The Vision Of Technocracy And Your Future

By Jon Rappoport

“Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”

PART ONE

—Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans—

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable.

On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.

When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.

And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion? And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?

Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.

Engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Disease and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the blueprint.

This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.

Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.

Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives. Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.

The individual would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.

Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization. What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.

Other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population.

Essentially, an already-misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.

In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy.

A locomotive is a society? No. That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly bizarre.

Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief. They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories—greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; allotting production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guidance.

If you track down the specifics that sit under these cover stories, you discover a warped system of planning that expresses control over the global population.

The collective utopia turns out to be a sham.

Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.

A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.

Engineering society requires engineering humans.

That is the fatal flaw.

It’s called mind control.

PART TWO

Any genuine artist, any builder of communities, any sane activist, any honorable visionary stands outside technocracy, and is not part of this program.

Instead, his thrust is toward more individual freedom and a more open society with greater decentralization of power.

Decentralization is the key.

The use of technology does not imply living inside its control. The use of technology does not imply that society should be laid out like a giant machine with fitted parts.

Those futurists who have offered “overall plans” for the disposition of society generally ignore or sidestep the issue of who is going to administer the plan. To say this is an error is a vast understatement.

Where is one far-reaching center of power in our world that would run society?

All such centers of power are, first and foremost, dedicated to their own survival. And after that, they are dedicated to control of the territory they believe they own. THE INDIVIDUAL is a messy thing that needs to be sidelined or dealt with as a disruptive element.

I speak to those people who understand that the idea of the free, independent, powerful, and creative individual is being sidelined, shelved, and sent down the memory hole. This is no accident. This isn’t just a devolutionary trend. Technocrats see this as a necessary action, in order to “clean up” their equation for the civilization they’re building. The individual is a slippery variable that throws a monkey wrench into formulas.

PART THREE

Imagination never dies.

It belongs to the individual. It isn’t property of the group.

It enables solutions that eradicate problems and get out ahead of problems before they raise their heads.

Time and time again, the individual, as he wends his way through life, encounters persons and organizations that consider imagination a negative. In the clearly defined shapes of society, imagination must take a back seat to planning.

Is the individual resistant to such manipulations, or does he give in?

This is the key question.

Does the individual view society as an operation that can potentially lift up individuals and empower them? Or does he give in to the idea that society should create more and more dependent people?

The individual can be a source of spreading freedom, or he can defend the notion that there are an endless number of “entitlements” that must be honored.

Technocracy promotes entitlements as a doorway into the future. Its ultimate entitlement goes this way: you have the right to be re-programmed to believe you have a slot in the future world; we will make this slot as attractive as possible; you will serve the overall good as we engineer it.

That is the fundamental justification for the Welfare State. It’s the justification for a future technocratic policy which will assign citizens energy quotas. A citizen would be permitted to consume a set amount of energy in a given time period. (So-called smart meters are a step in that direction. The meters enable more specific measurements of energy consumption.)

This is how technocracy views the future…your future.

The ultimate technocratic vision? Your brain is a processor, and your brain is your mind. That’s all your mind is. Therefore, connecting your brain to a super-computer, or to the Cloud, will magically expand your mind and make it “more than human.”

You will become trans-human. A hybrid of human and machine.

This is the fairy tale to end all fairy tales.

It’s wishful fantasy dressed up as science.

The idea is: you will become More. You will overcome the limits and problems associated with being an individual.

Every individual will receive the same information and the same answers and the same solutions from the Cloud. AUTOMATICALLY.

This is the programmer’s wet dream.

Technocrats will thus be able to build a global society and control its every facet.

That’s the revolution.

The counter-revolution is YOU.

The free individual.

Never forget it.

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com

 


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

19 Comments on "The Vision Of Technocracy And Your Future"

  1. THE individual is an abstraction, a social construct invented to justify a certain ideology. The individual has no more separate existence from the organic community than a cell in the body has apart from its place and function in that body. This is not to say that the individual does not exist, but to see it as separate or apart from its integration into the total organism is to see an abstraction as a thing in itself rather than a mental framing to focus on a part of the whole.

