West Bank settlements, especially in places like Arab East Jerusalem and Hebron. Ironically, the Zionist vision which initially called simply for a ‘publicly secured and legally assured homeland for the Jews in Palestine’, was largely nurtured and shaped by Christians long before it was able to inspire wide-spread Jewish support. As will be shown in chapter one (Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon), proto-Christian Zionism predated and nurtured Jewish Zionism, while the contemporary Christian Zionist movement emerged only after 1967, alongside Messianic Zionism, in part in reaction to the widespread criticism Israel has endured over the last thirty-five years.

Christian Zionism defined

At its simplest, Christian Zionism is a political form of philo-Semitism, and can be defined as ‘Christian support for Zionism’. The term ‘Christian Zionist’ first appears to have been used by Theodor Herzl to describe Henri Dunant, the Swiss philanthropist and founder of the Red Cross. Dunant was one of only a handful of Gentiles to be invited to the First World Zionist Congress. Walter Riggans interprets the term in an overtly political sense as ‘any Christian who supports the Zionist aim of the sovereign State of Israel, its army, government, education etc., but it can describe a Christian who claims to support the State of Israel for any reason’. Evangelicals, in particular, are increasingly polarized as to whether Christian Zionism is biblical and orthodox or heretical and cultic. Two mutually exclusive positions have emerged – that of covenantalism and dispensationalism.

Stephen Sizer

 

 

The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism

“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

Christian Zionism is a modern theological and political movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist programme provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today.

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from the ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!

We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region.

We call upon all Churches that remain silent, to break their silence and speak for reconciliation with justice in the Holy Land.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to the following principles as an alternative way:

We affirm that all people are created in the image of God. In turn they are called to honor the dignity of every human being and to respect their inalienable rights.

We affirm that Israelis and Palestinians are capable of living together within peace, justice and security.

We affirm that Palestinians are one people, both Muslim and Christian. We reject all attempts to subvert and fragment their unity.

We call upon all people to reject the narrow world view of Christian Zionism and other ideologies that privilege one people at the expense of others.

We are committed to non-violent resistance as the most effective means to end the illegal occupation in order to attain a just and lasting peace.

With urgency we warn that Christian Zionism and its alliances are justifying colonization, apartheid and empire-building.

God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.

“What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)

This is where we take our stand. We stand for justice. We can do no other. Justice alone guarantees a peace that will lead to reconciliation with a life of security and prosperity for all the peoples of our Land. By standing on the side of justice, we open ourselves to the work of peace – and working for peace makes us children of God.

“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Cor 5:19)

His Beattitude Patriarch Michel Sabbah,
Latin Patriarchate, Jerusalem

Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad,
Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem

Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal,
Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East

Bishop Munib Younan,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land

August 22, 2006

 

Professor Donald Wagner and Stephen Sizer co-wrote the declaration at the invitation of the heads of churches in Jerusalem. Theirs was  based on an earlier statement endorsed at the 5th International Sabeel Conference in April 2004.

 

Stephen Sizer

http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2011/09/jerusalem-declaration-on-christian.html 

 

 

Books written by Stephen Sizer

Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon? 

 

Evangelical Christians are sometimes accused of not being sufficiently interested in politics and not contributing to the great debates about social welfare in our world today. ‘Too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use’, is the charge. While there may often be truth in this accusation, Stephen Sizer’s challenging study of Christian Zionism demonstrates that there is at least one area in contemporary politics where this is decidedly not so. But is the influence of Christian Zionism valid and helpful? Is the theological basis of this political stance misguided and the outcome contrary to God’s will?

Stephen’s careful survey of this movement demonstrates that theology really matters and, if the theology is wrong, the consequences are disastrous. Prior to examining the theological position of the various strands of Christian Zionism, Stephen devotes his first chapter to an historical exploration of the development of this movement. He traces the transition of Christian Zionism from early nineteenth-century rural England to mainstream American evangelicalism in the twentieth century.

He notes the historical and interpretative reasons why Christian Zionism evolved into different schools of thought. Then he launches into a theological analysis and critique of those positions in his second chapter.

Seven basic theological tenets are accepted in varying degrees by evangelical Christian Zionists. The foundation upon which the other tenets are based is a literalist hermeneutic and a consistently futurist reading of prophecy. Quite apart from the political outcome of this way of reading the Bible, there are serious implications for the church and the gospel. At heart of the problem, he claims, there is actually a devaluing of the significance of the Lord Jesus Christ and his atoning work for Israel and the nations.

The third chapter of this book shows how the belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people (apart from Christ and his church) leads Christian Zionists to endorse and justify many of the current policies of the Israeli government, including the annexation and settlement of Palestinian-owned land. The return of Jews to Israel is actively encouraged and facilitated. Western governments are pressured to relocate their embassies to Jerusalem and to recognize this as the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews.

Those who believe that Scripture predicts the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and a reinstitution of the priesthood and sacrificial system offer varying degrees of support to Jewish Temple Mount organizations committed to achieving this end. Moreover, as Stephen concludes, since Christian Zionists are convinced there will be an apocalyptic war between good and evil in the near future, there is no prospect for lasting peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, to advocate that Israel compromise with Islam or coexist with Palestinians is to identify with those destined to oppose God and Israel in the imminent battle of Armageddon (p. 252).