    We all feel our individuality, most likely the more so the more we are in fact alienated from the community. In fact individualism, historically, arose as a key concept when the social bonds began to decay under pressure of modern rationalism, capitalism, consumer culture,etc.

    Make no mistake: individuals cannot exist without social support. A baby would not survive without a nurturing family or community. So to see the entire situation in context, we need to realize the irony that while the ideology of the individual (individualism) arose as a reaction to the social dissolution of social bonds, there can be no individuals without communal support, no separate lives without the social matrix. In short, strong individuals arise out of strong communities.

    This is important to understand because recent political thinking has undermined the social nexus of human individuality, as when Margaret Thatcher declared there is no such thing as society, only individuals. And even then, realizing the absurdity of proclaiming the abstraction from society the only reality, she added “and families.” Of course families are the core unit of society, and families cannot survive without the social complex in which they exist, for families are yet another abstraction, by which I mean a part of the whole seen as separate from the whole.

    So it is the whole, the organism we call society (which itself is part of a larger whole we recognize as the ecosystem), which is the total reality, with any parts isolated from the whole, being in a sense an abstraction, or in its origins: “late Middle English: from Latin abstractio(n-), from the verb abstrahere ‘draw away’

    And so as in modern history as the individual was alienated (or drawn away) from the communal matrix, the new ideology was formulated placing the part as the essential reality rather than as a separated part of a whole. And this ideology was formulated by the early classical liberals like Locke and later transformed into an economic dogma by Adam Smith…and today is proclaimed both by libertarians and neoliberals, whose goal is to negate the commons and “privatize” everything.

    The irony is that it is not individuals who benefit from this ideological fallacy but corporations, social constructs which are in reality legal property, which can be owned by people (as we can own a book or a dollar bill) which are the furthest thing from an individual. The Supreme Court has now sacralized the concept that corporations are “people” and granted them the civil rights of actual human beings, which in the
    Constitution are not called “individuals” but by their collective name, the People.

    I know that ideologues will resist this line of thinking but if you are interested in thinking outside of ideological confines, I urge you to entertain it as an experiment and look at the world for a few days thru this perspective.
    You will see connections that you previously missed, see missing links you formerly thought were inherent in the human condition. But don’t believe me: try on this viewpoint for a few days and see if it doesn’t open up insights that you had previously missed. Think of it as an experiment and don’t reject it with a kneejerk reaction but take a fresh view of everyday life and the passing spectacle of politics and culture and see what you can see.

    • Do you really think people are reading all the crap you are putting out?

      • “I wish to thank the over 100,000 readers and 2,800 upvotes for this article so far.

        101.3k Views · 2,817 Upvotes”…Is it true that Obama created so many new regulations during his administration that he was a “nightmare” for small businesses? quora.com

        • yes that is about 2.8% voted up that means over 97% DIDN’T. LOL you are an idiot.

          • dale ruff Gmo Roberts • 13 minutes ago
            “I wish to thank the over 100,000 readers and 2,800 upvotes for this article so far.

            101.3k Views · 2,817 Upvotes”…Is it true that Obama created so many new regulations during his administration that he was a “nightmare” for small businesses? quora.com

            •Edit•Reply•Share ›

            Avatar
            Gmo Roberts dale ruff • 6 minutes ago
            yes that is about 2.8% voted up that means over 97% DIDN’T. LOL you are an idiot.

          • Gmo Roberts | January 10, 2018 at 4:36 pm |

            Yes keep posting it. It only proves the point.

          • Gmo Roberts | January 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm |

            Show you are still showing people how stupid you are.? Keep going dale!!

    • dale is not wrong!
      and if you look at history over the last 2000 years – the Eurocentric Judaeo-christian (until recently included Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, etc.. – the western world) worldview is the one that has pushed the primacy of the individual
      the eastern religions, hindu and buddhism and variations have all been about the primacy of the society, islam is all about abject compliance – total obedience and “do not question!”
      the two most modern systems – anarchy (the individual is everything – proper anarchy, not nihilism as practiced by antifa – rule by common consent) and corporate oligarchy (the corporate is all-powerful, you the individual is nothing, it’s not even as though you are that one bolt that keeps everything else together – because that particular role falls upon people with the name kissinger, rockefeller or rothschild, soros and with clinton and obama being added)

      • up until 7000 to 25000 years ago, when hunter-gatherer nomads (the community lived and died depending on the individual skills of their members) started settling down, then as communities grew up (the individual – the Alpha became the hero [richer, better hunter, farmer who could feed all, etc…], and members of the community attempted to mimic, but the community was the individual (en-masse) and the individual was an important cog in the community
        and that is the secret, is that the community is made up of (MANY) individuals, but the individual shapes the community
        the individual requires the community (otherwise sociopathic), but the community is nothing without the individual (otherwise an ant colony – no imagination, no self-expression, every body or is it everybody, is disposable or even of no worth at all)

      • You and Dale are Frat brothers?

    • What? I tried to follow you Dale but you make no sense.

      • I do make sense but my thinking is too far out your comfort zone. An abstraction is NOT a non-reality but rather the mental contruct of isolating a part of the whole and seeing or treating it as a whole.. Individuals do not exist independently of their communal matrix, and so the concept of individualism, as an ideology, mistakes an abstraction for a concrete reality.

        Reread my essay and put aside any assumptions or preconceived ideas. Bracket your learned set of concepts about people. I am critiquing individualism from a holistic viewpoint, taking the whole as prior to the parts..

        Encyclopedia Britannica gives some sense of the ideological origins of the dogma of indivualism, into which we are all early inculcated: ” The French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) identified two types of individualism: the utilitarian egoism of the English sociologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), who, according to Durkheim, reduced society to “nothing more than a vast apparatus of production and exchange,” and the rationalism of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1788), and the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), which has as “its primary dogma the autonomy of reason and as its primary rite the doctrine of free enquiry.” The Austrian economist F.A. Hayek (1899–1992), who favoured market processes and was distrustful of state intervention, distinguished what he called “false” from “true” individualism. False individualism, which was represented mainly by French and other continental European writers, is characterized by “an exaggerated belief in the powers of individual reason” and the scope of effective social planning and is “a source of modern socialism”; in contrast, true individualism, whose adherents included John Locke (1632–1704), Bernard de Mandeville (1670–1733), David Hume (1711–76), Adam Ferguson (1723–1816), Adam Smith (1723–90), and Edmund Burke (1729–97), maintained that the “spontaneous collaboration of free men often creates things which are greater than their individual minds can ever fully comprehend” and accepted that individuals must submit “to the anonymous and seemingly irrational forces of society.”

        I invite you to step outside the mental prison into which we were cast by our parents, schools, and media and try to think from the whole to the part, rather than visa versa.

        But if it doesn’t make sense to you, don’t worry. It’s just my ideas.

        • No need to re read those trash things. After all they were just for an idiot like you anyway.

        • Thanks Dale for not bashing me and calling me bad names after my comment. I guess what I wish to say is that the individual as described in a dictionary can be : distinguished by special, singular, or markedly personal characteristics; exhibiting unique or unusual qualities:
          Its the simple explanation I was looking from you. Perhaps, the truth is I did not understand what you mean in your printed word but I suggest I am not alone. Your comment could have been lay out in layman’s terms so that some of us can comprehend. Anyway thanks. Happy New Year 2018.

  2. Thanks Jon for the very good article you offered. It should keep us on our toes and a reminder of who we are. Unfortunately some people below seek their own forum for their views which do not relate to what you are suggesting.

  3. No doubt technocracy will zap us all into the cloud and store us forever, just in case the machines fall apart at some point and the troglodytes walking around won’t remember how to put humpty dumpty back together.

  4. To make science the new God is a big mistake! Science is based in theory not facts & over the years has been compromised by political & corporate grants to achieve Bodgey results that pander to their contributors. It has also turned out to be WRONG on a regular basis!
    To have very flawed & what has become noticeably evil people in charge of this will create a monster with no way out.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*