Stephen shows that the New Testament must be our guide in understanding how the Old Testament has been fulfilled for us in Christ and in judging what remains to be worked out in history. Every Christian needs to be clear about the way the Bible fits together, observing the way the inspired writers of the New Testament reveal this. But especially those who presume to tell us how the future will unfold need to be sure that they are not misusing the Bible and, in their misguided zeal, dishonouring God. I hope that Christian Zionists who read this book will recognize that it is written by someone who believes in the inspiration and authority of Scripture as they do, and will consider carefully the challenge he brings to their particular line of interpretation.

David Peterson Oak Hill College, London

 

The following three chapters are a summary of the book:

Christian Zionism Master History (part 1)

Christian Zionism Master Theology (part 2)

Christian Zionism Master Politics (part 3)

 

◊ Zion’s Christian Soldiers 

What is the Relationship between Israel and the Church?

Seven Biblical Answers 

It is not an understatement to say that what is at stake is our understanding of the gospel, the centrality of the cross, the role of the church, and the nature of our missionary mandate, not least, to the beloved Jewish people. If we don’t see Jesus at the heart of the Hebrew scriptures, and the continuity between his Old Testament and New Testament saints in the one inclusive Church, we’re not reading them correctly. The key question is this “Was the coming of Jesus and the birth of the Church the fulfilment or the postponement of the promises God made to Abraham?” Christian Zionists see the promises of identity, land and destiny as part of an ongoing covenant God has with the Jewish people. In the following resources I answer this question and show that Christian Zionism is a recent manifestation of a heresy refuted by the Old and New Testaments.

 

Attached is a simple four page introduction to the main biblical passages that answer and refute the most common Zionist assumptions about God’s purposes for Israel and the Church. It is also available as a pdf download

 

 

The following videos and literature presented by Rev. Stephen Sizer provide a comprehensive background to the origins and the growth of Christian Zionsism. 

Christian Zionism – Road-map to Armageddon?

 

 This presentation is a summary of my book ‘Zion’s Christian Soldiers’ published by IVP. stephensizer.com/books/zions-christian-soldiers/

It was delivered at the Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding Executive Briefing in Fremont, California in November 2011. emeu.net

 It was also delivered at the Christ at the Checkpoint conference in Bethlehem in March 2012.

Stephen Sizer

 

The Historical Roots of Christian Zionism, its Theological Basis and Political Agenda.

In this talk, Reverend Dr. Stephen Sizer discusses how the movement of Christian Zionism preceded Jewish Zionism by at least 50 years and facilitated the establishment of the State of Israel.

 

 

 Acknowledgements of Stephen Sizer’s works:

 “I am glad to commend Stephen Sizer’s ground-breaking critique of Christian Zionism. His comprehensive overview of its roots, its theological basis and its political consequences is very timely. I myself believe that Zionism, both political and Christian, is incompatible with biblical faith. Stephen’s book has helped to reinforce this conviction.” Revd John Stott, Rector Emeritus, All Soul’s, Langham Place, London, the principal framer of the Lausanne Covenant (1974) and founder of the Langham Partnership International.

 “This is a very fine and important book.  All Christians who believe that Jesus favoured peacemakers, should read it and realise what terrible harm is being done in the name of Christianity.  And all who are concerned about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict should read it to understand how Christian Zionism disables the US as fair minded mediator.  European foreign policy thinkers should read it,because this distortion of US political space, puts a greater responsibility on European governments to stand up for justice and international law” Right Hon. Clare Short, former British Secretary of State for International Development.

 

Sixty Academics Endorse Christian Zionism Book

 

The following 2 part broadcsast are the product of a Catholic Brother André Marie.

There are a few references to Cathoilic doctrine contained in these videos which I clearly reject but the majority of the content is very worthwhile.

I have shared this material for the subject matter of Christian Zionism only.

 

 

Christian Zionism part 1:

Tracing the Lines of a Warmongering Heresy

 

 

Christian Zionism part 2:

Why Christian Zionism Is a Problem

 

“It is true that at various times in the past, churches and church leaders have tolerated or incited anti-Semitism and even attacks on Jewish people. Racism is a sin and without excuse. Anti-Semitism must be repudiated unequivocally. However, we must not confuse apples and oranges. Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as anti-Semitism despite attempts to broaden the definition. Criticising a political system as racist is not necessarily racist. Judaism is a religious system. Israel is a sovereign nation. Zionism is a political system. These three are not synonymous. I respect Judaism, repudiate anti-Semitism, encourage interfaith dialogue and defend Israel’s right to exist within borders recognised by the international community and agreed with her neighbours. But like many Jews, I disagree with a political system which gives preference to expatriate Jews born elsewhere in the world, while denying the same rights to the Arab Palestinians born in the country itself.”

Stephen Sizer

Additional reading:

 John Nelson Darby and Plymouth Brethren Wikipedia articles on the man and the sect that invented premillennial dispensationalism and popularized the notion of “the rapture.”

True Torah JewsNeturei Karta InternationalInternational Jewish anti-Zionist Network — three Jewish organizations (with otherwise divergent outlooks) that oppose Zionism.

The Scofield Bible—The Book That Made Zionists of America’s Evangelical Christiansby Maidhc Ó Cathail at the Washington Report on Middle East Affair

The Origins of the Israel Lobby in the USby Alison Weir at counterpunch.org

The Lions of Albion and Israel in Palestine: 1945-1948by Christopher J. Carter at remnantnewspaper.com